View source for Philosophy:Sex differences in social capital

'''Sex differences in social capital''' are debated differences between men and women's ability to achieve their aims through social constructs such as trust, norms and networks.<ref name=laurie>Laurie, Nina; Andolina, Robert; and Radcliffe, Sarah (2005) 'Ethnodevelopment: Social Movements, Creating Experts and Professionalising Indigenous Knowledge in Ecuador' Antipode 37(3): 470-496</ref> [[Social:Social capital|Social capital]] is often seen as the missing link in development. Social networks facilitate access to resources and protect the commons, whilst co-operation makes markets work more efficiently.<ref name=putnam>Putnam, Robert. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.</ref> Social capital has been thought of as women's capital as whereas there are gendered barriers to accessing economic capital, women's role in family, and community ensures that they have strong networks.  There is potential that the concept can help to bring women's unpaid 'community and household labour',<ref name=moser>Moser, Caroline (1993) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training London and New York: Routledge</ref> vital to survival and development, to the attention of economists.  However, research analysing social capital from a gendered perspective is rare, and the notable exceptions are very critical.<ref name=molyneux>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01649.x/abstract Molyneux, Maxine (2002) Gender and the Silences of Social Capital: Lessons from Latin America Development and Change 33 (2):167-188]</ref><ref name=maclean>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01649.x/abstract Maclean, Kate (2010) 'Capitalising on Women's Social Capital? Women-targeted Microfinance in Bolivia' Development and Change 41 (3) pp 495-515]</ref><ref name=rankin>[http://zunia.org/uploads/media/knowledge/Critique%20of%20Microfinance.pdf Rankin, K (2002) Social Capital, Microfinance and the Politics of development Feminist Economics 8 (1) pp 1-24] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316174707/http://zunia.org/uploads/media/knowledge/Critique%20of%20Microfinance.pdf |date=2012-03-16 }}</ref>

To summarise the debate, it is argued that [[Social:Communitarianism|communitarian]] theories of social capital naturalise the labour that women put into maintaining social networks and take advantage of rather than valorise their work in the community and family.<ref name=molyneux/><ref name=maclean/> Communitarian theories of social capital are the most prominent in development literature (mostly inspired by Putnam's 1994 work) and it is assumed that an increase in social capital is inherently good and can support political participation and market efficiency.  Social capital is increased by building and fortifying the traditions and norms that underpin reciprocity, co-operation and trust.  Whilst this could be seen to valorise the feminised role in maintaining these norms and traditions that is overlooked by development theories based on increasing GDP and getting the prices right, it could also be argued to ossify patriarchal traditions and norms and rely on women's naturalised, unpaid labour in the household and community.

Assuming that social capital is inherently good overlooks hierarchies, power dynamics and difference within 'communities' and groups, and that norms can be downward levelling as well as supportive.<ref name=maclean/>  A [[Philosophy:Marxism|Marxist]] approach, inspired by the work of [[Biography:Pierre Bourdieu|Pierre Bourdieu]] (Bourdieu 1985), can bring out the 'downside' to social capital,<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-7660.00212/abstract Mayoux, Linda (2001) 'Tackling the Downside: Social Capital, Women's Empowerment and Microfinance in Cameroon' Development and Change 32 pp 435-464]</ref> and is argued to be crucial if the concept of social capital is to valorise rather than exploit women's labour.  Network theorists define social capital as 'aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network' (Bourdieu, 1985: 248), allowing the relationship between social networks and economic resources to be examined, and potentially exploitative or restrictive traditions, norms and relationships to be identified.<ref name=rankin/>

Other critics claim that the concept of social capital is wholly inappropriate to the feminist project.  Rather than being trapped in a paradigm that feminists have sought to problematise,  gendered critiques of value and the economy would do better to draw on the work of [[Biography:Michel Foucault|Foucault]] than Bourdieu (Adkins 2005), or focus on economic diversity rather than how social capital supports capital-centric development (Gibson Graham 1996).  However, given the prominence of social capital on the development agenda and the plethora of policy and academic work that refers to the term, it seems vital that the gendered dimensions of the debate be highlighted.

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{Human group differences}}
[[Category:Capital (economics)]]
[[Category:Social networks]]
[[Category:Community building]]
[[Category:Critical theory]]

{{Sourceattribution|Sex differences in social capital}}