Social capital is variously defined as relationships, networks, and cooperation-enabling capacity.

Evidence

Kenneth Arrow (1974, 23) implicitly and Dasgupta (1988, 64) explicitly, among others, characterize trust as a public good. Sissela Bok (1978, 28) says that trust is a “social good … and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.” Luhmann (1980, 64) says trust “accumulates as a kind of capital.” These seem to be nascent claims that trust is, or is an element in, what is now widely called social capital. … By social capital, Robert Putnam (1995b, 665–66) means “social connections and the attendant norms and trust,” which are “features of social life … that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.” John Brehm and Wendy Rahn (1997, 999) define social capital as “the web of cooperative relationships between citizens that facilitates resolution of collective action problems.” Francis Fukuyama (1995, 10) shares this general view and gives the broadest statement of what social capital is: “the ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations.” — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 407

Categorization

• DEFINE: Catalogues how Arrow, Dasgupta, Bok, Luhmann, Putnam, Brehm-Rahn, and Fukuyama each define trust and social capital.
• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s stated synthesis with Luhmann’s familiarity/trust framework; Luhmann’s ‘capital’ line is exactly what the reader is tracking. — connects to: Social capital varies along intensity, formality, and multiplexity dimensions. — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 47