Introduction

• Author: Sean Richey
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X15579966
• Published date: 01 July 2015
• Date: 01 July 2015
• Subject Matter: Editorial

American Politics Research

2015, Vol. 43(4) 567 –568

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X15579966

apr.sagepub.com

Editorial

Introduction

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of cooperation. When

marriages, villages, movements, and nations cooperate, they succeed. When

they do not, they falter. This insight defines social-capital research, and no

one has developed, nurtured, and extended it more than Robert D. Putnam.

This volume marks the 20th anniversary of his 1995 “Bowling Alone” article,

from the Journal of Democracy. Along with his later book, which shares the

title, it has had a vast influence on social science.

“Bowling Alone” appeared at the end of history. Or, at least that is how the

1990s were described at the time. Communism was defeated, and few saw in

Islamism a new threat. Democratic capitalism had won but was simultane-

ously under-performing. Debates between Keynesians advocating that gov-

ernments fix problems, and libertarians stressing market mechanisms seemed

out of steam. In this intellectual environment, Putnam—with his memorable

metaphor—offered a profound new explanation to what was ailing liberal

democratic societies. We were rapidly losing social capital.

Social capital is a two-step process: Dense networks lead to trust which

leads to reciprocity. And reciprocity is another word for cooperation, the root

of human success. The problem was that social interaction had for decades

been steadily declining, in both formal and informal networks. Less socially

connected people exhibit less trust, and with less trust comes diminished

cooperation. Putnam’s article and book detail, in depth, each stage of this

perilous spiral. As the article noted, the concept of social capital was at least

30 years old, and others were resuscitating it before Putnam. But his wealth

of data and the clarity of his argument caught many, many eyes. Pundits and

presidents viewed it as a major intellectual achievement that could offer a

fresh explanation to the world’s problems.

But there were many early detractors as well. In particular, the long causal

train is either seen as a sophisticated understanding of complex social rela-

tions, or a confused jumble of distinct important factors. Much of the suc-

ceeding literature on social capital revolved around debates over causal

directions. Social connectedness at the individual level is notoriously diffi-

cult to measure, and measurement has remained another large growth area in

this literature. The dramatic rise in interest in social networks in the past two

decades follows partly from better data and more powerful computers, but

579966APRXXX10.1177/1532673X15579966American Politics Research

research-article2015