This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 12:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Urban SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjus20

The Causes of Social Capital in aNeighborhood Community Context:Implications for NeighborhoodCommunity Building in South KoreaJune Woo Kim a , John Schweitzer b & Jung Duk Lim ca Chonnam National University, Department of Sociology , E-mail:b Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Programs , E-mail:c Pusan National University, Department of Economics , E-mail:Published online: 26 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: June Woo Kim , John Schweitzer & Jung Duk Lim (2002) The Causes of SocialCapital in a Neighborhood Community Context: Implications for Neighborhood Community Building inSouth Korea, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 6:1, 1-11

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2002.9693498

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IJUS, 6(1), 2002 1

The Causes of Social Capital in a Neighborhood Community Context: Implications for Neighborhood Community Building in South Korea June Woo Kim’, John Schweitrer”, and Jung Duk Lim*** *Department of Sociology, Chonnam National University, junewdchonnam.ac.kr **Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State Universiiy, Schweitl @msu.edu; ***Department of Economics, Pusan National University, jdlim@pusan.av.kr

. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 6(1), 2002, 1-1 1

. (c) 2002 Institute of Urban Sciences

INTRODUCllON

The term “social capital” was applied to the neighborhood community by Putnam in his 1995 article titled “Bowling Alone: America’ s Declining Social Capital.” Making an analogy with notions of physical capital and human capital, he defined social capital as “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” The indicators of social capital, according to him, are civil engagement and social connectedness. His main point is that nowadays these indicators show a sharp decline compared to the last generation. The turnout in national elections has declined over the last three decades. Similar relative declines are evident in responses to questions about attending a political rally or speech, serving on a committee of some local organization, and working for a political

party. Organizational affiliation in various settings such as church, labor unions, parent-teacher association, Boy Scouts and Red Cross has declined significantly. Bonds within the family and among neighborhood residents are also loosening. At the end of his article, Putnam suggested that future research must identify what types of organizations and networks most effectively embody or generate social capital. This study is an attempt to identify correlates of social capital in urban neighborhoods.

With the current emphasis on empowering communities, the term “social capital” is often used as a network-based social resource. Zhou and Bankston I11 (1994) investigated the way that the social capital available in an immigrant community contributes to the adaptation of the younger generations, in school and afterward. According to their findings, students who have a strong adherence to traditional family values, strong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

2 Kim, et al. : The Couses of Social Capital in o Neighborhood

commitment to a work ethic, and a high degree of personal involvement in the ethnic community tend disproportionately to receive high grades, have definite college plans, and score high on academic orientation. Coleman (1988) reported that the religiously based private high schools have strikingly low dropout rates compared to non-religiously based private high schools. He attributes this to the importance of social capital in the school. Religiously based high schools are surrounded by clusters of social capital building communities. The parents, teachers, and students are usually involved in the same religious organizations and activities.

Following Putnam’ s suggestion, in this study we examine the correlates of social capital in the urban neighborhood community context. Previous studies have mostly focused on the impact, positive or negative, of social capital in various social settings. The factors that create social capital have been usually assumed rather than investigated. There have been few empirical studies on what produces social capital, especially in the context of urban neighborhood communities.

In this study we hypothesize that three general factors may be related to the amount of social capital that exists in urban neighborhoods: the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, the level of formal organization that exists in the neighborhood, and the level of informal interaction or socializing that occurs in the neighborhood. Neighborhood organization has been regarded as a formal mechanism in the community whereas socializing has been regarded as an informal dynamic in neighborhoods (Crenson, 1978; Hunter, 1975; Crenshaw & St. John, 1989). In this study, we are interested in the amount of between- neighborhood variance in social capital explained by the level of formal organization and degree of informal neighborhood socializing after controlling for the effects of demographic variables.

Data

Thirty-seven neighborhood blocks in Lansing, Michigan were selected to be broadly representative of the residential neighborhoods of the city. Lansing is located in south central lower Michigan, ninety miles (150 Kilometers) west of Detroit. In 2000, Lansing s population was estimated to be125,716. Lansing is an important governmental center as it is Michigan’ s Capital. It is also the headquarters of General Motors’ small car division. Over the past ten years significant changes have occurred in the Lansing Economy. General Motors has reduced employment from 25,000 to 16,000 while the State of Michigan has also reduced its employees. This decade has seen a marked decrease in manufacturing overall, although most of this decline is rooted in General Motors’ internal restructuring. The retail and service sectors have both grown the most with the service sector leading the area’ s job growth. Within the service sector, it was the health care industry, business services, and social services which accounted for most of the growth. (Lansing Regional Chamber of Commmerce, 2000). In this respect, Lansing is representative of many medium sized cities in the Midwest trying to maintain the quality of life in the midst of industrial decline.

Face blocks were defined as consisting of the households facing each other on both sides of the street between the adjacent cross streets. The advantage of using face blocks as the unit of analysis is well explained by Perhs , et al (1990): (1) clear boundary, (2) cultural homogeneity, (3) high participation, and (4) effectiveness in community action.

It is not just on theoretical grounds that we chose face blocks as our unit of analysis. An exploratory survey was conducted of residents living in four neighborhoods in the Lansing area. This survey found that there was significant variance in social capital between the neighborhoods, but there was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IJUS, MI), 2002 3

even greater variance from block to block withln the neighborhoods. Focus group meetings of the residents gave us the answer. The residents identified the face block they lived on as their neighborhood community. Therefore this unit was selected for further study.

In the years of 1995 and 1996, face-to-face interviews were conducted with one adult resident of each household on the block. A total of 445 interviews were collected on the 37 blocks for an overall response rate of 62 percent. Response rates for individual blocks ranged from 34 percent to 88 percent. As the unit of analysis in this paper is the face block, the individual responses were aggregated into collective values by computing means or percentages.

Variables and Measurements

socicrl Cupiful (Dependent Vuriuble) Social capital, the dependent variable in this

study, has been defined and measured differently according to the emphasis of the researcher and the nature of the community the term is applied to. Coleman (1988) suggested the three forms of social capital: (1) obligations, expectations, and trustworthiness of structure, (2) information channels, and (3) norms and effective sanctions. Zhou and Bankston 111 (1994) reported that the ethnic value and involvement among Vietnamese immigrants could be understood as a distinct form of social capital. Putnam (1995) seems to be the first researcher to use the term in a neighborhood community context. According to Putnam, the elements of social capital are networks, norms, and trust.

The previously developed concepts in neighborhood community research that come close to social capital are “sense of community” (Chavis, Hogge and McMillan, 1986; Chavis and

Wandersman, 1990; McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Cochrun, 1994; Davidson and Cotter, 1986; Doolittle and MacDonald, 1978; McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Perkins et al, 1990), “community attachment” (John, Austin, and Baba, 1986; Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Riger and Lavrakas, 1981), “neighborhood attachment” (Woolever, 1992; Crenshaw and St. John, 1989), “residential attachment” (Fried, 1982), and “neighborhood cohesion” (Buckner, 1988; Litwak, 1961)

Following the recommendation of Putnam, the social capital index in this paper contains questions about norms, connection, and trust. Norms are indicated by the degree to which block residents share the same values, influence each other‘s behaviors, feel like a family, and feel a sense of belonging to their blocks. Connection is measured by how well people on the block know each other, talk to each other about community problems, feel connected to each other, or feel isolated from each other. Trust is measured by the degree to which neighbors on the block trust each other and feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from each other. Each of the 11 items in the index was measured on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The 11 items were combined into a social capital index, which had an internal consistency reliability of 3 7 .

Sociulizing, Neighborhood Organization and Demogruphics (Independent Vuriubles)

The independent variables of the study are the level of informal socializing, level of formal organization that exists in the neighborhood, and the demographic characteristics of the residents of the block. Socializing was measured by two Likert items regarding the degree of informal socializing existing among the residents of the block, a question asking whether residents get together to socialize,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

4 Kim, et al. : The Causes of Social Capital in a Neighborhood

and a question asking how many social activities (not including private events) had occurred on the block in the last year. The mean responses of the block residents to each question were converted to z-scores and averaged to create the variable of socializing. This four-item scale had an internal consistency reliability of .72.

The variable of neighborhood organization was measured by the answers to the following six questions: (1) is the block part of a neighborhood organization; (2) is the block part of a neighborhood watch group; (3) is there a neighborhood or community newsletter; (4) is there a clear leader on the block; (5) is a commun@ police officer assigned to the block; and, (6) do people from the block get together to hold meetings. For each block the percent of yes responses to each item was calculated, and the mean of the six percentages was computed to form the variable of neighborhood organization, which had an internal consistency reliability of .92.

The demographic variables which were measured at the block level included the following: (1)

perceived income level, (2) housing value on the block, (3) the crime rate on the block, (4) the average length of residency (5) the educational level of the adult residents of the block, and (6) the percent of homeownership on the block.

The perceived income level of the residents was obtained by asking residents whether the financial condition of the people on the block is best described as well-off, middle income on the higher side, middle income, middle on the lower side, or poor/low income. A more objective measure of the financial condition of the block was given by the actual housing values of the residences on the blocks. These data were collected from the Assessor' s Office in the City of Lansing.

Archival data were also used to measure the crime rates on the blocks. These data, collected from records at the Lansing Police Department included information about the types and numbers of crimes that occurred on the selected blocks during a six- year period from October 1989, through September 1995. Block level crime rates represented the actual numbers of crimes

(Table 1 ) Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent and Independent Variables

I. Social Capital (Mean of 10 five-point Likert items) II. Socializing (Mean of z-scores of four questions) III. Neighborhood Organization

IV. Demographic Variables (Mean percent of six aspects of organization)

Perceived Income Housing Value (mean of housing values) Reported Crime Length of residency on the block Education (mean for all adults in households) Home Ownership (Percentage)

Mean 3.3 0.0

44.8

2.6 $49,956

37.1 12.2 4.1

72.0

Standard Deviation .29 .77

27.1

.54 24,022

26.8 6.15 1.1

25.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

JJUS, HI), 2002 5

Socializing Neighborhood Organization Demographic Variables

Perceived Income Housing Value Crime Rate Length of Residency Educafion Percent Homeownership

committed on the block. Included in this total were the types of crime that might cause fear on the part of the residents. These crimes included the following: robbey, assault, burglay, larceny, motor vehicle theft, stolen property, malicious destruction of property, alcohol violations, obstructing police, not situation & disorder, and miscellaneous offenses. These 11 categories were used because they are quite similar to the kinds of crimes that cause fear in the community as illustrated by Garofalo & h u b (1978).

The final three demographic variables, length of residency, education, and homeownership were obtained through self-report of the respondents. Length of residency was measured in years, and education was measured on an eight point scale ranging from l=junior high/middle school to 8=graduate/professional degree. As was done with the other variables, to get the block score, the mean years of residency, the mean educational level, and the percent of homeownership was computed. Aggregated block scores for all the variables in the study are presented in Table 1.

Correlation Signijicance Coeficient Level .589 .ooo .346 .009

.470 .001

.299 .017 -.262 ,028 ,329 .011 .384 .004 .376 .005

Data Analysis

Correlatonal Analysis The first step in the analysis of the data consisted

of correlating each of the independent variables with the dependent variable, social capital. Results of the correlational analysis are presented in Table 2.

Examination of Table 2 indicates that the primay hypothesis of the study is supported. Both socializing and neighborhood organization are related to the level of social capital, but socialiig appears to be a more important variable than neighborhood organization. Without controlling for any other variables, socializing accounts for 35 percent of the variance in social capital while neighborhood organization accounts for 12 percent. In addition, all six of the demographic variables were related to social capital in the expected directions.

Regression Analysis In order to control for the effects of demographic

variables and to further examine the relative contributions of the independent variables in predicting social capital, a series of three multiple regressions were carried out. The first two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

6 Kim, et of. : The Causes of Social Capital in a Neighborhood

Step 1 2 3 I 2 3 1 2

regressions were conducted to compare the relative contributions of socializing and neighborhood organization in predicting social capital after controlling for the demographic variables. To do this, the set of six demographic variables was entered on the first step, followed by socializing and neighborhood organization. In the first regression socializing was entered on step two followed by neighborhood organization on step three. In the second regression the order of entry of socialiig and neighborhood organization was reversed. The third regression analysis was conducted to compare the relative contribution of (1) the demographic variables and (2) the socialiig and neighborhood organization variables. This was done by entering socialiig and neighborhood organization on step one followed by the set of demographic variables on step two. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 3.

Examination of the first two regression analyses indicates that the independent variables used in this study account for a total of 67 percent of the variance in social capital at the block level. The set of six demographic variables entered on step one accounts for 30 percent of the variance. When neighborhood organization is added on step two it

VariubL(s) Entered R Square R Square Added Signijkance Demographics .302 .302 .066 Neigh. Org. .394 .092 .041 Socialiig .672 .278 .ooo Demographics .302 .302 .066 Socialiking ,656 .354 ,000 Neigh. Org. .672 .016 .239 Socializing and Neigh. Org. .356 .356 ,000 Demographics .672 ,316 .002

accounts for a significant additional nine percent of the variance. Adding socializing on step three accounts for an additional 28 percent of the variance. Reversing the order of the variables entered on steps two and three shows that socialiig accounts for 35 percent of the variance and adding neighborhood organization adds only an

insignificant two percent. Comparing the results of these two analyses indicates that socialiig at the block level is a more important variable than neighborhood organization in predicting social capital after controlling for the demographic variables.

The third regression analysis was carried out to compare the relative contributions of the demographic variables and the other two variables (socializing and neighborhood organization) in the prediction of social capital. In this analysis socialiing and neighborhood organization were entered on step one followed by the demographic variables on step two. This analysis indicates that the social organizational variables are more important than the demographic variables in predicting social capital. When entered first they account for 36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IJUS, 6/11, 2002 7

percent of the variance in social capital as compared to the 30 percent accounted for by the demographic variables when they are entered first.

In-depth Interviews In order to provide a better understanding of the

role that socialiking plays in the formation of social capital, a set of interviews was conducted of residents living on blocks identified as having high levels of social capital. These interviews show the importance of socializing. It is the informal mechanism that makes a neighborhood cohesive. Comments made by the residents included the following: “Even though we don’ t have a social activity on a regular basis ... we all know each other.” “In summer, we are out talking.. .” “When someone is sick or dead, we all take food, it is not planned, but you help out.” “I think that in order for a neighborhood to have a strong sense of community, there needs to be two or three very outgoing, sociable people who say hi and talk to others. And then the community can build on it.” In the interviews, residents were much more likely to refer to informal socializing than to formal organizational activities when discussing things that create neighborhood cohesion or social capital.

Conclusion

The first and foremost general conclusion derived from this research is that socializing clearly makes a difference in the degree of social capital in urban neighborhood community context. The result might lead to two different explanations. It might indicate the importance of informal mechanisms in neighborhood communities as previous studies have reported (Crenson, 1978; Hunter, 1975; Unger and Wandersman, 1985). Also, it might suggest that more formal organizational structures such as neighborhood associations in Lansing do not have

as much impact at the block level as informal activities. In this study almost one quarter (23 percent) of the residents indicated that they did not know whether the block was represented by a neighborhood organization or not.

The finding that informal socializing accounts for more variance in block social capital than both formal organizations and demographic variables such as income and length of residence suggests that promoting socializing among residents at the block level may be a good way to build community. Neighborhood organizations might need to be more concerned about linking their activities with promotion of socializing. Local government policies that promote block socializing might contribute to the development of social capital. Putnam (1995) mentioned the recent proposal in San Luis Obispo, California, to require that all new houses have front porches, which might increase socializing at the block level. To recapitulate, this study implies that promotion of informal socializing among neighborhood residents is more likely to produce social capital than the presence of more formal aspects of neighborhood organization, regardless of the demographic characteristics of the residents.

Implications for Neighborhood Communlty Building in South Korea

San Luis Obispo’s proposal to require that all new houses have front porches is not applicable to Korean cities. There is no doubt about historical/social differences between neighborhood communities in Korea and in the United States. The United States has typically been taken as a model to be emulated for those concerned with the weakness of civil societies in the developing or postcommunist world. When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans’ propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

8 Kim, et al. ; The Couses of Sofiol Capital in o Neighborhood

to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,” he observed, “are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types - religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute ... Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America” (Tqueville, 1969513-7; Putnam, 1995).

In contrast, community-building in urban Korea is only starting. Korea was an absolute monarchy until the early 20th century, under the Japanese colonial regime, from 1910 until 1945. Korea did not, therefore, have any opportunity to develop a citizen society until 1945 (Yoon, 1996). The local autonomy system in Korea began in 1952 during the Korean war. It was suspended, however, after the military coup in 1961. Between 1961 and 1987, military regimes took power and suppressed democracy and local autonomy. It is only since 1995 that local election races for all levels have been held including mayoral capacities.

During the authoritarian regimes from the 1960s to 1980s, citizen participation in Korea was hardly voluntary. Citizen participation was used as a mobilization and control mechanism by the state. These mobilization efforts intruded on people through an administrative hierarchy reaching down to the neighborhood (Wade, 1983:17):

’* Bansanghoe“ , which is a monthly neighborhood meeting begun in 1976, is the best example. The smallest admlnistrative unit, made up of 14 to 20 households, called ban in Korean, were important points of social mobilition and control. Once a month, all ban met to discuss local and national issues. One representative per household attended. Strong social pressures were put on households to attend and nonattendance incurred a f i e of about 3,000 won (nearly half a day’s wage

for rural male laborers at 1982 prices), the money being used for some collective purpose agreed upon by the ban (Wade, 1983:17). The content of discussions at the ban meetings was prepared by the government. A special newspaper (12 or so pages) for those meeting, explained major government policies ... and often devoted as much as half of the space to topics of nationalism and anti-communism.

Only recently, voluntary neighborhood associations have begun to appear in Korea. Neighborhood residents are now realizing that they can make a difference. The issues they are facing range from building social capital to protecting their environmental safety. NGOs in Korea are now actively involved in building voluntary associations at the neighborhood level.

In spite of these differences, this research can be useful to Korean urbanists as it provides a reference point for future research in the field. This paper introduces concepts, measurements, and hypothesis to be applied in Korean neighborhood community settings.

The concept and measurement of social capital can be applied experimentally to Korean neighborhood communities. As briefly explained in the previous sections, social capital is a resource that can bring about tangible results. Social capital is a hot topic in American social sciences as many scholars including Putnam (1995) are concerned about declining social capital in various voluntary associations in America.

Korean urbanists need to take time in discussing the definition of social capital and measurement at the neighborhood community level. By doing so, one can secure an academic consensus and start understandmg the present and the future of social capital in Korean neighborhood communities. Of course, it is necessary to develop a social capital index that reflects the uniqueness of the Korean

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IJUS, 6(1J, 2002 9

neighborhood community context. In this respect, the survey taken by Ja-Inn Koo

(1998) at the Korea Center for City and Environment Research is meaningful. Koo measured “neighborhood relations” which consists of six questionnaire items: “Do you keep an eye on your neighbors’ children or neighbors’ stores?” “Do you borrow things from your neighbors?” “Do you go to your neighbors’ wedhgs and funerals?” “Do you borrow money from your neighbors?” “Do you discuss personal problems with your neighbors?” “Do you try to solve neighborhood problems together with your neighbors?’. Two of the above questions, “borrowing things” and “try to solve neighborhood problems together”, can be found among our social capital index items. At the same time, the questions “Do you go to your neighbors’ weddings and funerals?” touches on the appreciation of cultural ceremonies which is an important aspect of Korean society.

Physical boundary of a neighborhood community is another issue this paper is presenting to Korean urban researchers. As mentioned earlier, it is not just on theoretical grounds that we chose face blocks as our unit of analysis. During 1994 and 1995, we completed several exploratory neighborhood survey and focus group meetings in Lansing. The result showed huge within-group variance when we chose broader community unit, which consisted of many streets or blocks. Focus group meetings clarified the issue: the residents identified the face block they belong to as their neighborhood community.

The physical landscape of Korean neighborhoods is strikingly different from that of the United States. Many Korean neighborhoods have a maze-like appearance consisting of streets stretching, bending, and deadending in an unpredictable manner. The type of highrise apartment that you find in Korean cities are much less common in most American cities.

But, there is a need to apply h s kind of approach

in studying Korean neighborhood communities. It is necessary to figure out empirically whether the practical neighborhoods are identical to administrative boundaries in Korea. Understanding the difference between neighborhoods with detached houses and highrise apartments is also an interesting future research subject.

Analysis on causes of social capital in neighborhood communities in Lansing provokes similar research questions in regards to Korean cities. Grassroot neighborhood organization is a buzzword among Korean urbanists. NGOs, which have been more interested in dealing with national issues, are now trying to reach down to the neighborhood communities. NGO leaders in Korea are realizing that it is essential to have the support of the average citizen. There are several examples of NGOs trying to incorporate neighborhood residents. People’ s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), a prominent NGO in Korea, established The Apartment Community Research Center in 1998 (PSPD, 2000). In November 2000, about seventy NGOs established a grassroot network (http://www.community.simii.org) that is designed to coordinate residents’ voluntary associations (Joongangilbo, 2000).

What these NGOs are trymg to do is to build up social capital that can be used as a resource in addressing the various problems communities are facing. The NGOs are tymg various methods such as holding cultural events and tutoring neighborhood children. For these practitioners, it is imperative to know which method works the best. For urban scholars, the meaning of each method is a subject to be considered.

We believe that studying the concept, measurement, and causes of social capital in Korean neighborhood communities can be the basis for more applied research. For example, the relationship between social capital and quality of life can be examined. Comparing the possibility of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

10 Kim, et al. : The Causes ofsoCiol Capital in a Neighborhood

building social capital at the neighborhood community level with the use of the Internet is another example.

References

Buckner, John C. 1988. “The Development of an Instrument to Measure Neighborhood Cohesion.” A merican Journal of Com m u n i ty

Chavis, David M., James S. Hogge, and David W. McMillan. 1986. “Sense of Community through Brunswik s Lens: A First Look.” Journal of Com m u n ity Psychology 14: 2440.

Chavis, David M., and Abraham Wandersman. 1990. “Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and community Development.” American Journal of Community Psychology 18,1:55-81.

Cochrun, Steven Edward. 1994. “Understanding and Enhancing Neighborhood Sense of Community.” Journal of Planning Literature

Coleman, James S. 1985. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94:95-120.

Crenshaw, Edward and Craig St. John. 1989. ‘The Organizationally Dependent Community: A Comparative Study of Neighborhood Attachment.” Urban Affairs Quarterly

Crenson, Matthew A. 1978. ‘Social Networks and Political Processes in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Political Science

Davidson, William B. and Patrick R. Cotter. 1986. “Measurement of Sense of community within the Sphere of City.” Journal of Applied Social

Doolittle, Robert J. and Donald MacDonald. 1978.

Psychology 16,6:771-791.

9:92-99.

24,3:412-34.

22,3:578-94.

psycho lo^ 16,7: 608-6 19.

“Communication and a Sense of Community in a Metropolitan Neighborhood: A Factor Analyhc Examination.” Communication Quarterly

Fried, Marc. 1982. “Residential Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community Satisfaction .” Jou r n a I of Socia I Issues

Garofalo James and John hub , 1978. ‘The Fear of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective,” Victimology 3, 3/4:242-53.

Hunter, Albert. 1975. “The Loss of community: An Empirical Test Through Replication.” American Sociological Reuiew 40,5:537-551.

John, Craig St., D. Mark Austin and Yoko Baba. 1986. ‘The Question of Community Attachment Revisited.” Sociological Spectrum 6:411-31.

Joongangilbo. 2000. “70 NGOs’ Grassroot Network Set Sail” November 14 Tuesday.

Kasarda, John D. and Morris Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” American Sociological Reuiew 39,June: 328- 339.

Koo, Ja-Inn. 1998. “The Lives of Metropolitan Residents and the Issue of Their Participation.” Urbanity & Pouerty 30, Januay/Feburuay: 25- 36.

Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce. 2000. http://www .lansingchamber.org/

Litwak, Eugene. 1961. “Voluntary Associations and Neighborhood Cohesion . ” America n Sociological Review 26,1:258-271.

McMillan and David M. Chavis. 1986. ‘‘Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.” Journa lof Community Psychology 14:6-23.

Perkins, Douglas D., Paul Florin, Richard C. Rich, Abraham Wandersman, and David M. Chavis. 1990. “Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context.” American Journal of Community Psychology 18,1:83-115.

26,3:3-7.

38,3:107-19.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Portes, Alejandro & Julia Sesenbrenner. 1993. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action.” American Journal of Sociology 98,6: 1320-50.

PSDP.2000. http://www.peoplepwer21 .org/apt/ Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Bowling Alone:

America’ s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6,l: 65-78.

Riger, Stephanie and Paul J. Lavrakas. 1981. “Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Community Psychology

Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1969. Democracy in America edited by J.P. Maier. Translated by George Lawrence. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Unger, Donald G. and Abraham Wandersman. 1985. “The Importance of Neighbors: The Social, Cognitive, and Affective Components of Neighboring. American Journal of Community

Wade, Robert. 1983. “South Korea’ s Agricultural Development: The Myth of the Passive State.” Pacific Viewpoint 24,l:ll-28.

Woolerver, Cynthia. 1992. “ A Contextual Approach to Neighborhood Attachment.” Urban Studies 29,1:99-116.

Yoon, Jai Poong. 1996. “Citizen Participation and Public Policy in Korea.” Urban Administration Reuiew 11,l: 189-222.

Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston III. 1994. “Social Capital and the Adaptation of the Second Generation: The Case of Vietnamese Youth in New Orleans.” International Migration Reuiew

9,l : 55-66.

Psychology 13,2:139-169.

28321-45.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

02 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014