Abstract
In this paper, we seek to explain (1) how the rise of Internet communication is related to the level of social capital and (2) the role of internet and social capital in shaping civic engagement in Asia. We use cross-national public opinion data of thirteen Asian countries from 2010 to 2012 to investigate these questions. Our results show that social capital is still measured best by traditional membership in social organizations. While the Internet increases social contacts, we could not find evidence that social capital is directly increased by the Internet. We also find that social capital developed through voluntary participation in social organizations most effectively promotes civic engagement activities, except for non-electoral actions that involve joining a demonstration or using violence. Internet usage turns out to be the most effective means of civic engagement for these cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, most of the discussion on social capital is drawn from the literature in sociology and political science. The authors intend to evaluate how the concept and measure of social capital are affected by the progress of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The main target of investigation concerns what impact the change of social capital might have on civic engagement.
What is the relationship between mobilization and civic engagement? Civic engagement by definition is a collective action that involves with public interest in nature. Because it is a collective action, it depends on how a group of people is intentionally organized to join the action. Thus, civic engagement is inevitably related to the concept of mobilization. However, mobilization is not a synonym for civic engagement since mobilization can occur for other purposes that have nothing to do with public interest.
The discussion of social capital in political science literature tends to presume its public or collective character and contrast it with private or self-interested aspiration. In one of the earliest works, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, political scientist Edward Banfield (1958) proposed that the lack of “public spiritedness” (p. 20) and interpersonal trust beyond the immediate family explained why southern Italy was relatively backward in development compared to the northern part of the country. The nuclear argument converges exactly with that of a later classic work of social capital in political science (Putnam 1993), which demonstrates how social capital can explain the level of civic engagement in democratic societies.
The ABS 3 dataset is available from the ABS official website at http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/surveys/DataRelease.htm. ABS is one of the most cited cross-national public opinion projects in 13 East Asian and Southeast Asian countries. The survey provides a number of variables that can be used to study the ways in which citizens in Asian countries perceive and behave with respect to the change of social capital and its subsequent impact on civic engagement in different political contexts across Asia.
This is a conventional measure of membership in civic groups. Most of the social and political surveys, such as the World Value Surveys, adopt this indicator to measure the level of social networking. Putnam (2001) also argued that social capital was declining based on the downtrend of membership in civic groups in the United States.
We refer to civic engagement in terms of political involvement, which is a popular definition in political science. Some of the theories were developed from the modernization paradigm, and others might be associated with the normative democratic theory. See Almond and Verba (1963), Dalton (1988), and Elster (1998).
References
Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253.
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Antonucci, T., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J. (1990). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(7), 519–530.
Banfield, E. C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe: Free Press.
Beaudoin, C. E. (2007). Mass media use, neighborliness, and social support: Assessing causal links with panel data. Communication Research, 34(6), 637–664.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999–1023.
Brooks, A. C. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1–15.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S121.
Dalton, R. J. (1988). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2009). Social movements: An introduction. New York City: Wiley.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.
Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35–52.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2004). Social capital and information technology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Inkeles, A. (2000). Measuring social capital and its consequences. Policy Sciences, 33(3–4), 245–268.
Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communication of the ACM, 40(12), 81–86.
Lin, N. (1999a). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487.
Lin, N. (1999b). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Nie, N. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist., 45(3), 420–435.
Olson, M. (2009). The logic of collective action. Harvard Economic Studies, vol. 124. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41–51.
Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011). Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction of the sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 181–198.
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208.
Woolcock, M. (2010). The rise and routinization of social capital, 1988–2008. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 469–487.
Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust and attitudes toward democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 706–724.
Acknowledgments
This work was in part supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant NRF-2013S1A3A2055081).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Min-hua Huang, Taehee Whang and Lei Xuchuan are listed in alphabetical order.
Min-hua Huang, Taehee Whang and Lei Xuchuan have equally contributed to this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, Mh., Whang, T. & Xuchuan, L. The Internet, Social Capital, and Civic Engagement in Asia. Soc Indic Res 132, 559–578 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1319-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1319-0