Dr Yaojun LiReader in Sociological Analysis

Department of SociologyBirmingham University

Email: y.li.3@bham.ac.ukWeb:   http://www.sociology.bham.ac.uk/staff/yaojun_li.htm

Tel: 0121-4158625

In search of machers and schmoozers: forms of social capital and their impacts

on political trust/efficacy

For the ESRC ESDS seminar, British Academy, 7 Nov. 2006

2

A World of Capitalists

We could also have: Physical capital, symbolic capital, hedonic capital, political capital

Human Capital(Mincer,Becker)

Social Capital(Putnam)

Cultural Capital(Bourdieu)

Economic Capital(Income, wealth?)

(Goldthorpe, Spilerman)

3

The instrumentalist tradition• The strength of weak ties (Granovetter 1973, 1974, 1985)• The strength of strong ties (Lin et al. 1981)• The strength of locations (or structural holes) (Burt, 1992, 2000) • The closed circuit for children’s education and for Jewish

diamond traders in New York (Coleman, 1988, 1990)• The rational choice approach:

As Position Generator (Lin, 2001); As Resource Generator (Van Der Gaag and Snijders,

2005)

The stratification tradition• For the resourceful (Bourdieu, 1986): as a secondary measure

for the more powerful economic and cultural capitals

The civic tradition • Putnam’s approach (1993, 2000)

Social capital ‘traditions’

4

Frequently-cited ‘theories’:-- Putnam, Bourdieu and Coleman

• Social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them (Putnam, 2000: 19).

• Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu, 1993: 51).

• Social capital is a variety of ‘entities’ which have ‘two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure’ (Coleman, 1990: 302)

5

Declining social capital

‘Despite rapid increases in education that have given more of us than ever before the skills, the resources and the interests that once fostered civic engagement ... Americans have been dropping out in droves, not merely from political life, but from organized community life more generally’ (Putnam 2000: 64).

6

Machers and schmoozers• ‘In Yiddish, men and women who invest lots of time in formal

organisations are often termed machers – that is, people who make things happen in the community. By contrast, those who spend many hours in informal conversation and communion are termed schmoozers … Machers are the all-around good citizens of their community.’ (Putnam, 2000: 93-4)

• ‘Schmoozers have an active social life, but by contrast to machers, their engagement is less organized and purposeful, more spontaneous and flexible. [Their multifaceted informal activities] all involve, in the felicitous expression of Alexander Pope, “the flow of soul”’ (p. 94)

• ‘The two types of social involvement overlap to some extent … Some social settings fall into a gray area between the formal and the informal … Nevertheless, as an empirical matter, the two syndromes are largely distinct – many people are active in one sphere but not the other. And many people do neither; they are not involved in community affairs, and they don’t spend much time with friends and acquaintances’ (p. 94)

7

Which to prefer: Machers or Schmoozers?

‘When philosophers speak in exalted tones of “civic engagement” and “democratic deliberation”, we are inclined to think of community associations and public life as the higher form of social involvement, but in everyday life, friendship and other informal types of sociability provide crucial social support’ (Putnam, 2000: 95)

8

Forms of social networks Formal: machers Informal: schmoozers

Composition of social networks Bonding Bridging (also linking?

Woolcock 1998, but see Putnam 2004)

Trust and reciprocity

Personalised trust (trustworthiness)=>reciprocity

Generalised (social) trust (but not gullibility)

Political trust/efficacy

Putnam’s conception of social capital

9

Forms of social networks

Formal: machers (a) Civic participation (b) Formal volunteering

Informal: schmoozers (c) Neighbourhood attachment (d) Sociability with friends and

neighbours

Trust and efficacy

Socio-political trust

Efficacy

Putnam’s conception of social capital as to be tested in this paper

10

II. Forms of social capital

Formal: machers Informal: schmoozers

Fig. 1 Forms of social capital, socio-cultural determinants and impacts on political

trust/efficacy Note: Solid lines denote direct effects and dotted lines denote moderator effects. Solid circles

refer to variables and empty circles refer to categories.

III. Trust Efficacy Police • At local level Courts • At national level Politicians Parliament Local Authorities

1 2

3

I. Demographic attributes/ contextual factors

Age/Sex/Marital Status Ethno-religious groups Class/Education Social deprivation

4

11

Item Response Theory (IRT) Model

where Y is the response to item i from individual j, is the score of individual j on the latent factor, is the factor loading for item i, is the threshold for a response of K or above. For an item with K categories, 1 to K, = (Lord and Novick, 1968; Skrondal and Rabe-Hesketh, 2004).

jiiKij

ij

kYprkYpr

)()(

ln

j

iiK

iK

12

Table 1 Latent scores for social network dimensions No. of

categories Estimates Standard

error A: Civic participation 1 Contacted local councillor 2 0.681 (0.019) 2 Contacted MP 2 0.712 (0.021) 3 Contacted public official working for your local council 2 0.608 (0.017) 4 Contacted public official for part of Central Government 2 0.692 (0.029) 5 Attended public meeting/rally 2 0.789 (0.018) 6 Taken part in public demonstration/protest 2 0.642 (0.034) 7 Signed a petition 2 0.552 (0.020) 8 Contacted an elected member of GLA/NAW 2 0.676 (0.055) 9 Contacted a public official working for GLA/NAW 2 0.776 (0.044) B: Formal volunteering 1 Raising or handling money 2 0.629 (0.013) 2 Leading the group / member of a committee 2 0.771 (0.012) 3 Organising or helping to run an activity or event 2 0.744 (0.011) 4 Visiting / befriending people 2 0.665 (0.014) 5 Giving advice / information / counselling 2 0.783 (0.011) 6 Secretarial, admin or clerical work 2 0.760 (0.015) 7 Providing transport / driving 2 0.675 (0.016) 8 Representing 2 0.789 (0.015) 9 Campaigning 2 0.808 (0.016) 10 Other practical help 2 0.537 (0.016) C: Neighbourhood attachment 1 Enjoy living in this neighbourhood 3 0.573 (0.012) 2 Feel safe walking alone in this neighbourhood after dark 5 0.433 (0.011) 3 Knowing many people in this neighbourhood 5 0.603 (0.011) 4 People in this neighbourhood can be trusted 4 0.757 (0.010) 5 Neighbours look out for each other in this neighbourhood 3 0.684 (0.010) 6 Lost wallet can be returned to you with nothing missing 4 0.626 (0.010) D: Sociability 1 Have friends or neighbours round to your house 7 0.740 (0.013) 2 Go round to friends’ or neighbours’ house 7 0.842 (0.014) 3 Go out socially with friends or neighbours 7 0.549 (0.014) Notes

1. Questions are V1.2-V1.7, V1.9-V1.11, V2.1a-2.1c and V3.2b, in the Questionnaire available at http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4754/mrdoc/pdf/4754userguide1.pdf).

Source: 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey (the same below).

13

TABLE 2 Latent factor loadings on political trust/efficacy, and political contact/voice No.

cat. Varimax rotated

loading Trust Trust in the parliament 4 0.806 0.208 Trust in politicians 4 0.778 0.194 Trust in the courts 4 0.652 0.058 Trust in the local council 4 0.616 0.171 Trust in the police 4 0.575 -0.007 Efficacy Can influence decisions at local level 4 0.123 0.713 Can influence decisions in Britain 4 0.123 0.903

14

Table 3 Mean scores of machers and schmoozers by socio-demographic factors and correlation with social deprivation

Marcher Schmoozer Mean (SD) Mean (SD) N Sex

Men 0.122 (1.073) 0.171 (0.933) 6,871 Women 0.020*** (0.990) 0.114** (0.996) 8,604

Age 16-24 -0.150*** (0.853) 0.477*** (0.942) 1,815 25-39 0.058* (0.989) 0.188*** (0.885) 5,156 40-59 0.228*** (1.113) 0.104*** (0.926) 4,660 60+ -0.004 (1.028) -0.029 (1.007) 3,835

Marital status Never married -0.059*** (0.950) 0.284*** (0.952) 4,273 Once married -0.074 (0.943) -0.024*** (1.038) 3,627 Married 0.183*** (1.085) 0.124 (0.909) 7,559

Class Service 0.366*** (1.175) 0.237*** (0.862) 4,062 Intermediate 0.041*** (1.014) 0.139*** (0.932) 4,296 Working -0.169 (0.833) -0.028 (1.012) 5,963 Student -0.015** (0.940) 0.523*** (0.951) 1,154

Education Tertiary 0.525*** (1.218) 0.234*** (0.825) 2,519 Higher secondary 0.241*** (1.103) 0.286*** (0.908) 3,314 Lower secondary -0.025*** (0.947) 0.202*** (0.905) 4,218 Primary/none -0.225 (0.805) -0.087 (1.050) 5,424

Ethnicity White 0.079 (1.035) 0.155 (0.945) 9,358 Black Caribbean -0.035** (0.978) -0.315*** (0.916) 1,008 Black African 0.033 (1.030) -0.523*** (0.992) 705 Indian -0.129*** (0.944) 0.129 (0.954) 1,334 Pakistani/Bangladeshi -0.135*** (0.894) 0.099 (1.055) 1,531 Chinese -0.166** (0.951) -0.176*** (0.869) 148 Other -0.089*** (1.008) -0.246*** (1.045) 1,391

Religion Christian 0.068 (1.027) 0.141 (0.945) 9,271 Buddhist 0.232 (1.247) -0.356* (0.965) 110 Hindu -0.123*** (0.928) 0.110 (0.905) 778 Jewish 0.435† (1.162) 0.371† (0.707) 51 Muslim -0.137*** (0.940) -0.035*** (1.132) 2,195 Sikh -0.250*** (0.908) 0.057 (0.995) 388 Other 0.224† (1.150) 0.055 (0.972) 489 None 0.079 (1.035) 0.181 (0.950) 2,193

Social deprivation -0.095*** -0.216*** All 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 15,475 Notes

1. The test of statistical significance is for the comparison between each of the other categories in a variable and the reference category listed in italics.

2. †p<0.10, *p<0.05, ** p<0.01 and *** p<0.001 (same below). 3. Deprivation refers to the ward-level index of social deprivation (acorn) with 1

denoting most advantaged and 54 most deprived. The 53 cases with missing data are dropped from analysis.

15

Table 4 Regression coefficients on machers and schmoozers by socio-demographic factors Macher Schmoozer Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Ethnicity

White (ref) Black Caribbean -0.114** -0.075† -0.042 -0.464*** -0.481*** -0.323*** Black African -0.019 0.005 -0.065 -0.649*** -0.715*** -0.570*** Indian -0.043 -0.045 -0.059 0.035 -0.010 0.123 Pakistani/Bangladeshi -0.080 -0.069 -0.040 0.104 0.019 0.195† Chinese -0.306** -0.298** -0.405*** -0.253* -0.314** -0.294** Other -0.119* -0.108† -0.140* -0.328*** -0.386*** -0.298***

Religion Christian (ref) Buddhist 0.239 0.193 0.198 -0.380† -0.403† -0.393† Hindu -0.138 -0.165† -0.197* -0.012 -0.056 -0.085 Jewish 0.368† 0.321† 0.201 0.227† 0.163 0.085 Muslim -0.129 -0.126 -0.036 -0.158 -0.231* -0.126 Sikh -0.269** -0.276** -0.216** -0.094 -0.165 -0.183† Other 0.159† 0.170* 0.126 -0.083 -0.141* -0.155** None 0.013 0.041 0.010 0.038 -0.058* -0.065*

Sex Men (ref) Women -0.079*** -0.025*** -0.044* -0.024

Age 16-24 -0.084† -0.233*** 0.551*** 0.432*** 25-39 0.048 0.137*** 0.239*** 0.202*** 40-59 0.192*** 0.065* 0.132*** 0.085** 60+ (ref)

Marital status Never married -0.162*** -0.169*** -0.045 0.001 Once married -0.217*** -0.142*** -0.094*** -0.026 Married (ref)

Class Service 0.209*** 0.111*** Intermediate 0.082** 0.072** Student 0.205*** 0.192† Working (ref)

Education Tertiary 0.664*** 0.065† Higher secondary 0.442*** 0.130*** Lower secondary 0.220*** 0.123*** Primary/none (ref)

Social deprivation 0.000 -0.013*** Constant 0.069*** 0.123*** 0.183*** 0.150*** 0.045† 0.216*** R2 0.003 0.027 0.096 0.008 0.038 0.089 Model comparison F 33.280a 77.980b 38.230a 69.590b

p-value <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 N 15,473 15,449 15,397 15,473 15,449 15,397

Notes 1. Owing to the amount of data presented, standard errors and 95% confidence intervals

are not shown but are available on request (the same below).

16

Table 5 Regression coefficients on trust and efficacy by socio-demographic factors and social capital indicators

Trust Efficacy Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Ethnicity

White (ref) Black Caribbean -0.056* 0.019* 0.179*** 0.226*** Black African -0.099** 0.028* 0.167*** 0.250*** Indian 0.024 0.041** 0.028 0.018 Pakistani/Bangladeshi 0.037 0.031† 0.129 0.110 Chinese -0.268*** 0.023 -0.077 0.006 Other -0.118** 0.019† 0.024 0.078†

Religion Christian (ref) Buddhist 0.046 -0.014 0.412** 0.442** Hindu -0.156** -0.023 0.049 0.082 Jewish 0.030 -0.104* -0.022 -0.055 Muslim -0.087* -0.046** 0.120 0.139† Sikh -0.235*** -0.076*** 0.127 0.174* Other 0.037 0.016 0.051 0.058 None -0.011 -0.007 -0.015 -0.008

Sex Men (ref) Women -0.018 0.001 0.033† 0.039*

Age 16-24 -0.019 0.056*** -0.119** -0.152*** 25-39 -0.112 0.039*** 0.002 -0.011 40-59 0.087*** 0.034*** 0.027 0.009 60+ (ref)

Marital status Never married -0.099*** 0.002 0.017 0.035 Once married -0.089*** 0.001 -0.034 -0.015 Married (ref)

Class Service 0.163*** 0.019** 0.133*** 0.096*** Intermediate 0.067*** 0.006 0.022 0.004 Student 0.161*** 0.007 0.144*** 0.096† Working (ref)

Education Tertiary 0.421*** 0.009 0.342*** 0.261*** Higher secondary 0.297*** 0.009 0.199*** 0.134*** Lower secondary 0.156*** 0.004 0.184** 0.144** Primary/none (ref)

Social deprivation -0.002*** -0.000 -0.002** 0.000 Macher 0.606*** 0.108*** Schmoozer 0.153*** 0.132*** Constant 0.102*** -0.024** -0.202*** -0.211*** R2 0.107 0.902 0.047 0.087 Model comparison 18825.440a 172.440a

p-value <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 N 15,397 15,397 15,352 15,352

17

My other writings on social capital• Li, Y. and D. Marsh (2006) ‘New forms of political participation: searching for expert

citizens and everyday makers’, under review.• Li, Y., Savage, M. and Warde, A. (2006) ‘Civic engagement, social network and

social stratification in the UK: a random effects analysis’, under review.• Savage, M., Li, Y. and Tampubolon, G. (2006) ‘Rethinking the politics of social

capital: challenging Tocquevillian perspectives’, in Edwards, R. Franklin, J. and Holland, J. (eds), Social Capital: Concepts, policy and practice, London: Sage.

• Li, Y. (2006) ‘Social capital, social exclusion and wellbeing’, in Angela Scriven and Sebastian Garman (eds), Public Health: Social context and action, London: Sage.

• Li, Y. (2005) ‘Social capital, ethnicity and the labour market’, Proceedings of International Conference on Engaging Community, jointly organized by the United Nations and the Government of the State of Queensland in Australia. http://engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Li-Yaojun-final.pdf

• Li, Y., Pickles, A. and Savage, M. (2005) ‘Social Capital and Social Trust in Britain’, European Sociological Review, 21(2): 109-23.

• Li, Y., Savage, M. and Pickles, A. (2003) ‘Social Capital and Social Exclusion in England and Wales (1972-1999)’, British Journal of Sociology, 54(4): 497-526.

• Li, Y., Savage, M. and Pickles, A. (2003) ‘Social Change, Friendship and Civic Participation’, Sociology Research Online

• Li, Y., Savage, M., Tampubolon, G., Warde, A. and Tomlinson, M. (2002) ‘Dynamics of social capital: trends and turnover in associational membership in England and Wales: 1972-1999’, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 7, No. 3.

18

Appendix Table 1 Best friend's class by respondent's class (percentage by row) Friend's class SV INT WC None N Respondent's class

Service 55.4 29.1 9.2 6.2 513 Intermediate 27.9 37.8 21.4 12.8 484 Working 16.0 29.8 34.9 19.3 567

All 32.6 32.1 22.3 13.0 1564 Note

1. Weighted data used. Source: The Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion Survey.

19

Appendix Table 2: Number of civic memberships and social contacts by class

No. of civic memberships

No. of social contacts

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) N % Class

Salariat 1.42*** (1.36) 4.34*** (2.63) 510 32.6 Intermediate 0.95*** (1.03) 3.87*** (2.57) 487 31.1 Working class 0.70 (0.95) 3.11 (2.46) 567 36.3

All 1.02 (1.16) 3.75 (2.60) 1564 100.0

Notes: 1 The test of statistical significance is for the comparison between each of the other

categories in a variable and the reference category listed in italics. 2 †p<0.10, *p<0.05, ** p<0.01 and *** p<0.001. 3 Weighted data are used in this and all following tables. Source: The Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion Survey.

20

Position Generator for Social Capital (Lin, 2000: p 124, Appendix 7.2)

Of your relatives, friends, and acquaintances, is there anyone who has the jobs listed in the following table? If yes, what is your relationship to them? If no, through whom are you most likely to find people holding such jobs? What s your relationship to this person? Occupation Do you know

people in this position? 1. Yes 2. No

Did you know the person when you were looking for your present job? 1. Yes 2. No

What is his/her relationship to you?

If you do not know such a person, through whom are you most likely to find him or her?

What is this person’s occupation?

How long have you known each other?

Do you know each other well?

Elementary school teacher Journalist Administrative personnel of public or private enterprises Electrician Chief of a section Head of public or private enterprises University professor Farmer Head of a bureau Lawyer Housemaid Mayor Provincial or city party secretary Party secretary of a bureau Party secretary of a factory

21

Appendix Social network (for conducting Position Generator) and civic engagement from the ESRC-funded project on ‘Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion’

Q331- [Netwrk1] Q340 CARD E6 On this card is a list of jobs. Please tell me whether you

happen to know anyone socially who has any of these jobs? Please include friends and relatives.

PROBE: Which others? CODE ALL THAT APPLY Multicoded (Maximum of 11 codes) 1 Secretary 2 Solicitor 3 Clerical officer in national or local government 4 Bus or coach driver 5 Bank or building society manager 6 Factory worker 7 University/college lecturer 8 Electrician 9 Nurse 10 Sales or shop assistant 11 Postal worker 12 None of these [Then for each of the 12 job titles, ask the following. Eg.

IF ‘secretary’ AT [Netwrk1] Q341 [Secret] CARD E7 You said you know a secretary. Using this card, what is the

relationship of this person to you? (If you know more than one, please answer about the one that you are closest to.)

1 A member of my close family 2 Another relative 3 A friend 4 An acquaintance 5 A neighbour 6 Someone I know from work or study 7 Other (WRITE IN)