I think "soft power" is the most commonly used phrase when speaking of social capital at the level of nations.

yes, social capital needs to be redefined to understand modern society better. 

What do you think of the following definition: "Social Capital is the amount of non-material goods within a community."

That would allow to assess inter- and transcultural goods such as trust, friendliness, helpfulness and hospitality, goods, that are not dependent of the amount of organised voluntarism, social networks or donations, goods, that a single person can share and provide without being involved in societal structures, goods, that can occur in rural environments and in the midst of crises and disasters.

Nathan: Although e,g. the whole economy depends on trust I wouldn't call that a "soft power" only. Have a look at the Ukraine on the table I provided.

 I was thinking more at an international level due to the use of "global", but seeing the table, I see more what you're talking about. It seems like a pretty hard term to define.

Are you more interested in communities cooperating post conflict, or things like the ability of entrepreneurs to access capital markets, etc. I think the definitions used in the table are more geared towards the second, and I'm not convinced that this captures the concept in the way that you want to apply it.

I would think it's something basically like "who do you know, how well do you know them, and is there trust and/or confidence in that relationship which can potentiate social or business development in a community/economy." Government can help with this, for example by enforcing contracts, but again, I'm not convinced that this is quite what you're getting at.

The issue with the concept of social capital isn't found within its definition, but rather in its inherent subjectivity. Political leaders given conceptual benchmarks, which are based upon “interpretation” conclusions, only opens the door to using those conclusions for political purposes.

The chart provided is an example of subjective categorization. Regardless of any mathematical formula that might be constructed to base the conclusion that Japan’s climate is better than Mexico’s for example, there is always those who would argue that the conclusion is biased, incorrect, or not universally agreed upon. Changing the definition parameters of social capital does nothing in which to correct this one simple flaw. In fact by the very nature of ranking the social capital of one country against another, is in its very nature, creates a potential diver of conflict.

If however we were to accept all areas and people as equal, and address real issues, such as the actual needs of a region post-conflict, we would be disarming the potential for political bias while addressing the real problems.

The problem with most social science theory, including international relations theory, is that they examine the subject from the perspective of the parameters in which the theory is founded. Only Nation-State Identity Theory grounds its conclusions on behavior patterns rather than pre-defined parameters. Yet this theory too, while still in its infancy, is biased by the definitions which it uses to conclude pattern identification.

Dear Colleague,

Regarding your question, maybe this small piece on "Social Capital and Power" I wrote in 2000 for the Klieksberg/Tommasini book published by the IDB and the Fondo de Cultura Economica de Argentina might interest you. Unfortunately I have only the French version (in the book it is in Spanish.

Very cordially

Alfredo Valladão

Dear Mark Goerge,

"In fact by the very nature of ranking the social capital of one country against another, is in its very nature, creates a potential diver of conflict."

And the ranking by GDP, growth-rate, jobless quote, literacy-quote doesn't ?

All I want is to accept Social Capital as an indicator. And a ranking is only one of the possible interpretations.

Could you please give me an example for a "Nation State Identity Theory"?

Thank you your Alexander Dill

Alfredo: Merci. Je parles Francais, pas de problème...

@ Nathan: I didn't include Japan and Ukraine by chance. Japan overcome the Fukushimas disaster due to a big amount of trust and willingness to serve to the common good. Ukraine lost all social assets and therefore got a completely failed state. The difference between their Social Capital is obvious and yes, I'm more behind the resilience against crises than the access of entrepreneurs, because the success of social entrepreneurship of course depends of the local Social Capital.

In Mountain View and Palo Alto there are guys sharing and spreading their private wealth. In Kiew they are keeping their wealth by corruption and private armys. In Japan they don't care about private wealth.

I forget where I read this, but since you bring up trust and willingness to serve common good in Japan, consider that it is essentially optional to pay most fines, but compliance rates for fines are in the high 90s of percents.

Dear Alexander,

"And the ranking by GDP, growth-rate, jobless quote, literacy-quote doesn't ? All I want is to accept Social Capital as an indicator. And a ranking is only one of the possible interpretations."  

Ranking of economic indicators, such as GDP, growth rate, unemployment and the like, traditionally are used by politicians as measuring sticks to laud their accomplishments with their constituency, if the numbers are deemed an indicator of success. 

The simplistic version of Nation-state identity Theory poses that a nation experiences events which,  like in individuals, create personality traits.  These personality traits thereby cause behavioral patters which can be observed and are immune to current political influence.  If one observes a patter of behavior, a historical examination should lead back to the event which created the personality trait.  The accumulation of personality traits thereby create a national identity, separate of culture.  The first study conducted used Russia as a subject and traced a pattern of behavior that showed Russia's need to be considered a World power, rather than an equal member of the international community.The defining event which caused this behavioral pattern was founded during the period of Peter I and continued through until today.  Behaviors by Putin show a consistent behavioral pattern which continues this theoretical model.

The second study, currently being conducted regards the US and their policy toward Israel and general foreign conflict.  This study should be completed sometime in 2015.

Regards

@Nathan: Great proof. Have you got a link to share the source?

@ Mark George: A quiet new perspective for me. Does that fit  together with the fact that all three countries, the U.S., Russia and Israel reject to becoming a member of the International Criminal Court in Den Haag? Is this part of a behavioral pattern?

@ Alexander Dill, Actually it is a new perspective for many.  The theory was only introduced in 2013 and although receiving considerable interest, it is still being tested against specific historical patterns.  For the example you mention, a pattern would be observable if the nations mentions have historically exhibited member rejection to similar international judiciary bodies, which off the top of my head I cannot come up with similar historic organizations.  Although the behavior might have a potential for creating a pattern, currently that behavior set is not being considered. Rather in the case of the US policy toward Israel, the question to why the US is so unfailing supportive even when Israeli action might be contrary to US interests.  As for international conflict policy, there are a few parameters being considered as a pattern has already been identified.  

Sorry, if I could remember for the life of me what the source was, I would love to share it. Consider it as the anecdotal third party claim that it is, but I'm very sure that I read it from somewhere credible enough to tuck it away. I think it was a book, not a magazine. Maybe something about management and cultural differences? But there is also the bit in the IQ84 book about the character whose dad would always knock on the doors to harass people to collect payment, but didn't use legal injunctions - that's definitely not the source though.