Robert Putnam argues that civil society-citizen activity in organizations-contributes to successful governance and democracy, which may be very important in the peaceful reconstruction of Central America. Putnam does not, however, specify in detail how civil society might shape government performance. We spell out how citizens' participation in groups might impinge upon the state through both political participation and democratic norms. We consider Putnam's category of "social capital" and add to it new "political capital" variables. We first explore the relationships among two civil society measures (formal group activism and community self help activism) and social and political capital, employing survey data from six Central American countries. We then investigate the effects of civil society and social and political capital upon levels of democracy in Central America. We find that while higher levels of formal group membership and several political capital measures are associated with higher levels of democracy, social capital does not have the relationship Putnam predicts. We conclude that political rather than social capital links formal group activism to democracy in Central America.

No abstract

Putnam argues that civil society—citizen activity in organizations—contributes to successful governance, but he does not specify in detail how this occurs. This article spells out how citizens' participation in groups might impinge on the state through both political participation and democratic norms. The authors consider not only Putnam's social capital but add new “political capital” variables. The relationships among civil society and social and political capital are then explored, employing survey data from urban Central America. It is discovered that political context, specifically regime repression, powerfully affects civil society and social and political capital. Furthermore, civil society more clearly affects political capital variables than social capital variables.

Robert Putnam extolled the virtue of social capital by arguing that social networks, civil society, and trust contribute to democracy. Subsequent research, however, identified a weakness in the social capital “model” in its underspecification of the mechanisms by which social capital affects political systems. This article proposes the concept of political capital as a likely product of social capital that links civil society participants to the political system. The article tests this two‐stage model of social capital and political capital and their effects on democratization using survey data from eight Latin American nations. Results find that civil society engagement in 2004 affected political capital variables, which, in turn, had positive effects on system‐level democracy measures in 2010. The article thus shows that political capital serves as an intervening variable between social capital and democracy and democratization.

No abstract