In- or excluded? : whether active members of study associations have more social capital

(1)

!

In- or excluded?

Whether active members of study associations have more social capital

!

Daan Tillie 31-01-2013 10207430

Teacher: mw. dr. R.M. Sanchez Salgado Words: 7353 

(2)

(3)

Chapter 5 Methods

...

11

§5.1 The Survey ...11

§5.2 Comparing active and nonactive members ...12

Chapter 6 Results & Discussion ...13

§6.1 Results T-test ...13

§6.2 Social trust and inclusion ...15

§6.3 Exclusion ...16

§6.4 Other findings ...17

§6.5 Explanations and recommendations ...18

§6.6 Biases ...19

Chapter 7 Conclusion ...20

References ...21

(4)

Chapter 1 Introduction

!

In 2010 the Centrale Bureau voor de Statistiek (the Dutch Central Office for Statistics) published a report which stated that 7 out of 10 youngsters in the Netherlands are member of an association. Many young Dutch people, between 12 and 25, participate in some kind of association (CBS, 2010). What effects does this membership of associations have on individuals? American political scientist Robert Putnam states that being a member of an association increases one’s social capital. In his article Bowling Alone he writes: ‘Members of associations are much more likely than nonmembers to participate in politics, spend time with neighbors, to express social trust, and so on.’ (Putnam, 1995: 8). In the same article Putnam claims that we should sort out the various dimensions of social capital, and find out ‘what kind of organizations or networks most effectively embody--or--generate social capital’ (ibid. 9).

In this chapter the goal and the research question of this thesis will be addressed. Moreover the relevance of the study will be explained.

§1.1 Goal and questions

The goal of this thesis is to test Putnam’s theory of social capital with regard to study associations. Do active members of study associations have more social capital than nonactive members? By investigating the impact of membership of study associations, this thesis aims to contribute to the lack of understanding what kind of organizations embody or generate social capital. Since this is a small thesis, it is not possible to research every study association. This thesis will be limited to a case study, i.e. the Dutch study association Machiavelli. The advantage of researching just one association is that a limited study provides more in-depth information. Studievereniging Machiavelli, as it is called in Dutch, is the study association for political science students at the University of Amsterdam. Every political science student is a member of Machiavelli. That confronts us with a problem: it is impossible to compare social capital of member and non-member students. To solve this problem there has been decided to compare active members of Machiavelli to non-active members. We expect that the latter are not influenced by Machiavelli and can been counted as regular political science students. So in this thesis the active member of Machiavelli will be compared to the nonactive members of Machiavelli. The research question will be:

(5)

Do active members of study association Machiavelli have more social capital than nonactive members?

Subquestions will be:

To what extent do active members have more trust (in politics, civic and social) than nonactive members?

Are members more politically engaged than non-active members?

The set-up of the thesis is: First, there will be elaborated on the relevance of this topic. Second the literature review and theoretical framework will be presented. Third the analytical framework will be explained. Fourth the case of Machiavelli will be further described as well as the implications of this case. Five, the implications of the methods and survey used will be explained. Finally, the results, implications, discussion and conclusion will be presented.

!

§1. 2 Relevance

This thesis deals with study associations and especially with the question how they embody or generate social capital. As a student and an active member of a study association myself I would like to know whether an association so close to home can contribute to society, and indirectly to a more effective government. Social capital creates networks, which create trust and better collaborations. Social capital also makes people engage more in society. These factors make democracy and government work better (Putnam, 1992, 1993, 1995, Sander and Putnam, 2010). This research could help study associations to improve their work, and thereby ensuring that they contribute as much as possible to society, the university and the government. By finding out if their members have more social capital and on which aspects they have more social capital study associations can improve their work. This thesis will give insight in whether study associations are one of those organizations which embody or generate social capital and thereby contribute to the theory of social capital. Now the theories used in this thesis will be elaborated on.

!

(6)

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework

!

This chapter is composed of a literature review. In this literature review, the theory that associations create social capital will be explained and elaborated on. Subsequently the theoretical framework will be presented. In this part social capital will be defined and operationalized.

§2.1 Tocqueville and Putnam

French political philosopher Tocqueville was one of the first to notice that associations make democracy work. When he visited the United States in 1830 he was overwhelmed by the amount of associations he saw. He was surprised about the collaboration between people, which in his own country France, was missing (Tocqueville, 2002: 182). In his book Democracy in America he concluded that these associations created networks and trust. Networks and trust made it easier to collaborate and made it possible to make useful (and important) relations. These large networks, and the civil society they had created, made the United States democracy work better. The civil society controlled and supported the democracy. From his findings, Tocqueville concluded that for a better working democracy associations are needed (Tocqueville, 2002: 585).

Based on this theory, Putnam argued that associations make a better working democracy. In his book Making Democracy Work (1992) Putnam made a comparison between the South and the North of Italy. He researched why the North of Italy had a better working government than the South. He concluded that the North of Italy had a much stronger civil society. One of the components of this civil society were the associations. These associations, he found, create social capital. By which he means that associations form networks, civic engagement and norms. Networks make democracy work better because a lot of people know each other. This makes it easier to find people whom one can collaborate with. These networks are tight ones, where you know which people you can trust and who not. These networks also make it easier to choose people to work with. For Putnam it is important to have face-to-face contact. Civic engagement means that people are more engaged with the community. They want to help make the community better, and thereby the civic life. Between close networks, norms are created; people are expected to act a certain way. These norms make it easier to trust people. The network will make sure that they will not act out of line. In summary the

(7)

networks, civic engagement and norms that the associations provide result in more trust, collaboration, and reciprocity (Putnam, 1992: 171). There are several factors why social capital improves government and democracy. The first one is that people who are in a close network have strict norms about reciprocity. Because of this two-sided trust this kind of society can be more efficient than a less trusting society (Putnam, 1993: 3). People are more likely to make deals and because of the mutual trust, there is no need for close monitoring or strict rules. As a result making deals is cheaper and easier. The second factor is that networks of civic engagement facilitate coordination, communication and information about who you can trust. This makes it easier to find business partners. The third aspect which helps the functioning of a government is the cultural template for future collaboration that networks create out of former successes (Putnam, 1993: 4). An economical striving and trusting society is easier to govern and thus is it easier to make democracy work. In his article ‘Bowling Alone’ (1995), Putnam expands his theory to associations and social capital. In this article, he analyzes the associational life in the United States. He noticed that people in the US became more and more individualistic. Where people used to bowl in associations, people were now bowling alone. Putnam considers this to be something bad. Associations have so many positive effects on democracy and government, that losing the associations would be very counter-effective. In this article, he also stresses that associations form norms and networks which affect the power of the government (Putnam, 1995: 2).

§2.2 Operationalizing Social Capital

Putnam operationalizes social capital as follows. First there are the more informal aspects of social capital, such as family bonds and neighborliness (ibid.: 7). This is an example of an important part of social capital: trust. Trust is quite a broad concept, which includes trust in family, but also in strangers and the government. The last aspect of social capital is that people engage more in politics. People are more likely to participate in politics, social life and civic life as a whole (ibid.: 8). The Dutch Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) has a more elaborate way of operationalizing social capital. In a document called Meetlat Sociaal Kapitaal (ruler for social capital), they make a difference between social, civil and political trust/participation (CBS, 2011: 11). The differences between social, civic and political trust/ participation will now be explained.

(8)

Social trust is for Putnam the most basic form of trust. Social trust is about whether one trusts people in general. Civic trust is about whether someone trusts the government, judges, officials etcetera. Political trust focuses on the trust in the parliament (Idem.) In the Meetlat, the frequency in which people see their family, friends and neighbors is called social participation. For Putnam, however, seeing one’s family is also a part of trust. Family bonds and neighborliness are the basics for trust. In this thesis, seeing one’s family, will be viewed as a form of social trust. The CBS also looks at civic participation, which implies, that someone is a member of an association and works at least eleven hours a week. Because all of the respondents are members of an association and full time students, civic participation will not be taken into account. Political participation on the other hand will be researched. Political participation is whether someone has undertaken political action and if the person voted in the last elections (idem.). So in this research there will be looked at social, civic and political trust and political participation.

In line with Putnam’s distinction between trust and engagement, the subquestions of this thesis are divided in (1) whether active members have more social, civic and political trust than non-active members and (2) whether active members engage more in politics. Like Putnam, the thesis stresses the trust part more than the engagement part of social capital, since, trust is a more evident part of social capital than engagement.

§2.3 Other scientist and social capital

Putnam is not the only one who claims that trust is a positive part of social capital. American political theorist, Francis Fukuyama also states that social capital makes it easier for a society to function. Social capital not only has economic benefits, but also fulfills one’s need to be connected. In his book Trust, he argues that people have a desire to be connected to other people and to get recognition, which is something that social capital can generate (Fukuyama, 1995: 6). For Fukuyama, social capital is the ability to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations (Fukuyama, 1995: 10). French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who also studied social capital, states that for this trust and solidarity people need to be member of a group (Bourdieu 1985: 249 in Portes, 1998). A group is already formed when two or more people come together. Bourdieu does not make any rules about how this group should be formed. As long as one feels member of this group it will increase the member’s social capital. For Putnam, being part of a group is not enough, you have to be part of an

(9)

association. Although an association can be seen as a group of members, a group of members is not per se an association. For Putnam, a group has to be constitutionally recognized to really have an effect on its members.

In a more recent article Putnam states that the effects of social capital are even better than he at first expected. He claims that social capital makes people happier, healthier, reduces crime, increases economic productivity and makes the government more responsive and honest (Sander and Putnam, 2010: 9). This is a strong claim. It means that social capital can overcome mass crime, depression and health problems. This would make social capital the answer for almost every governmental problem. The American sociologist Alejandro Portes is less positive about the positive effects of social capital. In his article Social Capital, Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, he gives an overview of the research done about social capital. Portes writes that recent research shows that social capital’s basic functions are ‘(a) as a source of social control; (b) as a source of family support; (c) as a source of benefits through extra familiar networks. From these basic functions networks, trust and more engagement can exist’ (Portes, 1998: 9).

Since this thesis aims to test Putnam’s theory of social capital, Putnam’s definition of social capital will be used. The above mentioned critiques and considerations will however be taken into account.

§2.4 Bonding & Bridging

Putnam makes a difference between association that do ‘bonding’ and who do ‘bridging’. As American political scientists Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John Hibbing state: ‘Bonding activities are “inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups,” whereas bridging activities are “outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages’ (2005: 232). Most scholars believe that bridging associations create more social capital, because they overcome cleavages. They also argue that following the bondig/bridging theory, people who are members of more than one association have more social capital. This is because they have a very broad network, which includes a lot of different views. On the other hand bonding associations create more of an inside network. These associations are mostly homogenous. This is because people with the same beliefs and interest attract each other. Once people are in the same group this dynamic increases and

(10)

makes people even more homogenous. Since members only bond internally they do not generate more trust in other people than their ‘own’ (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing, 2005: 39). If we apply the difference between bonding and bridging associations to the case Machiaveli, it is clear that Machiavelli is more of a bonding association than a bridging association. Machiavelli consists of a quite homogenous group: its members are mostly political science students aged from 18 to 22 years. Most of Machiavelli’s activities are performed with its own members. If Theiss-Morse and Hibbing are correct, this means that Machiavelli would create more social capital if members were less homogenous and the association focused more on bridging than on bonding (Idem.).

!

§2.5 Over-stretching?

One of the main critiques on Putnam’s theory is that the effects of social capital are not as clear as Putnam states. American political scientist James DeFlippis for instance argues that there exists no correlation between social capital and economic development. His explanation is that networks themselves do not create economic development: they only bring economic development if they have the power to do that (DeFlippis, 2001). The main argument is that we should be extremely careful about stating that social capital creates economic development, something which Putnam does claim. And we should not forget that social capital has to be linked to capital, as in money. Putnam over-stretches the concept of social capital by losing the link to capital, and economic development (idem.). Moreover, Putnam over-stretches the concept by making social capital something of a community or even a country rather than of individuals (Portes, 1996).

Another critique on Putnam is that there is too little empirical and theoretical support for his theory. There is not enough proof that there exists a strong correlation between a good civil society and a good working democracy (Tarrow, 1996) This is something Putnam recognizes: he also argues that there should be more research (Putnam, 1995: 9). This lack of research data on social capital is something this thesis can help to overcome. By doing more and more research, the easier it will be to conclude what effects social capital really has and what embodies social capital.

(11)

§2.6 Negative effects of social capital

The last critique is that associations and the networks they might create, should be careful not to exclude people, thus creating isolation rather than networks (Portes, 1996, 1998, Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 2002).

!

Putnam does not discuss the negative effects social capital could have. Portes found at least four negative effects in recent research. These are (1) exclusion of outsiders, (2) excessive claims on group members, (3) restrictions on individual freedoms, and (4) downward leveling norms (Portes, 1998: 15, 1996). The exclusion of people should be taken in to account when the findings are that active members of study associations have more social capital. This can happen when an associations is too much focused on their own members. Study associations should be careful not to exclude outsiders and not to put excessive claims on its group members.

!

§2.7 Active and nonactive members

There could also be said that this thesis an sich is a critique on Putnam's work. In his core theory being a member of an associations directly makes you prone to have more social capital. Putnam states: ‘Members of associations are much more likely than nonmembers to participate in politics, spend time with neighbors, to express social trust, and so on.’ (Putnam, 1995: 8). But in this thesis it is expected that active members have more social capital than nonactive members. It is even said that, because everyone has to be a member, there will not be any effect at all from the association on the nonactive members. If it is so that active members have significantly more social capital than nonactive members this critique will have more support. In this case it is impossible to investigate nonmembers, which are also students of political science at the UvA. That is why there has been chosen to do it this way. The implications of this chose will also be elaborated on in the discussion. Interesting to note is that Wollebaek and Selle also made some remarks on this topic. For Putnam face-to-face contact is very important, because of this it would be logical that the effect of social capital would be more on active members. Simply because they have more face-to-face contact. Wollebaek and Selle write: ‘ If Putnam’s emphasis on face-to-face contact is correct, the level of social capital should nevertheless be observably higher among the core of activists than

(12)

among passive supporters, even within the same association.’ (Wollebaek and Selle, 2002: 36).

!

Chapter 3 Analytical Framework

!

In this thesis Putnam’s theory on associations and social capital will be tested. Putnam argues that members of associations have more social capital than nonmembers. To test this theory there will be done a case study on study association Machiavelli. The research question is:

!

Do active members of study association Machiavelli have more social capital than nonactive members.

For Putnam social capital is build up from trust and participation. The division between trust and participation is also made in this thesis. There are different kinds of trust and participation. In this thesis there will be looked at social, civil and political trust and and political participation. That is why the subquestions will be whether (1) active members have more trust (social, civic and political) than nonactive members and whether (2) active members participate more politically than nonactive members. For Putnam trust is a more obvious part of social capital and in this research will also have a more central place than participation. The research will be done by a survey on members of study association Machiavelli. The survey can be found in the appendix. The expectation is that active members have more social capital than nonactive members. The expectations for the subquestions are that active members have social, civic and political trust and that active members participate more political. In the next chapter there will be given a more extensive explanation of the case. After that the methods will be presented.

!

Chapter 4 The case: Machiavelli

!

In this thesis study association Machiavelli will be researched. Machiavelli is the study association for political science students at the University of Amsterdam. Its main goal is to look after the general interest of political science students. As is stated in Dutch: ‘De vereniging stelt zich ten doel de belangen van studenten politicologie aan de Universiteit van

(13)

Amsterdam in de ruimste zin van het woord te behartigen.’ Machiavelli has approximately 920 members and organizes differs activities. These activities are, for example, study trips, lectures, debates and party’s. Besides organizing activities Machiavelli controls the quality of the education given by the Department of Political Science (website Machiavelli). The association has 100 commission members and around 100 other active members. When someone is a member of a commission of Machiavelli somebody is considered to be an active member. This is how Machiavelli calculates their active members. In this thesis people who visit activities once a month are also seen as active members. 1These activities can be a

debate, study trip, lecture, party, or any of the other activities organized by study association Machiavelli. It is important to note that in the Netherlands there is a difference between study associations and student associations. A study association is linked to a university and a study, in this case the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. Study associations get most of their funds from the university. Student associations are not linked to an university and get their funds from their members. The norms and values tend to differ between study associations and student associations. For instance student associations have a more obligatory character. Investigating only Machiavelli, makes this research a case study. When there was more time, it would be interesting to look at more study associations or student associations. There could also be looked at the difference between study associations and student associations.

It is often argued that when doing a case study generalizing is not possible. Only when there are a lot of case study’s it is possible to generalize (Bryman, 2008: 56, Flyvbjerg, 2006). The goal of this thesis is not to generalize. The goal is to contribute to the theory that members of associations have more social capital. One of the benefits of a case study is that it is possible to have an intensive examination of the case. When there is more in depth information it is easier to test and contribute to a theory (Bryman, 2008: 57). Even a small case study can contribute to the accumulation of knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Doing a case study makes it easier to investigate the connection between trust, engagement and social capital. The case study can give insight into how and why people choose to be active in an association and what kind of effects this active membership has. It is important to note that Machiavelli is not

!_{In this way people who have the most face-to-face contact is also measured. Which for Putnam is an important} 1

(14)

an association with any political views. Machiavelli is like the associations Putnam describes, like a bowling association or a parent group (Putnam, 1993). This makes Machiavelli relevant as a case study. Furthermore Machiavelli has a lot of face-to-face contact with their active members. For Putnam this is a important part of the reason that associations create more social capital. This face-to-face contact encourages people to engage more and facilitates networks (Wollebaek and Selle, 2002: 39).

!

Chapter 5 Methods

!

In this chapter the methods used to answer the research question and the subquestions will be explained. The survey will be elaborated on and the testing methods will be addressed. In the next chapter the results will be presented.

§5.1 The Survey

To investigate whether active members of Machiavelli have more social capital, there has been chosen to do a survey. The survey consists of some structured questions about social capital (whether someone has a lot of trust (social, civic, and political) and whether one participates political) and some open question. The open questions are included to get more in depth information about why someone joined the association and whether one feels affiliated with the association. In the survey there are first some basic questions about age, gender, and whether one is an active or nonactive member. Followed by some questions to test whether the respondent has social, civic, or political trust and political participation. There has been chosen not to give any explanation about this thesis in the questionnaire. The active members may want to make Machiavelli ‘look good’, by pretending they have more social capital. By leaving the explanation out this can be prevented. The questionnaire can be found in the appendix.

The questionnaire has been set out by e-mail. A web survey has been e-mailed to 535 second year and older members. It was send to a mailing list which included all the email-addresses Machiavelli owns from their second year and older students. This were 450 email-addresses, also the available email-addresses of people who are a member of Machiavelli were added. From the emails send out 48 email-addresses were not correct and bounced. All the participants became a member in the college year 2012-2013 or earlier. There has been

(15)

chosen to only research students from these years. The reason for this chose, is that when Machiavelli has an effect on the social capital of their members it is most likely to be on the second year and older students. Machiavelli has around 680 second year and older students. From the 535 emails send out there were 85 respondents. Thus 13.1% of the total population responded, from which 49% is male and 51% female. 75 percent of the respondents are aged between 19 and 22. 14 respondents are members of a commission. Members of all kinds of commissions responded. One third of the respondents say they visit an activity of Machiavelli at least once a month. From the total respondents 30.6 percent is an active member. Machiavelli has 680 second year and up students, having a sample of 85 respondents should be enough. Although more respondents are always better. The gender and active/nonactive ratio is also sufficient.

§5.2 Comparing active and nonactive members

After the results are in, there will be done a comparison between de active and the nonactive members. There will be looked at whether the active members have more social, civic, and political trust. For instance: whether the active members have trust in people, their family, neighbors, but also in the government, police, etc. Putnam argues that people who have more social capital have more general trust. Also people who have more social capital participate more, but this is not such a large part of social capital as trust. There will be looked at whether active members engage more politically than nonactive members. From the factors trust and participation there can be given an answer to the question whether active members of Machiavelli have more social capital than nonactive members. If we follow Putnam’s theory it is expected that the active members have more social capital than nonactive members.

The active and nonactive members will be compared by doing a independent samples T-test. An independent samples T-test is used when one wants to compare two groups on a certain kind of variable. By running this test it is possible to find out whether active and nonactive members of Machiavelli have significant differences. And whether active members have more social capital than nonactive members. De nul hypotheses (H0) is that the active members and nonactive members will have the same amount of social capital. The one hypotheses (H1) is that active member have more social capital than nonactive members. There will be looked at all variables and tested whether there is a significant difference

(16)

between active and nonactive members. In the theoretical framework there is made a distinction between social, civic and political trust and political participation. This will also be done when running the independent samples T-test. While doing the independent samples T-test the starting point is the nul-hypotheses that there is no difference between the two groups. We are testing if there is a difference, which is not created by chance. The significance level will be 5%.

Chapter 6 Results & Discussion

!

First the results of the independent samples T-test will be discussed. After that there will be given an interpretation of the results, which will include the implications of the results. In the discussion there will be elaborated on the possible biases.

§6.1 Results T-test

The independent samples T-test shows that there is not a big difference between active and non-active members. There are only a few variables where active and nonactive members significantly differ. (As shown in Tabel 1, 2 and 3). Active members only have more social trust than nonactive members. Interesting to see is that overall the political participation seems to be low, even though almost everyone votes. The civic and political trust is very high, although the respondents do not trust big companies. Surprising is that active members have more trust in the army than nonactive members. This is just a small part of civic trust. That is why there cannot be argued that active members have more civic trust.

!

Tabel 1: Social Trust 2

* p ≤ .05.

!

Variable Percentage Active Percentage nonactive Sig.

Frequency Family 46,2 37,2 0,569

Frequency friends 96,2 80 0,021*

Frequency neigbors 15,4 18,6 0,332

In General 100 91,5 0,024*

!_{The percentage active/nonactive is the amount of people that see their family, friends neighbors more than 1-2} 2

(17)

Tabel 2: Political participation 3

!

* p ≤ .05.

Tabel 3: Civic and Political trust 4

* p ≤ .05.!

!

The frequency active members see their friends is significantly higher than the frequency non-active members see their friends (Tabel 1). Also active members have significantly more trust in people than nonactive members. When asked the question whether someone thinks people in general can be trusted or whether you cannot be careful enough, all of the active members answer that people in general can be trusted. None of the active members answered that you cannot be careful enough.

Variabele Percentage active Percentage nonactive Sig.

Traditional media 19,2 27,1 0,443 Political party 19,2 22,0 0,774 Public consultation meeting 30,7 20,3 0,302 Official 0,7 15,2 0,292 Action group 34,6 23,7 0,304 Protest 65,4 44,1 0,072 New media 73,1 59,3 0,215

Voted Tweede Kamer 92,3 98,3 0,292

Variabele Percentage active Percentage nonactive Sig.

Army 96,2 74,6 0,044* Judges 100 100 0,816 Officials 92,3 84,7 0,860 Press 73,1 64,4 0,538 Police 76,9 67,7 0,279 Companies 34,6 42,3 0,276 Tweede Kamer 84,6 84,7 17,1

!_{The percentage active/nonactive is the amount of people that said they did participate.} 3

(18)

§6.2 Social trust and inclusion

Trust in people and the frequency one sees their friends are both social trust. Trust in people is one of the most basic forms to measure social trust. The frequency one sees their friends is in this thesis also seen as social trust. It is interesting that the active members of Machiavelli have more trust in people than the non-active members. The fact that active members do not see their family more and do not have more interaction with their members, which is also social trust, is not a rare finding. Students in Amsterdam are known to move around a lot. For someone who moves around it is not easy to keep in touch with their neighbors. Most students just moved out, because of this they are not prone to have contact with their family. Students are busier with their new friends and their study and not with their family. The significant difference between active and nonactive members on the amount of time they spend with their friends is not surprising. Active members have more contact with their friends than nonactive members, because active members spend a lot of time with and at Machiavelli. Mostly the active members are friends with each other. This makes it easy for them to spend time with their friends. The fact that active members see and have their friends at Machiavelli also cam forward in the answers respondents gave. At least 12 people say they feel involved because their friends are just like them active in Machiavelli. An example of this is:

‘Omdat bijna al mijn vrienden erbij zitten en het nauw verbonden is met de studie’

This person answers that the reason he/she is involved in Machiavelli is because most of his/ her friends are active at Machiavelli and it has a close connection with the his/her study.! Another example is:

‘Ik voel me betrokken, omdat ik de meeste andere actieve leden ken en zij mij ook. Doordat het zo'n hecht clubje is, voelt het ook echt alsof je ergens bijhoort :)’

This person feels involved, because he/she knows most of the active members and they know him/her. He/She says that because Machiavelli is such a tight group, it feels like he/she belongs there. Interesting about this statement is that the respondent argues that there is some kind of insiders group where people are really close with each other. It seems that everyone who is a member of a commission has friends at the association. There is no difference found

(19)

between different commissions. The fact that people who are active see their friends more is not very surprising, it is easy to make friends with the people you organize activities with.

§6.3 Exclusion

This insiders group insinuates that there maybe some sort of inclusion and exclusion from this group. This in- and exclusion brings us back to the negative effects of social capital. In §2.4 it was discussed that Machiavelli is quite a homogenous association which probably is more of a bonding association than a bridging association. As discussed before ‘bonding’ means that an association brings their members together and a ‘bridging’ association introduces their members to other kinds of people and cultures. Machiavelli, being a homogenous and bonding association, is more likely to create social trust. The active members do not really meet people outside their own group, because of this they do not have more civic and political trust or participation than nonactive members. The fact that Machiavelli is such a close and homogenous association, it can unintentionally exclude people. For an association like Machiavelli this is a very probable risk. This exclusion is also noticed by the respondent who is included (as can be seen in the second quote). In the survey there were a lot of people who did not feel included. At least 10 persons answered to the open question why they do not feel involved that this is because they think that Machiavelli is too much of an insiders group. They say that for an outsider it is hard to get included, and therefor they often feel excluded. Examples of such answers are:

‘Veel groepsvorming binnen Machiavelli, de vereniging staat niet open voor nieuwe mensen terwijl de vereniging dat juist zou moeten promoten.’ (A lot of group formation in Machiavelli, the association is not opening up for new people, while this is what they should do).

Or: ‘Kleine actieve incrowd, als je daar niet bijhoort ben je een vreemde eend in de bijt’ (There is a little active incrowd group, once you’re not included you feel like you don’t belong)

Another example is: ‘Activiteiten zijn regelmatig goed, maar toch er is er een soort insiders sfeertje van bestuur en nauwe vrienden die de toon zetten.’

(20)

This respondent answered that he/she thinks that the activities are of a good quality, but that there is too much of an insiders group. This incrowd is for the respondent, just like the other respondents quoted, a reason to not be involved in Machiavelli. Another respondent says that when Machiavelli would be more open to outsiders that he/she would be more involved in the association and there could be more active members. (‚Nieuwkomers op hun gemak stellen en niet alleen met je eigenmensen rondhangen’). This is quite contrasting with the answers the ‘insiders’ give, someone who feels included for instance answered: ‚Het is een fijne sfeer waar iedereen altijd welkom is.’ (There is a good vibe and everybody is welcome).

The results show that the critique from Portes, among others, on social capital is applicable to Machiavelli (§2.6). Machiavelli is seen by people as too much of an insiders group, thus Machiavelli excludes people. Machiavelli should try to find a way not to exclude people. This could be done by bridging. By introducing the active members to other kinds of people, it is possible that Machiavelli’s active members become more open to other people and even the people they now (intentionally or unintentionally) exclude. The respondents think that having more themed borrels could help. Also it is argued that when Machiavelli will create smaller and more commissions it would be easier to join.

§6.4 Other findings

In this thesis there is a difference between active and nonactive members on the factor social trust. This means that there is a difference between active and nonactive members. Putnam’s basic theory that being a member of an association is enough, is not completely valid. In this thesis it can not be researched whether all members have more social capital, but it is detected that active members have more social trust. This means that being an active member has an effect, and that there are significant differences between active and nonactive members. Just being a member of an association is not enough.

When we follow the theory of bonding and bridging it would be expected that people who are also members of another association would have more social capital. This is not true, respondents who are also member of another association do not significantly have more social capital. Not even members who are active members of Machiavelli and are a member of another association.

(21)

The more conservative definitions of social capital correspond more with the results than the definition of Putnam. Fukuyama, for instance, argues that social capital is the ability to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations. This collaboration helps people to fulfill their desire to be connected and get recognition (Fukuyama, 1995). If we look at Machiavelli this is definitely happening. The active members are a close group that work together for common purposes. In this way they gain trust and get connections whit each other. This study could be an example of the over-stretching of social capital done by Putnam. If we look at Fukuyama and Bourdieu they are much more focused on the trust that is created in between groups, which is also created between te active member of Machiavelli.

§6.5 Explanations and recommendations

The results show that active members of Machiavelli have more social trust than nonactive members. For Putnam social trust is the basics of social capital. People who have more social trust have a better network and make easier connections. When a person has more trust in people it is easier for them to make a business deal with somebody. So if we look at the basics of social capital, it can be stated that active members of Machiavelli have more social capital than nonactive members. It is however so that active members do not have more civic trust, political trust, and political participation than nonactive members. Because of this it is not possible to state that active members have more social capital than nonactive members of Machiavelli. An explanation of the lack of these kinds of trust can be that Machiavelli is to much of a homogenous bonding association. Machiavelli could improve itself. (When we consider having more social capital is an improvement). When Machiavelli wants to improve itself it could do more bridging. When Theiss-Morse and Hidding are correct bringing Machiavelli’s members in contact with other groups and people, would increase the social capital of Machiavelli’s members. This could help making the group less homogenous, because the activities would be more divers. It is recommendable to Machiavelli that they try to find a way where they do not exclude people. The survey implies that there are persons who are not active because Machiavelli is to much of an incrowd group. Recommendations for Machiavelli are that they ‘bridge’ more. This can help their members to participate more and have more civic and political trust. The respondents say that having a more open attitude, accessible borrels and smaller commission would help improve the amount of people that feel involved.

(22)

§6.6 Biases

There are some other possible biases, which will now be discussed. There will elaborated on the fact that political science students might already participate politically, the possible bias that people who respond have more social capital, and the external validity which is often seen as a problem with case studies.

A bias could be that all people investigated are political science students. There is the possibility that because of their natural interest in politics, they automatically participate more in politics. It can be that at other study associations there is a bigger difference between active and nonactive members when it comes to political participation. At other associations, where the members are not already interested in politics, it can be that being an active member makes you more aware and political active.

There is also the possibility that the people who react to the survey, are people who have more social capital. When people have more social capital they feel more engaged, and are more likely to fill in a survey. This could also cause a bias. The problem is that this is not measurable, unless there would be done a comparison with the rest of the Dutch students. It could be that the people who are active members of Machiavelli already have more social trust and that this is the reason they become active members. When we really want to have a good look at what the impact of the study association is, there should be done a survey before people come in contact with Machiavelli and a year later, when they had all the possibilities to become an active member of Machiavelli. Only by doing a longitudinal research this can be tested.

External validity could also be a difficult point. With a case study it is often said that you cannot generalize. It is also hard to generalize from this study, it is simply to small. It would be interesting to investigate more study and student associations and look at the differences. Hereby it is possible to find out why some members have more social capital than others. What is interesting about this study, that a lot of the critiques scientist have on social capital seem to be valid. There are people who feel excluded and the association might be to homogenous to really create social capital. For Machiavelli it is important to maintain a more open character, to make sure they do not exclude people. This is probably also happening in other study associations, and is something other study associations should consider.

(23)

Chapter 7 Conclusion

!

At the start of this thesis, the question was raised whether active members of Machiavelli have more social capital than nonactive members. The first subquestion was whether active members have more trust than nonactive members. Trust was divided in between social, civic, and political trust. The second subquestion was whether active members participate more politically than nonactive members. It was expected that active members would have more social capital than nonactive members. The results show that the only difference between active members and nonactive members is that the first have more social trust than the latter. Active members do not have more social capital than nonactive members, but do have more social trust. The results also show that Machiavelli tends to be much of an insiders group, thus should be careful with excluding certain students from activities. Machiavelli can improve its social capital by trying to become less of a homogenous group and do more bridging activities. The respondents add that having more and smaller commissions would also help. Since this thesis dealt just with Machiavelli, there could be a possible bias of natural interest of political science students in politics. It would be interesting to investigate other study- and student-associations. Are there associations that increase the social capital of its members? Do other associations also only improve social trust? For further investigation there can also be investigated whether there is an influence of study associations and if the active members do not already have more social capital. This can be done by doing a survey before students join an association and a year (or maybe two) after being a member of this association.

!

(24)

References

!

Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2011) Meetlat Sociaal Kapitaal.!

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2010) Veel jongeren actief in de maatschappij. http:// www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/vrije-tijd-cultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/ 2010/2010-3057-wm.htm (last seen 04-01-2014)

DeFlippis, J. (2001) The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development. Housing Policy Debate, volume 12, Issue 4

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five Misunderstanding About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, April 2006, pp. 219-245

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity.

Theiss-Morse, E. and Hibbing, J. (2002) Citizenship and Civic Engagement, Annual Review of Political Science 2005. 8: 227–49

Manzo, L.C. and Weinstein, N.D. (1987) Behavioral Commitment to Environmental Protection: "A Study of Active and Nonactive Members of the Sierra Club” Environment and Behavior. Nov 1, 1987: 19, 6: ProQuest pg. 673

Putnam, R.D. (1992) Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R.D. (1993) The prosperous community, The American Prospect vol. 4 no. 13

Putnam, R.D. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, January 1995, pp.65-78

Portes, A. and Landolt, P. (1996) The Downside of Social Capital, The American Prospect may-june

Portes, A. (1998) SOCIAL CAPITAL: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annual Reviews, 1998. 24: 1-24

Sander D.H. and Putnam, R.D. (2010) Still bowling alone, The post- 9/11 split. Journal of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 1, January 2010, pp. 9-16

Tarrow. S (1996) Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 389-397

(25)

Tocqueville de, A. (2002) Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of Americans in Democracy in America. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.

Wollebaek, D. and Selle, P. (2002) Does Participation in Voluntary Associations Contribute to Social Capital? The Impact of Intensity, Scope, and Type. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2002 31: 32

!

Websites:

(26)

Appendix - Survey

!

Scriptie onderzoek Vak: Citizens in Europe

Daan Tillie 10207430

!

(27)

(28)

1. Geslacht: Man/Vrouw

!

2. Leeftijd ... jaar

!

3. Sinds wanneer bent u lid van Machiavelli:

!

! College jaar 2009-2010 ! College jaar 2010-2011 ! College jaar 2011-2012 ! College jaar 2012-2013 ! College jaar 2013-2014

!

4. Lid van één of meerdere commissie van Machiavelli: Ja/Nee

!

Zo ja, van welke commissies: ……….……….

!

5. Lid geworden omdat (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk):

!

Boeken/sociaal contact/activiteiten organiseren/anders namelijk:……….

!

6. Hoe vaak bezoekt u een activiteit van Machiavelli, zoals een lezing, debat, studiereis, feest, of borrel:

!

! Een keer in de week ! Een keer in de 2 weken ! Een keer in de maand ! Een keer in de 3 maanden ! Een keer in de 6 maanden ! Een keer per jaar

! Nooit

!

7. Voelt u zich betrokken bij de vereniging:

!

! Zeer ! Redelijk ! Weinig ! Niet

!

8. Hoezo voelt u zich wel of niet betrokken:

!

………

!

9. Wat kan er gedaan worden om actief lidmaatschap te promoten:

!

………

!

(29)

10a. Bent u lid van andere verenigingen:

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

10b. Zo ja, welke verenigingen: ...

!

11. Frequentie contact met familie of gezinsleden die niet in huis wonen:

!

! Nooit

! Minder dan één keer per week ! 1-2 keer per week

! 3-4 keer per week ! (Bijna) elke dag

!

12. Frequentie contact met vrienden of kennissen:

!

! Nooit

!

13. Frequentie contact met buren:

!

! Nooit

!

(30)

In de volgende vragen wordt met politieke actie, een actie bedoeld waarmee aandacht wordt gevraagd voor een bepaald politiek standpunt. Dit kan protesteren zijn, maar ook een artikel in de krant plaatsen of iets op facebook zetten.

(31)

!

13. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via traditionele media (krant, TV of radio):

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

14. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via politieke partij:

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

15. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via inspraak bijeenkomst (van bijvoorbeeld de gemeente):

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

16. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via politicus/ambtenaar:

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

17. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via actiegroep (anders dan politieke partij):

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

18. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via protestactie:

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

19. Heeft u de afgelopen 5 jaar politiek actie ondernomen via nieuwe media (social media, internet, sms, email) :

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

20. Heeft u gestemd tijdens de afgelopen Tweede Kamer verkiezingen:

!

! Ja ! Nee

!

21. Vindt u over het algemeen dat de mensen wel te vertrouwen zijn, of vindt u dat men niet voorzichtig genoeg kan zijn met de omgang met mensen?

!

! Ja, over het algemeen te vertrouwen ! Nee, je kan niet voorzichtig genoeg zijn

In- or excluded? : whether active members of study associations have more social capital

!

!

!

!

!

!

In- or excluded?

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Table of contents

Chapter 5 Methods

...

11

Chapter 1 Introduction

!

!

!

!

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework

!

!

!

!

!

Chapter 3 Analytical Framework

!

!

!

Chapter 4 The case: Machiavelli

!

!

Chapter 5 Methods

!

Chapter 6 Results & Discussion

!

!

!

!

!

Chapter 7 Conclusion

!

!

!

References

!

!

Appendix - Survey

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!