Article Review

.docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

530

Subject

Sociology

Date

May 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by CoachRose16655 on coursehero.com

Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 1 Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” Steven L. Johndrow College of Arts and Sciences, Liberty University PADM 530: Politics, Strategies, and Initiatives of Community Economic Development Dr. William Clements April 21, 2024 Author Note I have no conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning the article should be addressed to Steven L. Johndrow Email: sljohndrow@liberty.edu
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 2 Introduction This review will look at the article “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” This article looks at the flaws in prioritizing social capital in modern community development. The describes that the contemporary usage of Robert Putnam’s theories are flawed due to issues of power in production and separation from economic capital. This article was written by Dr. James DeFilippis, who holds a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. Dr. DeFilippis is currently a professor at Rutgers where his research focuses are urban political economy and political philosophy, community development theory and practice, and immigration. Summary Dr. DeFilippis beings with a brief discussion on what social capital is. He describes an important early usage coming from “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination,” written by Glenn Loury. This definition describes that a person’s social origin has a substation effect on their upbringing. The article then attempts to explain a theory developed by Pierre Bourdieu which addressed social class production and divisions. This theory describes production of capital to be about power. The article then describes Robert Putnam’s work which is used by community developers and researchers in modern times. This theory is discussed as completely redefining social capital. Dr. DeFilippis describes Putnam’s work’s fundamental beliefs as social capital being possessed vice realized, it is combined with civil society, and it is a normatively good thing. In discussing Putnam’s followers and community development, Dr. DeFilippis describes the research around Putnam’s theories to ignore large amounts of research while unquestioningly accepting Putnam’s theories. Then described that Putnam’s theories are being utilized across America while not promoting economic development or democracy.
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 3 Dr. DeFilippis then describes the fundamental flaws of Putnam’s theories. First, Putnam’s statement that social capital is possessed by communities is disputed that communities cannot possess anything. Instead, he presents institutions and individuals can possess. The next part of the theory he presents is the idea of social capital and civil society. Dr. DeFilippis finds flaws in Putnam’s simplistic view that social capital and civil society are both good. There are theories from Putnam that would agree with this as societies participation in civic activities allow for citizens to provide their own influences (Mikiewicz, 2021). The third critique Dr. DeFilippis discusses in Putnam’s theories is the relationship of social capital and economic growth. Putnam describes that social capital along with civil society as promoting economic growth. Dr. DeFilippis challenges this as having little research to support this. DeFilippis explains that in many enclaves economic developed is often limited to existing communities such as ethnic enclaves leaving little room for outsiders to develop economically. Final sections of the paper revolve around whether social capital is declining in America and new understanding of social capital. The paper looks at Putnam’s statement that America is a social capital decline. Much of Putnam’s opinion on this belief of this is based on declining civic group membership, religious adherence, and voter engagement (Pitas, Ehmer, 2020). The primary argument points to Putnam contradicting himself when he states that social capital and economic development are linked. The argument looks at economic prosperity that has taken place in the United States and how it happened if social capital has been declining. Concluding the paper, Dr. DeFilippis states that he believes social capital is important for community development. Rather, he challenges Putnam’s entire interpretation and that it disconnects social capital from capital. He states that Putnam’s theories are fundamentally flawed, and there would not be an expectation of people to turn their social capital over to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help