Paxton, Social Capital and Democracy

Democracy

Social capital definition

social capital with two dimensions: First, social capital requires an objective network of ties among individuals. Second, it requires that the ties among individuals be trusting, reciprocal, and emotionally positive

Normative effects of social capital

when people participate in associations, interact with others with a purpose, they develop a sense of reciprocal association and trust.

what is relevant about overcoming the dilemma of collective action

for collective action to take place, they cannot be afraid of opportunistic behaviors of others.

how does high social capital increase political rationalist?

• people involved in associations develop informed, reasoned, and critical understandings of what is possible and acceptable

• Because relationships increase communication and the flow of information, they increase the exposure of individuals to political ideas and debates. New ideas and opinions are more quickly disseminated throughout the population, yet extremist ideas are more easily challenged, as they have less chance of remaining isolated.

negative cases of social capital impact

Weiman Germany

• gov in germany after WW1

What is the militia phenomenon?

• members in militias have ties in high density based on trust and reciprocity and their goal is to break down democracy = this is not helpful to democracy, they pursue these goals based on trust

• lots of social capital between members

what are the two variables/tests for assessment of social capital?

1) measures social capital as networks/associations plus trust.

A. World Values Survey (WVS)

She uses:

• Association density: average voluntary association memberships, including membership and unpaid voluntary work.

• Generalized trust: percentage of people who say that most people can be trusted.

Initial WVS model: no significant social capital → democracy effect, but a significant democracy → social capital effect.

B. International Yearbook of Organizations

Paxton also measures association density using the number of international NGOs (INGOs) present in countries. This provides a larger sample of countries, although she considers it a less precise measure of social capital than the WVS.

Here she finds evidence in both directions:

Social capital → democracy

AND

Democracy → social capital

So her overall conclusion becomes:

Social capital ⇄ democracy

The relationship is reciprocal.

2) Measure of Democracy

Paxton uses Kenneth Bollen's measure of liberal democracy, which ranges from 0 to 100.

Your class note says this consists of:

• 3 indicators of political liberties

• 3 indicators of popular sovereignty

The article itself identifies Bollen's measure as her democracy measure and describes it as ranging from 0 to 100.

what is the critique of Paxton’s argument?

1) composite and heterogenous

• concept that blends phenomena of different kinds

• variables that describe attitudes which are individual characteristics and vary across people

• ties - group parameter, structural parameter (ways ties are set up) varies by setting

• individual variable and group variable = blend of different things

2) circular argument

• ties generate trust and trust is crucial to democratic life = combines the explanatory factor and its effect = circular argument, what needs to be explained needs to be involved to explain what you wanted to explain

• factor of type of defined democracy is trust, the deliberate process inherent to democracy needs trust

• overlap between what concept describes and what needs to be explained

3) social capital against democracy

• when social capital includes notions of trust/reciprocity goes against that some orgs can have a negative effect on democracy

What is Paxton's main argument about social capital and democracy?

Paxton argues that social capital and democracy have a reciprocal or interdependent relationship. Social capital can help create and maintain democracy, while democracy can also create conditions that allow social capital to develop.

However, social capital is not automatically good for democracy. Its effects depend partly on the type of associations involved.

How can social capital affect democracy?

1. Creation of democracy: Social capital can help people organize opposition to nondemocratic governments.

2. Maintenance of democracy: Once democracy exists, associations and trust can increase political participation and encourage democratic behavior such as compromise and tolerance.

What are the two main ways social capital can help produce a transition to democracy?

1. Space for discourse: Associations provide places where criticism of the existing government can develop and spread.

2. Collective action: Existing networks and trusting relationships help opposition movements organize, recruit people, and mobilize against the regime

How does Paxton use East Germany as an example of social capital and democratization?

Paxton cites research finding that having friends who were critical of the East German regime was an important determinant of an individual's tendency to participate in protest during the 1989 revolution. The example shows how trusted interpersonal networks can help political dissent spread and encourage collective political action

How does Paxton use Brazil as an example?

Paxton cites research on the Brazilian democratization movement showing that organized opposition initially appeared in relatively protected environments, including meetings of professional associations and churches. 1998

These associations provided spaces where opposition could begin organizing.

How does social capital help maintain an existing democracy?

Once democracy exists, social capital can improve both the quantity and quality of political participation.

Associational membership can encourage people to participate politically, while interaction and communication can expose citizens to political ideas and promote tolerance, compromise, and respect for opposing viewpoints

How can an association have high social capital but still harm democracy?

A group might have extremely strong trust and relationships within the group while maintaining weak or hostile relationships with outsiders.

Paxton gives the examples of a militia or ethnic separatist group. Such groups could possess strong internal social capital while intensifying divisions within the larger society.

What are bridging or connected associations?

have ties to other associations and the wider community.

do generate positive association between social capital and democracy

what are bonding associations?

strong internal relationships but relatively weak connections to other groups and the wider community.

do not generate positive associations between social capital and democracy

Which types of associations did Paxton classify as relatively isolated in the WVS analysis?

Based on the extent to which members also participated in other types of associations, three categories stood out as relatively less connected:

• Trade unions

• Sports associations

• Religious associations

Important:
Paxton is empirically classifying these groups according to their connectedness to other associations. The argument is not that every trade union, sports organization, or religious organization is inherently harmful to democracy.

What does the Poland vs. East Germany/Czechoslovakia comparison show?

Paxton notes that among four Eastern European cases discussed by Michael Bernhard, Poland had an active civil society in which Solidarity and its associated groups helped unite citizens and contributed to democratization.

By contrast, civil society in East Germany and Czechoslovakia was barely present before governmental reforms.

Civil society does not always emerge first and then produce democracy. Sometimes political liberalization opens opportunities for civil society to develop, supporting Paxton's reciprocal argument.

What is generalized trust?

Generalized trust means trusting people beyond your own immediate group or community.

Paxton argues that democracy requires citizens to tolerate political power being temporarily placed in the hands of people who may hold opposing viewpoints.

Trusting only members of your own group is therefore insufficient in a diverse democracy.

How does trust affect the relationship between associations and democracy?

Paxton finds that the effect of associations on democracy depends partly on the level of trust in society.

At low levels of trust, increases in association memberships can have a negative effect on democracy. In her analysis, increases in associations begin to have a positive effect only at approximately 50 percent of the population expressing trust.