Aerial view of barrios in Buenos Aires. (Credit: ChaseinDC.Bigstock.com) (via: bit.ly)

During the 1990s under the Washington Consensus, ways of measuring different dimensions of society began to be reviewed: poverty (with multiple methodologies), inequality (with the Gini Index), happiness, access to services, consumer confidence, quality of services (for example in education), etc. Among the many other indexes that began to be published then, I will focus on three indexes: social capital, social cohesion, and consumer confidence.  The first two came with versions that renew classical sociological definitions such as Durkheim´s social cohesion.  As part of these efforts to set objective figures, the United Nations Development Program also developed the HDI (Human Development Index). This is a synthetic indicator of the average achievements obtained in the following categories: average lifespan, acquisition of knowledge and, standards of living. This was constructed by utilising the arithmetic mean of the normalised indices of each of the three dimensions. That is, based exclusively on other objective indices, without considering the subjective opinion, feeling or perception of the individuals. Other indexes, such as the one developed by analyst Robert Prescott-Allen that is based on the well-being of a nation, measure not only the purchasing power of the inhabitants, as revealed by GDP, or human capacities by the HDI. The Social Progress Index (SPI) measures the extent to which countries meet the social and environmental needs of their citizens. The relative performance of countries is measured with 54 indicators gathered in three main dimensions: basic human needs, fundamental well-being, and opportunities for progress. The index is published by the organisation Imperative Social Progress, and is based on the concepts of the pioneering economists Amartya Sen, Douglass North, and Joseph Stiglitz. The SPI measures the welfare of a society by observing social and environmental results directly, separately from economic factors. Social and environmental factors include well-being (including health, shelter, and sanitation), equality, inclusion, sustainability, security, and personal freedoms.

Finally, another index is the Happy Planet Index, which is an alternative index of development, human, and environmental well-being. Its first publication was in 2006 and it is published every three years. It is published by the New Economics Foundation (NEF). The index is designed to measure the development of countries based on life expectancy and subjective perception of happiness. It additionally complements these benchmarks by studying the GDP and the HDI of the countries to take into account sustainability, economic solvency, and the overall economic condition of each of these countries.

The difference of the indexes that we will analyse in this paper is that they take data from other indexes with an ‘objective’ character, that is to say, statistics about concrete facts, in particular economic and social statistics, and instead of the social cohesion, social capital, and consumer indexes change the alternative indices to present a more ‘subjective’ structure based on sensations, perceptions, and opinions. That is, these indexes require an ad hoc survey, as they do not account for the weighting of certain other factors. We will now analyse how the Indexes of Social Capital, Social Cohesion and Consumer Confidence are constructed; their strengths and weaknesses.

Social capital

The Index of Social Capital, in its first version, goes back to a book published in 1916 in the United States which evaluated how the neighbours could work together to supervise schools. Author Lydia Hanifan referred to Social Capital as “‘those tangible’ assets [that] count for the majority in people’s daily lives: namely, good will, companionship, sympathy and social relationship between the individuals and families that make up a unit Social”, (OECD, 2007) In recent years, the term entered the popular imagination with the publication in 2000 of the bestselling book by Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: ​​The Collapse and the Rebirth of the American Community (Putnam, 2000). Putnam argued that while Americans have become richer their sense of community has withered. The cities and traditional suburbs have given way to ‘Edge cities’ and ‘Exurbs’: vast and anonymous places where people sleep and work and do little else. As people spend more and more time in the office, go to work and watch TV alone, there is less time to join community groups and voluntary organisations, and socialise with neighbours, friends and even family members. To demonstrate this decline, Putnam looked at Americans’ way of playing 10-pin bowling, a very popular sport in the United States. He discovered that, Americans no longer compete with each other in local leagues as before, but are instead bowling alone in increasing numbers. Putnam argued that the decline of community networks that once led Americans to bowling together represents a loss of Social Capital.

In a more modern version, Social Capital is defined by the OECD (2002) as “networks that together with shared norms, values ​​and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or between groups.” In this definition, we can think of networks as real-world links. Examples are plentiful; networks of friends, family networks, networks of former colleagues, etc. The problem is that our shared norms, values ​​and understandings are less concrete than our social networks. Norms and understandings may not be evident until they are broken. If an adult attacks a child, for example, they violate rules that protect children from harm. Such values ​​may be more open to be questioned, if societies often debate if their values ​​are changing, and yet, values ​​such as respect for example, are maintained. Together, these networks and understandings, engender trust and thus allow people to work together. For this reason, the Social Capital cannot be measured in detail, but it can be inferred from its determinants or manifestations. The determining factors are factors that have an impact on social interactions and therefore allow Social Capital to grow. The evident manifestations of Social Capital are lower crime rates, social participation, etc. When Social Capital is measured, it is done through the use of indicators or ‘proxies’ that are theoretically linked to Social Capital. These methodologies have been refined. The strategies for measuring Social Capital ranged from the simple use of an indicator (for example, trust) to the use of complicated index groups. Most researchers agree that, due to the multidimensional nature of Social Capital, a wide range of indicators should be used. What is certain is that the measurement must be linked to the theoretical foundations of the concept, and these includes:

  • Perspective of the Union network – the social bonds between individuals of the same social group or with others who are mainly like them.
  • Bridging (bridges) – social ties that unite people with others through a cleavage that normally divides society (such as race or class or religion)
  • Linkage – social link (often a bridging social link) to those who have the power offered by a capacity to access resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community.

The following table shows examples of different types of loops and dimensions to analyse:

Source: https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/measure-social-capital/

Most researchers tend to summarise the components of social capital into four broad categories:

  • Networks, relationships and connections
  • Trust
  • Civic engagement and voluntary activities (inclusion of cooperation, political participation, social participation, membership of the association, volunteer work of the community, etc.)
  • Civic norms, norms and shared values

The OECD concludes that there is convergence around a series of key dimensions:

  • Political participation
  • Community involvement
  • Informal networks / sociability
  • Confidence, norms and sanctions

The important point here is that the instruments of measurement must be closely related to the theoretical understanding of social capital. In short, the measurement of social capital depends on the level of analysis (individual, group and organisational, community and national), and also on if the interests of researchers are the source, form or consequences of social capital.

The type of measurement also depends on the scale of interest. There are usually three different levels:

  • Macro – community or national
  • Meso – groups or organisations
  • Micro – person

Examples of the first are the General Social Survey and the National Citizenship Health Index in the US

The variables used in the indices have been mainly of the structural dimension and have included confidence (general and institutional), reliability, structural characteristics of networks (for example, red density, strong ties, weak links, intra-community ties member of the association and community participation, and voluntary activities (example community volunteering, civic participation, social and political participation, etc.). The measures used to describe relational social capital have focused on social relations, social cohesion, and social interactions. The measures used for cognitive social capital have emphasised civil norms, reciprocity, trust, social support, affective bonds and collective goals.

More examples of Social Capital measures are :World Value Survey (WVS); TInglehart (1997) http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org Social Capital Index de Putnam; Putnam (2000); General Social Services (GSS) Chicago University; Global Social Capital by Narayan and Cassidy (2001); New Wales from the south Onyx y Bullen (2000) Social Capital Barometer, Sudarsky (1999); National Civic Survey on Health US National Civic Commission (1996); Social Capital Social (2003);Minnesota  University Scheffert, Horntvedt and Chazdon (2009); World Bank Social Capital measurement tool (HESC) Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002); Adapted Social Capital Tool (A-SCAT); Harpham, Grant and Thomas (2002) Integrated Questionnaires of World Bank on Social Capital (SC-IQ); Grootaert, Narayan, Jones and Woolcock (2004); Social Capital instrument of measurement (SCMT) Kitchen, Williams and Simone (2012); Social Relation Index Wilson (2006); British Social Capital from Harper and Kelly (2003) (https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf, s.f.)

It is very important for Social Capital research at the group level to take into account the context.

Due to the hierarchical structure of most groups or organisations, the role of executive leadership in the creation of ‘culture’ must be taken into account. The concept of Culture illustrates the Cognitive dimension of Social Capital. The structural dimensions include:

  • structural network characteristics (links, for example, of the network, the centrality of the network, the density of the network, the diversity of the network, the size of the network, the frequency of the network, the redundancy of the network, the network institutional, etc.)
  • network links (strong ties, weak ties, government officials, ties tying strength, union ties, bridge ties, union ties, structural holes, etc.) • members of the association and institutional links • trust

The relational dimensions include:

  • social relations and relationships with or close acquaintances (for example, family members and co-workers), and or various external interest groups (for example, executives from other businesses, counselors, political leaders, bureaucratic government officials, and community leaders);
  • interpersonal trust.

When digging deeper into the term cognitive social capital, one finds that it is based mostly on values that include:

  • Shared standards, values and obligations
  • reciprocity
  • shared objectives and mission
  • attitudes and beliefs

A tool for measuring social capital, can ask about the relationship with suppliers, but this will not be relevant for all organisations. The nature of the group, its activities and its objective will determine the aspects of social capital that are important and therefore what data is relevant.

Individual level measures

At the individual level, social capital is usually measured by surveys using indicators that take advantage of social connections, social networks and social support.

The structural dimension includes:

  • Degree of confidence,
  • social structure of the network and position (for example centrality of the network, size of the network, density of the network, intermediation centrality, network homogeneity / heterogeneity, restriction of the network, tie strength, structural holes, etc), • number of membership in the network,
  • Membership of the association and social participation,
  • Connections and social relationships (for example, union ties, bridge ties, union ties, connectivity, etc.), and
  • The amount or volume of social resources

The relational dimension includes:

  • social interactions,
  • social relationships,
  • Social networks,
  • Social support,
  • Social cohesion, and
  • Associability

Cognitive social capital includes:

  • General and interpersonal trust,
  • Shared objectives,
  • Shared culture,
  • Reciprocity,
  • Feelings of security, and
  • Views of multiculturalism to measure the individual’s tolerance of diversity. Measurement of social capital is less problematic at the individual level given a greater specificity of the indicators, which are derived from the research of social networks.

The conclusions about the measurement of Social Capital suggest that there is no agreement on the methods for measurements, and that researchers instead tend to identify important elements or factors that fit their research context and develop their own instrument. This is very effective in most cases, as long as the researcher has sufficient knowledge to develop an instrument informed by the theory, and the ability to be critical with the possibility of the instrument to make assumptions about the connection between the proxies that are being investigated and the elements of social capital. Now there are many different measurement tools available that can be used or modified to suit the context of interest. Care must be taken to ensure that the instrument is rigorously linked to the relevant theoretical understanding of social capital. This variation confounds the possibility of comparability or evaluation in long-term statistical series.

Social cohesion

The various definitions of Social Cohesion in the literature are due not only to the different aspects that the concept includes (political, economic, social and territorial) but also to  dimensions that include the fight against poverty and income distribution and,  (i) Inequality and social exclusion, referred for example to gender, indigenous groups, and young people. On the other hand, the concept has a direct relationship with good governance, democracy and quality of institutions. Social cohesion is strongly linked to other concepts, such as social inclusion – “a process that ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion have the opportunities and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social and cultural life enjoying a level of life and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live “(UNDP, 2008) – and the one of social capital -“symbolic patrimony of the society in terms of the capacity of handling of norms, networks and social bonds of trust, that allow to reinforce collective action and establish bases of reciprocity in the treatment, which progressively extends to society as a whole” (ECLAC, 2007). However, Social Cohesion emphasises the existing relationships between the mechanisms of inclusion and social exclusion and the perceptions and reactions of citizens in relation to them (ECLAC and EUROsociAL, 2007). A socially cohesive community, whether local, regional, or national, implies a global situation in which citizens share a sense of belonging and inclusion, actively participate in public affairs, recognise and tolerate differences, and enjoy relative equity in access to public goods and services and in the distribution of income and wealth. Cohesion adds to the concept of inclusion the idea of belonging to a community, and cohesion, unlike inclusion, refers to this community.

There is a broad consensus among policy makers that territorial development strategies and actions at local levels should be oriented towards strengthening social cohesion. In coordination with the subnational governments and the social actors themselves, beneficiaries of this model, it will be necessary to:

a) Promote the consolidation and expansion of social protection, which contributes to reducing food insecurity

b) Empower women, the rural poor and the most vulnerable to invest in their future and in the sustainable use of resources.

c) Reduce inequalities in access to productive resources and social services (gender inequalities); access to public services and justice

d) Implement programs and policies that promote the creation of decent agricultural and non-agricultural employment opportunities for men, women and youth; to decent employment,

e) Public solidarity mechanisms, especially for the most excluded sectors of society;

f) Strengthen rural institutions, local organisations of producers and communities and the sustainable use and management of natural resources.

Thus, there is a territorial perspective of social cohesion that allows for a clearer interplay between growth and well-being, providing a systemic vision that incorporates space and establishes territories as cohesion units. The territories, from the local to the national level, are determining actors of governance in public management and of the general governance of society. That’s why actors recognition is so important. Territorial cohesion means or expresses the capacity of a territorial system to guarantee the opportunities for each contained territorial unit to reach the thresholds of development expressed by its own territorial project, while allowing the integrating project of the higher level to harbor these differences (EUROSociAL, 2014).

The concept of Social Cohesion is intimately linked to that of social integration, but it is not synonymous with it. For integration, the central themes are the mechanisms to maintain social ties or repair those that have been cut or are precarious. Consequently, its purpose is to highlight the norms or institutions that can allow the linking of individuals with society, or systemic mechanisms that allow the development of collective actions that articulate society as a whole (Schnapper, 2007).

On the other hand, the concept of Social Cohesion refers to nature (in our days we would talk about characteristics) of the social bonds that allow Individuals experience a sense of social belonging (in different scales), trust in others (horizontal confidence), recognize the legitimacy of society and trust in their institutions. Social Cohesion then speaks of the different principles that social integration allows, in metaphorical terms it could be said that the adjective cohesion to social integration (Alpert, 1986: 217). The notion of Social Cohesion aims to build a typology, which in Durkheim had only two possibilities: mechanical solidarity (or cohesion based on similarity) and organic solidarity (or cohesion based on functional interdependence). The central issue in both cases was to determine what was the principle or logic of social integration, that is, the factor that articulates the mechanisms to achieve it. In Durkheim’s work, Social Cohesion referred to the type of ties that united men and allowed the formation of social aggregates.

Under conditions of mechanical solidarity the link between individuals and society is traced as a direct one, they all acquire the same habits, the same attitudes, beliefs and values. In organic, the link is described as indirect, because individuals are only linked to society through specific, differentiated, specialised and rigorously coordinated institutions, here integration is guaranteed by the social system.

Universal Social Cohesion: Reduction of inequality through social rights: Social Cohesion emphasises the role of institutions and state systems that allow extending democracy to the level of the economy, emphasising the right to work; it also emphasises the existence of universal social rights and the open possibility for the poorest to ascend the social ladder. In this case, Social Cohesion seeks social equity through vertical forms of solidarity and strongly redistributive institutions.

Liberal social cohesion: Understood as social assistance and the commoditisation of poverty: in  liberal regimes Social Cohesion privileges the role of civil and political rights, but above all the role of the market as a neutral environment where different communities can play with the same rules. In this type of regime the role assigned to the state is residual; it assists only those who are unable to achieve their own security. It is a form of cohesion that would seek the inclusion of the poorest in the market, through the controlled reallocation of resources (not the redistribution of wealth or income, by fiscal or institutional means) to equip them with minimum assets (human capital, social infrastructure, minimum monetary income, etc.) so that they are able to take advantage of the opportunities generated by the market.

Conservative social cohesion: Social segmentation and unequal rights: in conservative regimes social cohesion is fostered through employment and the family, as factors to access institutional forms or social protection networks. In this case, as in the social democratic regimes, work is a crucial aspect, but here it is not seen as a right, but as a space where forms of solidarity and horisontal reciprocity are developed. There are different methodologies on social cohesion and on community cohesion. The European Union (EU), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL) have opted for the concept of Social Cohesion.  The definitions of social cohesion vary from institution to institution and from one period to another period. However, it is possible to identify that unity, equality, belonging and social capital constitute the lowest common denominator among social cohesion methodologies. Used for the first time in Europe, social cohesion is one of the key concepts in the process of the growth of the European Union (EU). The European policies of social cohesion are, in fact, a benchmark at world level, and have been conceived within the framework of an integration process that gives priority to the less wealthy regions within the union, as a mechanism to achieve income convergence and increase competitiveness. The EU and the member countries share responsibilities in terms of employment, social affairs and inclusion, with the European Commission having the role of: (i) coordinating and monitoring the policy of each country; (ii) promoting the exchange of good practices in the areas of employment, pensions, poverty and social exclusion, and (iii) elaborating laws and supervising their application in fields such as worker rights and coordination of social security systems (FAO, 2007).

The understanding of social cohesion in EUROsociAL has to do with welfare based on equal opportunities, with a sense of belonging and with solidarity. It is an elusive and multidimensional concept, but at the same time intelligent, comprehensive and a symbol of societies united around a common project.

The degree of social cohesion is a consequence of historical and geographical constraints but is also influenced by public policies: those that work to improve access to rights and services without discrimination, to reduce the distances between individuals, groups and territories, to grant equality of opportunities and to protect vulnerable populations.

The construction of social cohesion also depends, and in turn conditions, the institutional framework in which it operates; hence the importance of having strong, quality, legitimate institutions that respond to these challenges before the public, which, consequently, feels like a part of that common project.

In Latin America and the Caribbean there is neither a regional integration strategy nor the resources to apply cohesion policies similar to those that exist in the European Union. The attention paid to issues of cohesion issues is relatively recent , so a closer look at the construction of such a concept is crucially important. In this regard, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC/SEGIB, 2007) has developed a concept of Social Cohesion, which highlights the “relationships between the mechanisms of social inclusion and exclusion and the perceptions of citizens with respect to these mechanisms”, and has established a frame of reference, which considers the following components:

  1. distances or gaps;
  2. institutional mechanisms; and
  3. sense of belonging
Consumer Confidence Index

Consumer Confidence is an economic indicator that measures the degree of optimism that consumers feel about the general state of the economy and their personal financial situation. The perceived security of income stability determines consumer activities and therefore serves as one of the key indicators in the general form of the economy. In essence, if consumer confidence is greater, consumers are making more purchases, thus boosting economic expansion.

On the other hand, if confidence is lower, consumers tend to save more and spend less, which causes contractions in the economy. A multi-month trend that results in a decline in continued consumer confidence suggests that in the current state of the economy, most consumers have a negative view of the ability to find and keep good jobs.

The ability to predict large changes in consumer confidence allows companies to measure the willingness of consumers to make new expenditures. As a result, companies can adjust their operations and the government can modify its fiscal policies. If confidence is falling and consumers are expected to reduce their spending, consequently most producers will tend to reduce their production volumes.

Consumer Confidence Index

The Consumer Confidence Index (ICC) was originally a monthly publication produced by The Conference Board, a nonprofit business group since 1967. The ICC was designed to assess overall confidence, relative financial health and purchasing power of the average consumer in the United States. The Conference Board issues three monthly bulletins: the Consumer Confidence Index, the Current Situation Index, and the Expectations index.

ICC methodology

The ICC is based on data from a monthly survey of 5,000 households in the United States. The data is calculated for the United States as a whole and for each of the nine enumeration regions of the country. The survey consists of five questions on the following topics:

  1. The current conditions of your business.
  2. The conditions of your business for the next six months.
  3. The current conditions of their employment.
  4. The conditions of their employment for the next six months.
  5. Total family income for the next six months.

Afterwards, all the surveys are collected, and the positive responses to each question are divided by the sum total of the positive and negative responses. The resulting relative value is used as an index value and compared with each monthly value corresponding to the year 1985. That year was chosen as the reference year, since it was neither a maximum nor a minimum in the economic cycle. The index values ​​of the five questions are averaged together to produce the ICC. The average of the values ​​of questions 1 and 3 form the index of the current Situation, and the average of questions 2, 4 and 5 form the index of expectations.

Consumer Sentiment Index of the University of Michigan (MCSI) is a monthly publication produced by the University of Michigan. The MCSI is designed to measure consumer attitudes towards the business climate in general, the state of personal finances and consumer spending. The University of Michigan distributes three related newsletters each month: Consumer Sentiment Index (ICS or MCSI), current economic conditions index (ICC), and the Consumer Expectations Index (ICE). Methodology of the MCSI. The Consumer Sentiment Index (ICS) is based on the monthly telephone survey of US household data. The index is the total sum of five questions on the following topics:

  1. Personal financial situation, now and a year ago.
  2. The personal economic situation within a year.
  3. The general financial condition of your company for the next twelve months.
  4. In general, the financial situation of your company for the next five years.
  5. The current attitude towards the purchase of basic necessities for the home.

Consumer Confidence Index, University Di Tella (Argentina)

The ICC survey of the DI Tella University includes 6 questions about the personal economic situation and the economy in general, similar to University of Michigan. and by official bodies in the European Economic Community, the following questions were included in the survey:

Personal Economic Situation

1) How is your personal economic situation compared to a year ago: would you say that it improved, stayed the same or worsened?

 2) And what do you think will happen to your personal economic situation within a year: do you think it will improve, stay the same or get worse? Macroeconomic situation

 3) How do you think the economic situation of the country will be in a year: better, equal or worse than the current one?

 4) And how do you think the economic situation of the country will be in three years: better, equal or worse than the current one? Purchases of Durable Goods and Real Estate

 5) Do you think this is a good time to make purchases such as appliances? Options: Yes, No

 6) And do you think it’s a good time to make more important purchases like cars, or to change homes? Options: Yes, No

Construction of the index

For each question a ‘positive’ answer was given to the best / yes options, according to the question, and the ‘worst’ / no options were considered ‘negative’ answers. The index corresponding to each of the questions is based on the proportions of ‘positive’ (p) and ‘negative’ (n) responses on the total number of respondents. According to the formula below, we can see that if all the respondents answered positively to a question the index would take a value of 100, while in the opposite case it would take the value 0.

The (partial) index related to each question is then calculated as

Partial index CIF = 50 * {p – n + 1}

Where:

p = proportion of positive responses on total of respondents

n = proportion of negative responses on total of respondents.

Once the CIF partial index has been calculated, the two indices for each group are averaged (personal, macroeconomic situation and purchase of durables and real estate), then averaging the latter and finding the ICCCIF of the month.

Conclusion

Establishing reliable indicators is fundamental for the development and evaluation of economic and social policies.

The analysed indicators advance qualitative aspects that give a degree of greater sensitivity to the changes or impacts of the policies on society or on a particular social group, and are therefore more representative indicators than GDP per capita. They cover a greater number of dimensions, which are more sensitive and present the possibility of detecting subjectivity in the perception of changes, whether positive or negative.

Casting subjectivity aside was an aspiration of the social sciences during the nineteenth century in its search for epistemological autonomy and recognition as a science. Today both discussions are settled, so we can move forward with indicators or variables of a subjective nature that can be measured scientifically.

Social Capital and its three dimensions – cognitive, institutional, and relational – allow us to measure the density of networks in a society, a degree of consensus that is reached with the shared welfare that allows for the accumulation and distribution norms, values and social wealth. Therefore, if this Social Capital is positive (bridging social capital) we can evaluate the degree of social development and the interaction that it allows as a proxy to the degree of well-being of that society, not only assessing the individual dimension as GDP does per capita, but also the whole of that society, and of its individuals.

Social Cohesion, as a measurement instrument introduces other less subjective concepts, and combines them in obtaining the index. That is, it is the result of the generation of other indicators in the areas of education, health, housing, social gaps, digital divide, etc. These indicators are of an objective nature and are combined with those of institutional evaluation and subjective perceptions of the future and values. This Index is more widespread than the Social Capital and has been used in various ways in the evaluation of social policies mainly by the European Union and ECLAC in Latin America. Its strength is the ability to synthesise various indicators available individually but that do not allow a holistic diagnosis of the community. Its weakness is the lack of consensus on which indicators should be included in the various measurements that have been made and whose results are assigned the name of Social Cohesion Index.

Finally, the Consumer Confidence Index stands out for its economic nature and can better represent wellness and its simplicity. In its different versions is a short questionnaire, no more than 6 questions, which subjectively seek to know the ‘economic mood’ of citizens, and thus better reflect the individual economic situation. However, their assessments are entirely subjective (they come from the responses of individuals) and one-dimensional, so they only cover the aspect of consumption expectations, which, while restrictive, allows it to have a predictive capacity that other indexes do not have. That is, the CCI is the only index that looks to the future and can give answers about it.

We must continue to work in a complementary manner with the three concepts and be able to reach an inclusive consensus on the methodological instruments that allow the three indices to be obtained immediately with a single measurement. It is a task for methodologists and policy makers in order to make social investment more efficient.

 

References

Burt, Ronald (2000). “The Network Structure of Social Capital”. University of Chicago and European d’Administrationd’Affairs (INSEAD).

Burt, Ronald (2000). “Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. ”University of Chicago and European d’Administrationd’Affairs (INSEAD).

“Measurement Instruments for Social Capital of Individuals” University of Utrecht, Groningen and Amsterdam.

Uphoff, Norman (2003). “El Capital Social y su capacidad de reducción de la pobreza”: en Raúl Atria& Marcelo Siles (compiladores) Capital social y reducción de la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe: En busca de un nuevo paradigma, CEPAL–MSU, Santiago de Chile.

SOCIAL CAPITAL: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology Alejandro Portes Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. Ann.. Rev. of Sociology. 1998. 24:1–24 Copyright  1998 by Annual Reviews.

Putnam RD. 1993. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. American Prospect

Putnam RD. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of  Democracy

Putnam RD. 1996. The strange disappearance of civic America. American Prospect

OECD, 2012.Perspectives on Global Development 2012.Social cohesion in a shifting world. Paris: OECD.

ROTHSTEIN, B., 2005. Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ROTHSTEIN, B. and USLANER, E.M., 2005. ALL FOR ALL: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, 58(1), pp. 41-72.

Identifying Social Trust in Cross-Country Analysis: Do We Really Measure the Same? Social Indicators Research, 103(3), pp. pp. 481-500. UNDP, 2014.Human Development Report 2014. New York: United Nations Development Programme.