organised themselves in a day, and managed to save lives and wealth. For the first time, this country witnessed the importance of its socialcapital and a hope that this post-conflict society, where the conflict has an ethnic background, has ‘the tie that
Authors:Tamás Bödecs, Boldizsár Horváth, Enikő Szilágyi, Marietta Diffelné Németh, and János Sándor
Kopp M., Skrabski Á. (1995):
Végeken Alapítvány, Budapest
Lindström, M., Axén, E. (2004): Socialcapital, the miniaturization of community and assessment of patient satisfaction in primary healthcare
Authors:Jie yi Li, Yu Chieh Lin, and Chich-Jen Shieh
Human resource is the major source of competitive advantages for an enterprise. Discussions aiming at the role of human resource in educational communities are progressing in past years. From the mobility of human resource in an organization, retaining human assets or reducing the mobility to the lowest are considered as the professional commitment of human resource and the direction for efforts. A new viewpoint about the role of human resource reveals that the role of human resource is to change social capital into the driving force of competitive advantages of an organization. It might affect the presentation of different roles of human resource in various corporate characteristics. For this reason, the effects of high-tech corporate characteristics on social capital and role of human resource management are discussed in this study.
Aiming at Kunshan High-tech Industrial Development Zone, the management and the employees in the manufacturers are distributed 1000 copies of questionnaires, and 683 valid copies are retrieved, with the retrieval rate 68%. The research results show 1. significantly positive effects of social capital on the role of human resource, 2. remarkably positive effects of corporate characteristics on social capital, and 3. notably positive effects of corporate characteristics on the role of human resource. It is expected to verify richer and more diverse effects for the reference of successive research and practice communities.
; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 ).
Some researchers characterize the resources from the student’s relationships as socialcapital ( Altbach, 2009 ; Kim & Schneider, 2005 ; Perna & Titus, 2005 ). In our previous studies, we showed the strong
Authors:Annette Hurrelmann, Catherine Murray, and Volker Beckmann
controversy about the potential for collective action in Central and Eastern
European Countries (CEECs). Many authors argue that the level of social capital
is low in CEECs, whereas others underline that, while trust in authorities and
the state may be low, interpersonal networks are present. This paper explores
the issue on the basis of three case studies conducted in the project IDARI
(“Integrated Development of Agriculture and Rural Institutions in Central and
Eastern European Countries”). They study rural cooperation projects, i.e.
production and marketing in agricultural cooperatives, a rural tourism
initiative and the management of a national park. It was asked: what is the
basis for successful cooperation and what are the reasons why cooperation
fails? The conclusion is that two main obstacles for collective action in rural
CEECs are low bridging of social capital and unclear gains from cooperation. In
such a situation, well-connected local leaders who provide credible information
and establish links among different actor groups and with authorities can be of
crucial importance to achieve collective action. This finding is interesting
because most of the literature on social capital does not acknowledge the need
for a “mediating agency”but expects cooperation to happen “automatically”where
enough social capital is present. However, it is also shown that leadership
becomes difficult where conflicting interests, low general trust and little
initiative of actors prevail. A policy conclusion is that better financial and
technical support for prospective leaders in rural cooperation projects in
CEECs could contribute to the success of initiatives.
Authors:Emmanuel Lazega, Lise Mounier, Marie-Thér?se Jourda, and Rafaël Stofer
The difference between individual social capital and organizational (or corporate) social capital has been an important topic
of research in sociology during the past decade. The existence of this difference between two forms of social capital evokes
an old question in a new manner: what matters most in explaining individual actors' performance? Is it personal social or
collective resources provided by the organization to which the individuals belong and in which they work? In this paper we
provide a preliminary answer to this question based on a multi-level network study of the top 'elites' in French cancer research
during 1996-1998. By multi-level we mean that we reconstituted both the inter-organizational networks of exchange between
most French laboratories carrying out cancer research in 1999; simultaneously, we reconstituted key social networks of the
top individual elites in cancer research in France during that same year. Given our 'linked design' (i.e., knowing to which
laboratory each researcher belongs), we were able to disentangle the effects of structural properties of the laboratory from
the effects of characteristics of the individual researcher (including structural ones) on the latter's performance. Performance
was measured by a score based on the impact factor of the journal in which each researcher published. Our results show that
organizational social capital matters more, and more consistently, than individual relational capital in explaining variations
in performance by French top cancer researchers.
Nie, N.H. and Erbring, L. (2000): Internet and Society. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society.
Norris, P. (2000): Making Democracies Work: SocialCapital and Civic Engagement in 47 Societies. Paper for the