sonja zmerli

This article explores the differing potential of voluntary associations to build bonding and bridging social capital. Our argument is that voluntary associations do not always have the same effects, and thus that there is a need for further theoretical and empirical differentiation. Using data from a representative German population study carried out in June 2001 and co-ordinated by the Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy project, we conduct an empirical test of the validity of the theoretical differentiation between the two types. Our attempt to assign bonding and bridging capacities to voluntary associations seems to be supported. The analysis focuses on West Germany whose vibrant voluntary sector has proved to be an important factor underlying the sustainable societal development of democratic attitudes and behaviour in recent decades.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Scientific political research now stresses the importance of differentiating between bridging (inclusive) and bonding (exclusive) social capital. Putnam (2000) argues that depending on the characteristics of the available social capital, one can either expect co-operation, generalised trust and institutional effectiveness, or sectarian tendencies, corruption and ethnocentrism.

While he attributes positive societal effects to both forms of social capital, he considers bridging social capital to be more important for the ability of modern societies to co-operate. On the one hand, networks with bridging social capital are ‘better for linkage of external assets and for information diffusion’ (Putnam, 2000: 22) because they are outward-oriented and their composition can be more heterogeneous. They enhance broader identities and reciprocity. Examples of these networks are civil rights movements and ecumenical religious organisations. Bonding social capital, on the other hand, fosters specific reciprocity, solidarity, in group loyalty and the narrower self. It also supports exclusive group identities and reinforces homogeneous groups. These tendencies, furthermore, enhance the risk of strong out-group antagonisms. Fraternal organisations, or church-based women’s reading groups, are examples of networks with bonding social capital (Putnam, 2000: 22-3).

Putnam also stresses that many formal and informal networks ‘bond along some social dimensions and bridge across others’ (Putnam, 2000: 23). Accordingly, he comes to the conclusion that ‘bonding and bridging are not ‘either-or’ categories into which social networks can be neatly divided, but ‘more or less’ dimensions along which we can compare different forms of social capital’ (Putnam, 2000: 23). Since, according to Putnam, clear lines between bonding and bridging groups cannot be drawn, one can conclude that it is strongly advisable to closely inspect formal and informal networks with regard to their purposes.

Mark E. Warren’s (2001) theoretical elaborations on the broad range of the democratic effects of associations offer substantial theoretical assistance in assigning organisations a potential for bonding or bridging social capital. We present his basic assumptions here, and will subsequently apply them to the categorisation of voluntary associations into bonding and bridging groups.

Warren starts out by defining the areas that he considers crucial for the existence of democratic societies, underlining the importance of individual and political autonomy as well as institutional resources.
In making the theoretical differentiation between bonding and bridging groups, the sphere of individual autonomy will be of special interest since it relies on capacities that contribute to critical self-reflection and reflection about others, to participation in decision-making processes and to reasonable judgements that individuals are able to defend in public (Warren, M. E., 2001: 63). Associations are relevant for this sphere of autonomy since they influence their members’ sense of efficacy, political skills, civic virtues and critical skills, and ease the flow of information (Warren, M. E., 2001: 71-2). We will draw heavily upon the theoretical argument about the realm of civic virtues in order to underpin our differentiation of the social capital concept.

In describing the field of civic virtues, Warren mainly refers to reciprocity, trust and recognition. The importance of these three factors stems from their capacity to facilitate collective action and co-operation as essential characteristics of democratic societies. In this respect, associations, as long as they are voluntary, offer an important opportunity to experience reciprocity, trustworthy behaviour, recognition and, finally, collective and co-ordinated actions and their outcomes.

Warren differentiates between trust based on reciprocity, and trust based on group identity or ascription. Ascriptive trust is not related to trustworthy behaviour but to membership of a given ‘race, ethnicity, family, religion, and so on’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 74). Its strong inward-orientation is complemented by strong distrust of out-groups which is not in the least related to their performance (Warren, M. E., 2001: 74). Therefore, only associations with the propensity to build reciprocal trust contribute to robust co-operative relationships that are conducive to democracy.

At this point, a link between Warren’s line of argument and Putnam’s concept of social capital can be established. Both recognise that voluntary associations can be closely related to trust and reciprocity. Likewise, both concede that trust based on group identities creates antagonisms and prevents collective action outside the groups in question. Assuming the correctness of these theses, one can conclude that members of bridging organisations are characterised by trust built on reciprocity whereas ascriptive trust is an attribute of members of bonding associations.

In order to analyse the potentially democratic effects of associations on civic virtues as one of the many parts of the sphere of individual autonomy, Warren introduces three further units of analysis that serve as explanatory factors. These are ease of exit from an association; its medium of embeddedness, and its constitutive goods, that is, the purposes it pursues. This last category is the most relevant for the conceptualisation we present and will be explained in detail and applied to the empirical analysis presented below. Due to a lack of detailed information on the activities of the voluntary associations we analysed, we are forced to rely solely on the labels, that is, the names, of the associations, in order to infer their purposes.

Warren classifies the constitutive goods that are relevant for the democratic effects of associations into individual material, public material, inclusive social, interpersonal identity, status, and exclusive group identity goods (Warren, M. E., 2001: 133). Each type of good together with its specific impact on the sphere of civic virtues is described briefly below.

Individual material goods – such as food, clothing, shelter, and other material consumables which individuals or small groups enjoy – are characterised as individual, scarce, and excludable. While ‘there is no inherent requirement for collective action to gain them’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 126, italics in original) associations pursuing these goods are perceived to have only a small impact on their members’ civic virtues (Warren, M. E., 2001: 133). Business lobbies, unions and professional associations are assigned to this category when they are involved in wage demands or in securing other advantages for their clientele (Warren, M. E., 2001: 127).

Public material goods refer to goods that are individual, material, scarce and non-excludable, such as ‘public radio and television, clean air and water, environmental integrity, and territorial security. Included in this category are rights to individual security, insofar as they are publicly guaranteed.’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 128). The fact that these goods are scarce and that they are also open to free riders requires co-operation and collective action, on the one hand, and persuading or coercing potential free-riders, on the other (Warren, M. E., 2001: 128). Because of this need for extensive co-operation, and because of their broadly beneficial character, associations devoted to public material goods ‘are most likely to cultivate civic virtues’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 152). In line with Tocqueville’s (1961 [1835/1840]) argument, they remind their members of individual interdependencies and draw them out of their narrower selves. As examples, Warren (2001: 136) mentions civic and environmental groups as well as political parties.

The same positive effects on the sphere of civic virtues can be ascribed to associations pursuing inclusive social goods. These goods are characterised as social, symbolic, non-scarce, and non-excludable. Common resources such as language, knowledge, and culture belong to this category as do ‘the identities and recognitions that attach to the goals, ideals, activities, and dialogues that constitute membership in a society’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 132). These goals can be pursued by associations as different as educational societies, cultural groups, charitable foundations or associations devoted to securing basic civil rights (Warren, M. E., 2001: 132).

Interpersonal identity goods are individual, symbolic, non-scarce, and excludable and comprise ‘identities that emerge out of close interpersonal relations such as love, family, friendship, and primary group attachments’ (Warren, M. E., 2001: 129). Though interpersonal identity goods are private by nature and encompass the closest relationships individuals depend on, they also offer the terrain needed to learn empathy and develop confidence. Neighbourhoods, social and sports clubs can be assigned to this category and they too are expected to contribute to the development of civic virtues (Warren, M. E., 2001: 153).

Status goods are social, symbolic, scarce and excludable and refer to goods such as degrees, titles, exclusive club memberships, expensive cars, houses, etc. or other goods with an attached symbolic value (Warren, M. E., 2001: 130). They cannot be equated with other goods and the possession of exclusive privileges cannot be defended in the name of the common interest. Therefore, associations pursuing and securing status goods are very unlikely to contribute to civic virtues. The trust and empathy that might emerge therein are restricted to fellow members or like-minded individuals. Elite social clubs, private schools, elite political and professional groups belong to this category (Warren, M. E., 2001: 136-7).

The last category refers to exclusive group identity goods. They are characterised either by group distinctions defined by religion, gender, language, ethnicity or age, or by distinctive interests, hobbies or lifestyles (Warren, M. E., 2001: 130). These goods can therefore be pre-determined by birth, be the response to external domination or marginalisation, or emerge for other specific purposes. With regard to these goods, interests shared with fellow members are identity-based and exclusive, and automatically submerge interests shared with others. Associations that are devoted to these kinds of goods can even undermine civic virtues. They foster their members’ propensity only to trust each other and to distrust outsiders (Warren, M. E., 2001: 131). As associational examples Warren lists fraternal orders, groups dedicated to cultural tradition, parochial churches, ethnic identity groups, patriotic groups, organised crime groups and other separatist groups (Warren, M. E., 2001: 136-7).

The above categorisation of constitutive goods and their effects on civic virtues, offers another substantial theoretical tool to enlarge the notion of bonding and bridging voluntary associations. Accordingly, one can conclude that associations devoted to status or exclusive group identity goods will be most likely to create bonding social capital. Here, trust and reciprocity is likely to refer exclusively to other members of the associations in question and not be generalised to outsiders. Thus, collective action might be possible within these groups but its spread across associational borders would seem highly unlikely. One can also assign groups that strive for individual material goods to the category of bonding associations. Their propensity to have positive effects on their members’ civic virtues is likewise expected to be very low.
Bridging associations, on the other hand, are characterised by their devotion to inclusive social, public material or interpersonal identity goods. Due to the inclusive character of their constitutive goods, bridging groups should importantly enhance trust and reciprocity across their associational borders. The empirical analysis presented below will provide some information about the usefulness and applicability of this theoretical outline.

TESTING THE EMPIRICAL RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT

In accordance with the assumptions described above it is hypothesised that only bridging associations are related to non-ascriptive forms of social trust. Therefore, a linear regression analysis with generalised trust as the dependent variable should reveal that only bridging organisations exert an independent and positive impact.

Table 1 presents an overview of the nineteen types of association taken into consideration, their constitutive goods and their assignment to either the bonding or the bridging categories. Clearly, the category of bridging associations is much more heavily populated than its bonding counterpart. Nevertheless, the bonding category too represents an important part of the voluntary sector with unions having the largest memberships. In the category of bridging associations, sports clubs, cultural associations, hobby clubs and religious associations figure as the most important. With the exception of parents’ and religious associations, the assignment of associations on the basis of their constitutive goods is straightforward. Parents’ and religious associations probably pursue both interpersonal identity and inclusive social goods. They can be assigned to the category of bridging associations because these two types of good do not point to contradictory influences in the realm of civic virtues.

By means of our linear regression model, we can analyse whether the hypothesis described above withstands empirical testing. The linear regression analysis we present includes the basic socio-economic items as well as the two associational variables.
As the data in Table 2 suggest, the empirical relevance of our hypothesis is clearly supported by the results of our analysis. Only being a member of bridging voluntary associations has a significant positive effect on generalised trust. As predicted, being a member of a bonding association does not have a significant independent impact on the trust item. Apart from the bridging group variable, only higher education brings a significant increase in generalised trust. The other socio-economic factors remain irrelevant.

As the analysis of generalised trust shows, therefore, there exists a clear-cut difference between the impact of bridging organisations, on the one hand, and of bonding organisations on the other.

hereby, the analysis confirms the existence of a meaningful theoretical tool that can be used to highlight the differing potential of a broad range of voluntary associations. We thus conclude that empirical application of the concepts of bonding and bridging social capital to voluntary associations offers the possibility of gaining enhanced insight into the nature of a society’s associational landscape and its underlying implications. Whether the concepts will have the same degree of empirical utility in other established democracies or in societies in transition, is therefore an issue to which it will be worthwhile dedicating further analyses.

tables:

Table 1: Constitutive goods of bonding and bridging voluntary associations, and their members’ population shares (%) ^a

^a Source: CID-project, German population survey (2001), West Germany

Table 2: Effects on generalised trust, standardised (OLS) regression coefficients ^a

^a Source: CID-project, German population survey (2001), West Germany

^b *** = p < .001 (one-tailed)

^c reference category is women

notes:

1. For early elaborations of the concepts of bonding and bridging social capital see Gittell and Vidal (1998), Putnam (2000), Warren, M. R. (2001), Narayan (1999), Woolcock and Narayan (2000).
2. See the CID Web page: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/cid/homepage.htm. The data offer a considerable amount of information linked to different aspects of social capital, such as membership and activities in more than thirty different voluntary associations; activities in networks; social and political trust; norms, etc.
3. The categories mentioned, along with their subdivisions, have different democratic effects and the interaction of these effects produces different outcomes. The impressive variety of associational impacts on democracy can therefore be attributed to the differing combinations of associations’ positions on each of the three analytical dimensions described. On the basis of the available data, however, inferences regarding ease of exit and media of embeddedness are not possible.
4. For further details on the choice and measurement of the variables included in the analysis see Zmerli (2002).
5. In Germany, unions have to cope with an important free-rider problem, which is due to the general rule that agreements between unions and employers are applicable to all companies and employees within the industry in question. Therefore, employees may benefit from unions’ constitutive goods without being members, which creates conflicts comparable to the ones that have to be solved in the realm of public material goods. At the same time, however, the pursuit and acquisition of these goods are dominated by conflicting processes of distribution since they are not collectively supplied. Accordingly, it seems to be more appropriate to view unions’ constitutive goods as being of the individual material, rather than the public material, variety.
6. It should be mentioned that religious organisations with sectarian tendencies or fundamentalist convictions – whose constitutive goods are therefore of the exclusive group identity variety – would not be assigned to this category but, rather, to the category of bonding associations. These types of religious organisation, however, represent a very small proportion of the universe of voluntary associations and can therefore be neglected.

references:

Gittell, R. and A. Vidal (1998), Community Organization: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.

Narayan, D. (1999), ‘Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty’, Policy Research Working Paper 2167, World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, Washington, D.C.

Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York and London, Simon and Schuster.

Tocqueville, A. de (1961 [1835/1840]), De la démocratie en Amérique, Vols 1 and 2, Paris, Gallimard.

Warren, M. E. (2001), Democracy and Association, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Warren, M. R. (2001), Dry Bones Rattling. Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Woolcock, M. and D. Narayan (2000), ‘Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy’, The World Bank Research Observer, 15:2, 225-250.

Zmerli, Sonja (2002), ‘Bonding and Bridging Social Capital. A Relevant Concept for Political Participation?’, paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Turin, Italy, 22-27 March 2002.