The Irrelevance of Social Capital in Explaining Deprivation: A Case Study of Turkish Gecekondu Households

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand what difference social capital makes to deprivation and what factors affect its capacity to deliver benefits. The study develops a clear-cut and empirically workable definition of social capital, and uses social exchange theories to distinguish between its reciprocal and power-based forms. The data is drawn from separate interviews with both partners of 17 households randomly sampled from a "gecekondu" settlement, participant observation and respondent diaries. Contrary to the dominant view, the research shows that the volume of social capital makes little difference to deprivation largely due to economic constraints. It also demonstrates the limited nature of its contributions to income generation, consumption and investment. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.

Understanding the Consequences of Migration for Asset Accumulation: A Multi-Site and Intergenerational Perspective

“…The model does not assume a straightforward positive link between resources and asset accumulation because the outcome depends on the capacity of the resources to deliver benefits and this capacity may well be restricted by various (structural) factors. For example, Eroglu (2010) demonstrates that poor people with large volumes of social capital make little economic gains from these contacts due to being mostly connected with people of limited resources or due to their inability to reciprocate with better-off people on an equal footing. Third, the model categorizes the key micro-and macro-level factors likely to affect the composition of migrant resources into four main types.…”

Extending the Resource‐Based Approach to Livelihoods: An Urban Application toTurkishGecekonduHouseholds

“…By contrast, the model departs considerably from Bourdieu's conception of social capital, which combines social contacts and benefits accruing through them. His definition demonstrates the key limitations inherent in most uses of the term, which concern boundary setting and empirical applicability (for a critique of earlier conceptions of social capital see Eroğlu ). In developing a clear‐cut and empirically useful concept, the model borrows from Pizzorno's (: 5) idea of restricting social capital to ‘the relations in which [the] more or less durable identity of participants are recognized’.…”

“…The latter thus includes patron–client relationships, whose significance for the lives of poor people is well documented (Lomnitz, ; Nelson, ; Heper, ; Banck, ; Norris, ; Roberts, ; Burgwal, ). A detailed description of this new typology of social capital can be found in Eroğlu ().…”