Bourdieu (1986) was the first to propose social capital. Putnam (1994) along with Coleman (1990), two of the definitions of social capital that are most frequently used, define social capital as the characteristics of social organizations, such as social networks, norms, as well as trust, that can increase social efficiency by encouraging coordinated actions.
Across all social science disciplines, the idea of social capital—here defined as the norms as well as networks that allow people to act collectively—saw a remarkable surge in popularity in the 1990s. The four main approaches that social capital research has taken are communitarian, the networks, institutional, and synergistic. The authors also chart the evolution of social capital studies in relation to economic development. Based on available data, it appears that the synergy view—which recognizes both the positive and negative effects that social capital can produce and emphasizes incorporating various levels along with dimensions of social capital—has the most empirical support out of the four perspectives. It also best supports comprehensive and cogent policy recommendations (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).
We all know by now how important social capital is to sustainable development. The importance of institutions, the networks, and the norms and values that support them for the accomplishment of development interventions has been shown by researchers in anthropology sociologists and political scientists, as well as economists in different contexts (Grootaert & Van Bastelar, 2002).
Although it is commonly acknowledged that social capital is one of the few types of capital accessible to the impoverished, little is known about the mechanisms through which development policies influence the formation of that social capital (Fox & Gershman, 2000).
An enormous amount of human capital has been amassed this century. The way that the economic actors engage as well as organize themselves to create growth and development is something that all three of these kinds of capital have now come to realize, and as a result, they only partially determine the course of economic growth. Social capital is the component that's missing (Grootaert, 1998).
The term social capital has swiftly become widely used in our conversations regarding the "connectedness" of individuals to their communities. Nonetheless, it continues to be a difficult concept to define (Dasgupta & Serageldin, 1999).
Social capital is frequently obtained through employment and university education in high-income nations. But family can also be a source of social capital (Addae, 2020) in addition to neighborhood and community involvement (Blum et al., 2022). The World Bank has demonstrated time and time again how human networks formed through social capital maximize personal financial resources, thereby amplifying the effects of financial capital (Grootaert, 1998).
The term "social capital" describes a set of social relationships that can be developed through mutually beneficial interactions throughout a neighborhood, community, and society, either on an individual or collective level (Nyqvist et al., 2016; Putnam, 2000; Coll-Planas et al., 2017).
Falling social capital is another sign of social disintegration that contributes to deaths of despair, as also mentioned by Case and Deaton (2020). Kennedy et al. (1998) discovered significant correlations between life expectancy and social capital indicators as well as mortality rates utilizing nationally representative survey information on households from 40 regions of Russia.
Putnam (2000) argues that engaging in social activities and having trust for other people improves interpersonal relationships, which is advantageous for those who live in a neighborhood, community, or society (Nyqvist et al., 2016).
The majority of researchers agree that social capital has both collective as well as individual dimensions (Putnam, 2000) and can be defined as a social resource (Schuller et al., 2000).
Social capital explains a significant portion of the variation in health, as Rose (2000) found in a nationally representative sample of adult Russians. Skrabski et al. (2003) also discovered a strong correlation between the a lower level of social capital, mistrust, as well as mortality using data from 20 counties in Hungary in 1995.
To connect macrochange to individual health behavior, sociological concepts like fatalism, alienation, anomie, and social disintegration (the loss of social capital) should be used more often (King et al., 2022).
The majority of earlier research on loneliness has been done in order to identify risk factors in particular age groups, such as youth or the elderly. Less research has been done on the relationship between loneliness and social capital in varying age cohorts. This study set out to investigate, in a Finnish context, the relationship among social capital and loneliness experiences across various age groups. In comparison to older people (27.3%), younger people (39.5%) reported feeling lonely more frequently, which is defined as occasionally or often. Within all four age groups, low trust was associated with loneliness. For every age group, there was a different correlation between loneliness and other components of social capital. Among adults in general, frequent loneliness was common and may be considered a public health concern. Our results suggest that loneliness may be predisposed to by low social capital, particularly low trust (Nyqvist et al., 2016).
Moreover, being a widow or living alone are recognized social indicators for loneliness in older adults (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003). As people age, loneliness increases, especially for the oldest elderly, who account for up to 50% of cases of serious or mild loneliness (Dykstra, 2009).
While older people's satisfaction via support is crucial, loneliness in young people seems to be more influenced by the amount of supportive peers within their network (Kafetsios and Sideridis, 2006). According to earlier studies, loneliness is also prevalent in young people; in early adulthood, 15–30% of people report feeling lonely to some extent, while loneliness is less common in middle age (Yang & Victor, 2011).
The importance and applicability of social resources, particularly social capital, in preserving the health and well-being of older adults have been highlighted with the growth of the determinants of health (Chen et al., 2014).
An increasing body of research has shown a relationship between older people's health and well-being and social capital (Tomioka et al., 2017).
Social capital is one of the established social risk variables for loneliness. Previous studies have shown that loneliness is negatively correlated with interpersonal and social trust and also a sense of belonging in both younger and older adults (Rotenberg et al., 2010; Tomaka et al., 2006; Imamura et al., 2016), and numerous research, including those from China, have looked at the connection between loneliness and social capital (Nyqvist et al., 2016; Niedzwiedz et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2020).
Bai et al., (2021) in their research to investigate the relationship in Anhui Province, China, between social capital along with loneliness, results demonstrate the relationship between loneliness within older adults and social capital. This suggests that social capital may play a major role in reducing loneliness in later life, particularly in regards to trust, social connection, as well as social participation.
A low degree of social capital was one of the many factors that contributed to loneliness in later life (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2016). A more thorough examination of the social capital revealed a correlation between high levels of loneliness within adults residing in both community homes and nursing homes with low quantities of social support, trust, and cohesiveness. Among senior citizens who resided in community housing, social connection and loneliness had a negative correlation. Loneliness was found to be strongly impacted by institutionalization (Chen et al., 2023).
However, previous studies examining the connection between loneliness and social capital in older populations measured social capital using a variety of factors and produced inconsistent results (Bai et al., 2021). In a study spanning 14 European nations, social capital—which includes regular social interaction—was associated with a lower incidence of loneliness as well as a lessening of its effects on low-income families (Niedzwiedz et al., 2016). An earlier study among older Chinese rural widows found that social capital—both bridging and bonding social capital—was linked to loneliness (Jiang et al., 2020).
Nyqvist et al., (2021) examine the relationship between two widely-used dimensions of social capital—structural and cognitive—and the absence of loneliness by examining data from the European Social Survey (ESS) for five distinct welfare states. Authors concentrate on two time periods: pre- and post-Global Financial Crisis (2008–2009). Based on their analysis, it appears that the five welfare regimes differ in terms of social capital, loneliness, and social contacts and trust. While social trust along with loneliness showed mixed results, a negative trend in social contacts was noted. Lack of loneliness was linked to social capital, though the relationship varied depending on the welfare system. The results are examined in the context of welfare state regimes