Social Capital, Student Achievement, Friendships and Social Mobility

• In Event: Education, Political Participation and Values

Abstract

Social capital gained the attention of political scientists seeking to explain differences in the rate of political development across nations and regions. In an influential study, Harvard political scientist, Robert Putnam, argued that higher levels of social capital in northern Italy—its choirs, sports leagues, and other voluntary organizations—propelled its economic and political development. Meanwhile, the family-centered, isolative culture of southern Italy hobbled community co-operation, political trust, and democratic institutions. Putnam defined social capital as the “features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared interests.” Similarly, Inglehart, said social capital arises out of “a culture of trust and tolerance, in which extensive networks of voluntary associations emerge” in his global report of declining of social and political trust in industrial democracies. Putnam and other political scientists shifted social capital research away from families and intimate relationships at religious schools toward neighborhoods and civic organizations, citizen participation, and trust in government. Although their research built on Coleman’s understanding of social capital as the byproduct of norms, institutions, and trustworthy relationships, political scientists broadened the horizon by shifting attention toward organizations, political culture, and political practice.Government agencies, sociologists, psychologists, and economists have also extensively studied social capital.

Recently, Raj Chetty suggested that cross-class friendships create social capital that generates social mobility opportunities. The friendships, labelled “economic connectedness (EC),” are said to create an opportunity structure for those from low-income backgrounds. Specifically, they assert that: “areas with higher EC have large positive causal effects on children’s prospects for upward mobility.” After examining friendship patterns among 72 million Facebook users in 1,818 counties, they report that EC has a greater effect on mobility than does household income, racial and income segregation, or income inequality. In a model that controls for these variables, they show a large impact of EC on intergenerational mobility.Chetty says that county density of cross-class friendships (referred to here as “adult-bridging capital”) has causal impacts on social mobility within the United States.

We instead find that social mobility rates are a function of county density of family capital (higher marriage rates and two-person households), community capital (community organizations, religious congregations, and volunteering), and mean student achievement in grades 3-8. Our models use similar multiple regression equations and similar variables employed by Chetty et al. but also include state fixed effects, student achievement, and family, community, school-bridging (cross-class high school friendships), and political (participation and institutional trust) capital. School-bridging capital is weakly correlated with mobility if adult-bridging is excluded from the model. R-squared barely changes when adult-bridging is incorporated into the model. When it is included, mobility continues to be significantly correlated with the achievement, family, and community variables but not with school-bridging and political ones. We infer that county mobility rates are largely shaped by parental presence, community life, and student achievement. To enhance mobility, public policy needs to enhance the lives of disadvantaged people at home, in school, and in communities, not just the social class of their friendships.

Authors

• Paul E. Peterson, Harvard University

• Angela Dills

• M. Danish Shakeel, University of Buckingham