Here is evidence that more democratic institutions foster trust.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.031

Are you talking about bridging, bonding, or linking social capital? Which level of government? For bonding social capital research see Sampson's Chicago Human Development Study and the various papers coming out of the Making Connections intervention by Anne E. Casey foundations. 

Many thanks Drs. Ljunge and Smith, for your constructive recommendations

I think I must rephrase like this: Can social capital be improved in the local/regional level by local/regional institutions (as organizations, not institutions as meant by Douglass North)? Type of social capital does not matter, I am assuming a community where SC stock iz zero...

You'll want to explicate which definition of social capital you mean.  Bourdieu's is not the same as Coleman's, neither are readily operationalised (although Coleman's is easier), etc...

I agree with James Ladwig. It is important to specify which definition of social capital you use. 

Dear Sertac! You've been raising up a crucial question for the future research on Social Capital. As Richard, James and Federica mentioned, it is important to specify the definition of Social Capital.

To start with I have to mention that the current definitions of Social Capital from Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam are from the 1980's up to the late 1990's.

At the time there was neither an internet with social media nor an understanding of global networked risks such as seen in Fukushima, the war against "Islamism" and the financial crisis of 2008.

I therefore had to consider that both, the definition as well as the research based on this definition is outdated.

I therefore published an update on Social Capital in German (10.000 downloads) and recently in English:

http://commons.ch/english/wp-content/uploads/What_is_Social_Capital_2015.pdf

After the link has been tweeted by the ETH Zurich on January 6th 2015 I received a statement from the leading resource to define Social Capital, the Saguaro Seminar of the Harvard Kennedy School of Robert Putnam. I included the statement in my working paper (see the previous link) and will not reflect this discussion within my answer.

If we continue to define Social Capital by operationalizing data on social networks such as memberships and voluntarism, voting quotes and donations, compliance and governance, we will always get the same result: those countries and regions still leading in the rankings of GDP per capita will of course be the best in Social Capital as well.

A Global Index Benchmark quickly shows you that coincidence:

http://commons.ch/wp-content/uploads/Global_Index_Benchmarks_2011.pdf

So the call to enhance Social Capital by institutions such as proceeded in the UK today (which uses the SC-definition of Putnam) ends in sponsoring organized voluntarism, voting education and courses on civil engagement.

A unilateral definition of Social Capital rooted in the Northern part of the U.S., where voluntarism and civil engagement have been a substitute for missing public goods for centuries yet, became the intellectual base for international research.

If Social Capital should be developed by governments and institutions and at the same time be distinguished from Human Capital and Financial Capital, I plead for the following definition:

"Social Capital is the amount of non-material assets within a community."

Of course different cultures and countries from their tradition developed different non-material assets. That allows us not to measure a unilateral indicator such as "membership in organized voluntarism" or "trust in institutions" (both can't be find in 150 out of 200 countries), but to directly assess these assets.

We've been doing that in 89 countries today with our Social Capital Assessment,

http://commons.ch/english/assessing-social-capital

that assesses eight indicators on a scale between one and ten:

• Trust
• Helpfulness
• Friendliness
• Hospitality
• The will to invest in local assets/companies
• The will to pay taxes and contributions to finance public goods
• The Social Climate
• The will to accept austerity measures and asset levys

Dear Sertac, I've been looking at your study from 2013 and only found one of these indicators which was trust.

While we are asking: "Please estimate the amount of trust among the people at your place" we don't differentiate between bonding and bridging, linking and other forms of trust.

We even don't ask for a definition of trust.

One funny result: the locals estimate their own trust lower than our panel of experts does. Why? They want to be honest with us and not give the impression that they are upgrading their indicators to get a better result.

You won't believe it, but the standard deviation in our assessment, e.g. friendliness in Mexico is down to 0,8 (scale 1 to 10).

Would you agree, that developing Social Capital is only possible with an actual measurement of unique indicators, meaning: indicators that are enlightening a clear definition of Social Capital?

So the first step for a government or an institution would be to conduct a Social Capital Assessment. Once done, you can now identify the strength of communities in certain assets and then build up on these positive results.

It doesn't help you to consider that a country has a lack of philanthropy, voluntarism, gender equality or "human rights", of civic participation and rule of law, because these are results of a development within centuries, not decades.

But, as we can see: if you discover e.g. the overwhelming friendliness, solidarity, helpfulness and hospitality in many developing countries, if you are willing to acknowledge them as a part of Social Capital, you started to enhancing it yet!

If you continue to repeat outdated and unilateral research from the U.S., a country, that bears more prisoners than Mainland China and Europe together, a country spending half of the world's military budget only to destroy the Social Capital in other countries, a country with an annual budget deficit of more than ten per cent to finance prisons and wars, you will not be able to develop and to accelerate Social Capital in other countries, especially not there, where it is most needed.

As a result of our assessment we were able to identify positive assets of Social Capital in almost all countries. The exceptions e.g. the Ukraine showed, that a lack of Social Capital leads to civil war and the destruction of the society.

To considering Social Capital by governments and organizations is a very political decision. I have a letter from Helen Clark, the administrator of the UN Human Development Index where she told me: "We will not consider Social Capital as an indicator".

In some way she's right: if Social Capital continues to being an alleluia on the Anglo-Saxon voluntarism it will not help to understand or develop the Social Capital around the world.

I'm sure that Turkey and all Islamic states have lots of Social Capital in the definition as non-material assets. To discover them you only have to leave the "concepts of Social Capital" you find in obsolete literature which might have been useful to write your PhD or Master in Sociology, but not to conceptualizing the development of Social Capital in your country or culture.

Dear Drs. ladwig, Palazzi and  Dill, thank you very much for the enlightening answers.

Dear Dr. Dill,

I am simply taking social capital as those unseen assets in a community that directly or undirectly amplifies or facilitates the developmentc(including economic) in that community.

I agree that being bounded by previous definitions may be limiting the scope of any study on social capital, so it would be better to think of it as a facilitator/amplifier resource, which has or might has different effects on different types of social organization.

I also agree with you in that different societies might have different "occurrings" or levels of social capital. Although I am not defending that social capital as an Anglo-Saxon concept is a fit for everyone in the world, a little understanding of "adaptable" qualities of this concept may be useful  in order to be competitive and develop in a liberal world, as it is shown by intra-regional cooperation of Italian regions.

The problem  with the rest of the world is that this cooperation does not voluntarily/automatically occur everytime within a community or networks of a community. So, if a region wants to survive in a liberalist world (a term as Anglo-Saxon as social capital), I think government intervention may play a role in connecting the bits of, let's say, "free social capital" stocks in a community.

Of course, taking something from an ecosystem and hoping it fit in another is not a solution, but maybe using it for cooperation between official parts of a society (public bodies and organizations, and even some CSOs) and civil parts of a society. In thinking this, would the resulting asset can be called as "social capital" since it is somehow built officially, in contrast to what we have read in the literature so far? Then there must sure be  new variables, but how to measure them, for example, how can cooperation between two different public organizations or a public organization and a CSO can be measured? Trust among them?? In my PhD study you found I tried to investigate this with trust, level of cooperation, communication frequency among organizations, and organizational demographics as variables,  I am trying to look at this research question from a different angle,  focusing on organizational variables that may be effective in creating social capital

All Islamic states as well as Turkey have social capital in different forms as you suggest, I think the problem is unproductive use of this social capital. As far as Turkey concerned, I think that the resources shift to solidarity and construction associations instead of productive areas such as community-building organizations or economic-life organizations (unions, cooperatives, businessmen associations, etc.), which, in my opinion, directly in relation with your "will to invest in local/regional assets/companies" variable. This is a good variable for studies of local economic development and social capital, but I also think and agree with you that social capital indicators may change according to context.

Dear Sertac, times of crisis produce [and reproduce] social capital (social ties, solidarity, etc.), “bridging” social capital in particular, to quote Putnam…  Greece is a perfect example of this. I suggest you read Vasiliki Karantzara’s “ Solidarity in Times of Crisis: Emergent Practices and Potential for Paradigmatic Change. Notes from Greece” BYhttps://www.academia.edu/10368024/Solidarity_in_Times_of_Crisis_Emergent_Practices_and_Potential_for_Paradigmatic_Change._Notes_from_Greece

Dear Serac, have you read the pioneering study "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community", in which Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam speaks of two main components/dimensions of the concept of social capital: «bonding or exclusive» social capital and «bridging or inclusive» social capital. They are not necessarily categories to which social networks can neatly be assigned or classified, but more or less dimensions along which we can compare different forms or interrelations of social capital.

     Undeniably, there is always a place in societies for both bonding and bridging social capital, however the distinctions and interrelations between bonding and bridging social capital are necessary since they highlight that social capital may not always be beneficial for society as a whole, even though it may be an asset for certain social groups and individuals. Specifically, Putnam argues that bonding (exclusive) social capital entails specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity. However, it can also reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups while bolstering our narrower selves, reproducing self-serving behaviours, egocentric attitudes and exclusionary practices. Bridging (inclusive) social capital, on the other hand, can be more outward-looking and encompass people across different social divides, regardless of gender, race, religion, age or socioeconomic class. Bridging networks are good for external assets and information diffusion, generating broader identities and reciprocity –a positive asset since it enhances community productivity and social cohesion. 

@Sertac. Thank you for your answer concerning Turkey. Can I publish your statement in the update of "What is Social Capital 2015" ?

Dear Alexander indeed you can. The above is from the following, please quote book and/or  article:

 Kamberidou, Irene (2012).  Gender, Social Capital, Multiculturalism and Sport. Athens: Telethrion [in Greek] 

and/or

Kamberidou, Irene & Patsdaras, Nikkolaos (2007). Α new concept in European sport governance: Sport as social capital. Biology of Excercise, vol.3, issue 1, pp. 21-34 

Article Α new concept in European sport governance: Sport as social capital

Book Gender, Social Capital, Multiculturalism and Sport

Dear Dr. Kamberidou,

Thx for the answer. here is another question that might interest you:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_have_a_strong_civil_society_during_a_severe_economic_crisis_with_high_levels_of_poverty_and_social_exclusion?_trid=54fa0251d039b12b778b4589_25