INTRODUCTION:

Social developments through project funding are the most popular engine of social change. All governments, funding agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations etc. use this engine to create desired outcome in the society (Jiao, 2011). Development of economy as well as society happens through the enterprising activities of inspired individuals or groups (Omorede, 2014; Stecker, 2014).

Some of these activities are purely commercial in nature whereas others are purely social. The projects concentrating on social aspects are generally called as social developmental projects. In the recent time, a new typology has emerged called Social Entrepreneurship (SE) and social enterprises (Schneider, 2016). These enterprises address social problems by creating an intervention-model based on the principles of surplus creation and sustainability (Stecker, 2014). Such intervention could also occur in the form of social/developmental project. Even though these projects are unique in their own ways, based on the broader design and structuration, these projects could be classified into Charity Model, Funding Model, Grassroots Model, Market Model, Education Model, Movement model and Policy Model of Social Entrepreneurship (Whitman, 2009). Creation of outcomes by these projects was often explained through the prism of internal efficiency and effectiveness of the agency or the project. Often these measurements of outcome was from an economic point of view and hence a major portion of the literature is about the Return On Investment (ROI) of these projects (Moody, Littlepage, and Paydar, 2015). Also there had been large numbers studies, which explained the outcomes of such projects through empowerment of individuals and society (Azam, Ahmed, and Urban, 2015; McLoughlin, 2009; Urban, 2015). Few of them looked at the process of creation of social wealth/outcome through the implementation different models of social entrepreneurship (Bebbington, 2008; Manning, 2010). The concept of SROI (Social Return on Investment) had bridged some of the research gaps in this regard (Moody et al., 2015). However, the systemic changes (capital creation), which happen in the society due to such social entrepreneurship initiatives, were often neglected or not given the due importance in research studies and reporting. This is identified as the broader research gap necessitating this study. Through this study the researcher is trying to explain the success or failure of social intervention projects by explaining the process of social capital creation. The researcher is also trying to explain the possible moderating effect of type of social intervention project on the process of creation of social outcomes ultimately leading to social outcome.

Understanding Social Capital and its Dimensions:

Social capital is defined as an informal access to others’ resources due to social ties (P. P. Li, 2007). In 1916, Hanifan (L.J. Hanifan, 1916) used the word ‘Social Capital’ for the first time; however, for the purpose of this article, researcher is using the definition given by Bourdieu (1986).

“‘The sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrues to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”

The concept of social capital was later made more popular by Robert Putnam (Comer, 2015) first through his book, ‘Bowling Alone’ and subsequently through further research on this topic. Social capital is a true contextual construct, which can be best studied through perception-based approaches (Subramanian, Lochner, and Kawachi, 2003). But, it was Coleman in 1988, which gave an empirical support for this concept and gave a way to operationalize it. Fukuyama in 1995 linked social concept to economic development though his comprehensive study on OECD countries. Social capital could be measured as an index and could be successfully be predicted using predictor variables such as self perceptions on health, mental health and life stress, and a whole host of other demographic variables (Kitchen, Williams, and Simone, 2012). Measuring social capital using such methods will not reveal the endogenous factors of social capital, which brings forth various aspects about social outcome. Hence we need a study, which will examine the creation of social capital from a different perspective, which is conducive to explain various manifestations of success or failure of social projects, which can be termed as social outcome.

Previous research has identified three dimensions of social capital called structural dimension, cognitive dimension and relational dimension (Y. Li, Ye, and Sheu, 2014). The structural dimension talks about the bondages existing within a community, which any embedded actor of the community has access to (Y. Li et al., 2014). It is expressed through the existence of network ties among social entities (Byungjin Yim and Byunghak Leem, 2013; Lawson, Tyler, and Cousins, 2008). Increased interaction leads to increase in structural dimension of social capital (Zetter et al., 2006). Relational capital describes the personal relationships that are created by repeated interactions(Byungjin Yim and Byunghak Leem, 2013; Krause, Handfield, and Tyler, 2007; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Trust is a key facet of relational capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Cognitive dimension refers to the existence of shared meanings among embedded actors of a community (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Apart from these three dimensions, researchers had identified four more dimensions; togetherness, group characteristics, neighborhood connections and volunteerism (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001). Constructs of togetherness and group characteristics have overlapping meaning with the cognitive dimension of social capital. The construct of neighborhood connection has got overlapping meaning with structural dimension of Social capital (Y. Li et al., 2014).

Antecedents and Outcomesof Social Capital:

Antecedents of Social Capital:

Even though there are various authenticated tools to study about various levels of social capital in a community (Grootaert, Narayan, Jones, Woolcock, and The World Bank, 2004; Lyberaki and Paraskevopoulos, n.d.; Onyx, Jenny, and Bullen, 2000; Svendsen and Lene, 2000; The World Bank, n.d.), factors leading to the process of creation of social capital (it's antecedents) are still a relatively unexplored area (Y. Li et al., 2014; Oh, 2000; Presutti and Boari, 2008). Existing studies fail to distinguish between the dimensions and antecedents of social capital. They were indistinguishable from each other (Cristina Viana Campos et al., 2015). In this research, the researcher had tried to identify constructs/variables and their relationships, which lead to the structural, relational, cognitive and voluntarism dimensions of social capital. These relationships are explained as ‘Postulates’, which came through logical deductions from existing literature support. Through these Postulates the researcher is building a research model, which could be empirically tested.

Structural Dimension (Social Interaction):

Successful implementation of social projects and developmental initiatives draw its major success factors from the enhanced social interaction (Park, Tsusaka, Pede, and Kim, 2017). One of the main reasons for this enhanced social interaction is the community participation (Park et al., 2017; Rasoolimanesh, Ringle, Jaafar, and Ramayah, 2017). Community participation is referred to as an instance of the person being a participant in any community activities of his/her community. It was also articulated that through responsive and reciprocal communication, shared experiences and institutional linkages, social interactions are enhanced in-turn leading to the creation of social capital (Shoji, Haskins, Rangel, and Sorensen, 2014). Through action research on the conservation of world heritage site and tourism conservation, it was observed that the spontaneous participation by the beneficiaries led to creation of trust and ownership (Rasoolimanesh, Jaafar, Ahmad, and Barghi, 2017). The above arguments lead to the first Postulate of this article.

Postulate 1:

Increased levels of participation of actors in a community will significantly contribute to the creation of social capital

Relational Dimension (Trust):

Trust is considered to be a close proxy for measuring social capital (Doh and Zolnik, 2011; Y. Li et al., 2014; Paul, Sherry, Jackson, and Prater, 2016; Richey, 2007; Schoenherr, Narayanan, and Narasimhan, 2015). Increased levels of trust, solidarity and collective action had been reported as determinants of social capital (Cristina Viana Campos et al., 2015). With the supports of social exchange theory, it was argued that, in the context of outsourcing of businesses, one’s understanding of the cultural context (cultural understanding) contributes to the development of trust between participating actors (Schoenherr et al., 2015). Cultural understanding is defined as the knowledge of the exchange partner's norms, beliefs, values and environment. In firm level studies it was also found that information sharing, which is defined as willingness of an individual to share information for the betterment of any parties involved in the process, significantly affects the creation of trust between actors involved(Barnes-Mauthe, Allen, Arita, Lynham, and Leung, 2015; Y. Li et al., 2014). The above arguments related to relational dimension of social capital leads to the Postulates 2 and 3.

Postulate 2:

Cultural understanding of each actorin a community will significantly contribute to the creation of social capital.

Postulate 3:

Information sharing between each actor in a community will significantlycontribute to the creation of social capital.

Cognitive Dimension (Shared Vision):

Social researchers have shown that sense of belongingness, which symbolizes the identification of people to a community, has a significant positive impact on the quantity of knowledge sharing, thereby creating a better shared vision (Chiu, Hsu, and Wang, 2006; Y. Li et al., 2014). Sense of belongingness in the context of this study is defined as one's conception of self in terms of the defining features of self-inclusive social category. Studies in on-line virtual communities also found that, people create particular social identity, which is the main feature of the individual’s identification with the community in the sense that the member views himself as a member of that community. This identity influences the common understanding or shared vision of the particular community (Pinho, 2013). The above arguments related to cognitive dimension of social capital leads to Postulate 4 and 5

Postulate 4:

Social Identity of individual actors in a community will significantly contribute to the creation of social capital.

Postulate 5:

Sense of belongingness of individual actors to a community will significantly contribute to the creation of social capital.

Dimension of Voluntarism:

In vision-driven organizations, pro-socially motivated employees are more likely to perform voluntary tasks (Grant and Sumanth, 2009). Pro-social motivational, which is defined as the desire to expend effort in order to benefit other people, helps to improve voluntarism in an organizational setting (Aydinli, Bender, Chasiotis, van de Vijver, and Cemalcilar, 2015; Grant and Sumanth, 2009). Pro-social motivation also leads to operational performance of voluntary organizations by fostering volunteering and fundraising activities (Aydinli et al., 2015; Hu, Jiang, Mo, Chen, and Shi, 2016). These arguments logically lead to Postulate 6.

Postulate 6:

Pro-social motivation of individual actors in a community will significantly contribute to the creation of social capital.

Outcomes of Social Capital:

Social Capital is not a monolithic concept, there are three distinct types called Bonding, Bridging and Linking Capital (Beugelsdijk and Smulders, 2003; Chen et al., 2015; Darcy, Maxwell, Edwards, Onyx, and Sherker, 2014). These different types of social capital could perform different functions in the process of creation of social outcome and hence could be effectively deployed in overcoming hindrances of policy implementation (Rydin and Holman, 2004). Bonding capital measures the interrelationship between closely related groups such as family, close friends etc. It is considered to help people for ‘getting by’ (Putnam, 2000). Bridging capital refers to the relations with distant friends, associates and colleagues. It is considered to help people ‘getting ahead’ (Putnam, 2000). Studies also suggest that bridging capital is considered to be a weak tie compared to bonding capital, which, in contrast, is considered as a strong tie (Mark S. Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2000). Linking social capital is the capacity of individuals and communities to leverage resources, ideas, and information from formal institutions beyond the immediate community radius (Woolcock, 2001). Linking capital refers to relations between different social strata in a hierarchy where power, social status and wealth are accessed by different groups (Tom Healy and Sylvain Côté, 2001).

Social capital leads to the economic development of a country level (Doh and McNeely, 2012). Findings from research on access to drinking water in Kenya suggests that, investment in building social capital will have contextual benefits to foster collective action. Such investments will help any particular community to address common environmental challenges (Bisung, Elliott, Schuster-Wallace, Karanja, and Bernard, 2014). This calls for governments to concentrate on projects, which is likely to correct inefficiencies in resource distribution in a community and drive the process of accumulation of social capital through appropriate policy formulation (Yamaoka, Tomosho, Mizoguchi, and Sugiura, 2008).

Measuring the impact of social projects is an important process in assessing the social outcome of projects. Social capital can be used as an effective proxy to ascertain the benefits of social projects (Løkke, 2016). There are also various indicators like Corporate Social Performance (CSP) being used to assess the social impact of projects (Salazar, Husted, and Biehl, 2012). Studies also reveal that, all three dimensions of social capital will lead to innovation in an organizational context (Akhavan and Hosseini, 2017; Paul et al., 2016). Social capital also creates competitive advantage through creation of collective learning and absorptive capacity in a community (Chuang, Chen, and Lin, 2016).

Four perspectives on social capital and economic development viz., Communitarian, Network, Institutional and Synergy perspectives discusses distinct approaches of explaining the process of social capital creation. Out of the four, synergy perspective offers the empirical support for social capital creation (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). Explaining further, the researchers argue that, people initially will use the bonding capital available at their immediate proximity inside the community to improve their welfare. This bonding capital will gradually increase with diversity but declines as diversity of community passes a point of inflection. The same people will gradually try to associate with communities/organizations with access to higher levels of power and resources through creation of bridging capital and linking capital. This transitional process of social capital creation will lead to better welfare of societies (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). A study in rural Cameroon related to rural development project revealed that, enhanced social capital created through a specific project has led to more livelihood assets especially financial assets (Cosyns, Van Damme, De Wulf, and Degrande, 2014).

Bonding capital and Social Outcome:

Bonding social capital refers to relations amongst relatively homogenous groups such as family members and close friends and is similar to the notion of strong ties. These ties are important for ‘getting by’ and lead a better life in a society (Chazdon et.al., 2013).

Social cohesion and homogeneity positively affects the life satisfaction in a community (Cheung and Leung, 2011). Understanding bonding capital can also help policy makes in creation of joint-liability groups which can become the basis of economic value creation in developing nations (Kebede, 2017). Participation in geographic-based networks create bonding capital and helps in accelerating activities of political action groups (Hays, 2015).

Bridging Capital and Social Outcome:

Bridging social capital refers to relations with distant friends, associates and colleagues. These ties tend to be weaker and more diverse but more important in ‘getting ahead’ in the process of social coexistence (Chazdon et.al., 2013).

Bridging capital, also referred as ‘weak ties’ help people to get access and garner support from other groups, hence it is helpful in mobilizing other forms of capital effectively (Nichols and Fernandez, 2007; Nicholson, A Cleland, and Nicholson snicholson, 2016). Hence, Bridging capital acts as a mediator between Bonding capital and social outcome (Darcy et al., 2014). Bridging capital utilizes the existing bonding capital in a society to create collective action and positively affects the social outcome (Vajja and White, 2008).

Linking Capital and Social Outcome:

Linking social capital refers to relationship between individuals and/or groups of different social strata in a hierarchy where power, social status and wealth are accessed differently by different groups (Chazdon et.al., 2013).

Through an examination of three community associations in Uganda, it was observed that linking social capital can negatively impact the community in general and democratic governance in particular, if not accompanied by sufficient amount of bonding, and bridging social capital (Loebach and Stewart, 2015; Titeca and Vervisch, 2008).

Moderating Effect of Social Intervention:

Not all social projects have the same levels of facets such as beneficiary involvement, market orientation, sustainability, scalability, and policy implications. Hence, not all social interventions create social capital and social outcomes in the same way. There would be a moderating effect of the type of social intervention on the proposed conceptual model. Studying different models of social interventions and empirically testing the same conceptual framework for all different social intervention models separately can explain this moderating effect.

Based on beneficiary involvement, market orientation, sustainability, scalability, and policy implications, seven models of social interventions were identified viz., Charity model, Movement model, Policy model, Grasroot model, Education model, Funding model and Market Model (Whitman, 2009). On the continuum of the dimension of market orientation, we could place Charity, Funding and Market model of social initiatives respectively as one with lowest, moderate, and highest levels. Hence, studying these three models will adequately suffice researcher’s requirement to test the moderation effect.

Charity Model:

Charity is one of the oldest forms of philanthropy, and are exercised by individuals or groups organized into charities. Contemporary critics criticize charity for not addressing the root cause, which creates the need for philanthropy. But it will be a worthwhile exercise to check the role of charity to address the immediate needs for social justice that cannot wait for gradual and time consuming social change (Whitman, 2009). Through the study on a disaster management scenario and succeeding community intervention process in Philippines, it was postulated that philanthropy or charity model of social intervention has led to the creation of much needed bonding capital in the time of a crisis. This charity model intervention also created short term linking capital, but exposed a major drawback of this model. Without state intervention, it would be difficult to sustain the created boding and linking capital for long term benefit of the community (Loebach and Stewart, 2015).

Funding Model:

Through the judicious application of financial resources, funding model achieves social change by creating value for stakeholders. The sources of such funds are government, corporations, philanthropic foundations, other organizations, or individuals. They can wield power beyond the monetary value of available resources by entrepreneurial planning and leverage (Whitman, 2009).

Market Model:

This is the one, which qualifies to be the most market oriented among social entrepreneurship models. This model operates with a premise that, any enterprise (social or commercial) has to generate funds internally for its sustenance. Hence, this model will concentrate on creating surplus by doing business the way it has to be done and in the process create social value or eradicate a social evil.

Limitations:

This research has several limitations, which needs to be deliberated further. All Postulates are deduced through logical deduction of articulated logic from publishedarticles in reputed journals. All of these references are not from the field of social science or developmental studies. Researcher has drawn parallels from the fields of organizational studies, online community studies and operation management to arrive at logical deductions. The researcher had deduced argument based on the assumption that human responses towards social settings will remain by-and-large within allowable boundary conditions. However, the significance of those relationships may only be exacted upon an empirical study, which this article lacks. This research also deduces the antecedents of the construct of social capital by going one step backwards of the dimensions of it. This assumes that there is a mediation effect of all dimensional factors of social capital on all the antecedent relationships. This mediation effect also need to be empirically proven to substantiate the claims of the researcher.

CONCLUSION:

Up to this point, the relationship between social capital and social outcomes was studied in totality and not by looking at, what kind of social capital contributed to the outcome? This review of literatureindicates however, the kind of social capital created by a social intervention will influence the respective social outcome by creating a certain kind of social capital. Following this argument and based on the above discussion, the researcher is proposing that, the creation of social outcome by any social intervention project would dependent on the kind of social capital it created. Hence, this research proposes that the type of social intervention will moderate the process of social capital creation and further to the creation of social outcome.

Future Research Prospect:

If we could identify projects, which satisfies the conditions of different models called charity, funding and market models of social intervention, and empirically measureand analyze data on antecedents of social capital, types of social capital created and social outcomes, we will be able to understand better about all the Postulates discussed in this paper and also understand the moderating effect of the social intervention model on the proposed conceptual framework of creation of social outcome.

REFERENCES:

1. Akhavan, P., and Hosseini, S. M. (2017). Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: an empirical study of R and D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 28(1), 96–113. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1072622

2. Aydinli, A., Bender, M., Chasiotis, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., and Cemalcilar, Z. (2015). Implicit and explicit prosocial motivation as antecedents of volunteering: The moderating role of parenthood. Personality and Individual Differences, (74), 127–132. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.011

3. Azam, M., Ahmed, M., and Urban, B. (2015). Evaluation of social enterpriseoutcomes and self-efficacy. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(3), 163–178. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2013-0071

4. Barnes-Mauthe, M., Allen, S., Arita, S., Lynham, J., and Leung, P. (2015). What Determines Social Capital in a Social–Ecological System? Insights from a Network Perspective. Environment Management, (55), 392–410.

5. Bebbington, A. (2008). Social capital and development studies III: Social capital and the state (seen from Peru). Progress in Development Studies, 8(3), 271–279. http://doi.org/10.1177/146499340800800305

6. Beugelsdijk, S., and Smulders, S. (2003). Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is good for economic growth? ERSA.

7. Bisung, E., Elliott, S. J., Schuster-Wallace, C. J., Karanja, D. M., and Bernard, A. (2014). Social capital, collective action and access to water in rural Kenya. Social Science and Medicine, (119), 147–154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.060

8. Byungjin Yim, and Byunghak Leem. (2013). The effect of the supply chain social capital. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 113(3), 324–349. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02635571311312640

9. Chen, H., Meng, T., Coleman, J., Putnam, R., Ferlander, S., Agampodi, T., … Kawachi, I. (2015). Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital and Self-Rated Health among Chinese Adults: Use of the Anchoring Vignettes Technique. PLOS ONE, 10(11). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142300

10. Cheung, C. kiu, and Leung, K. kwok. (2011). Neighborhood homogeneity and cohesion in sustainable community development. Habitat International, 35, 564–572. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.004

11. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., and Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872–1888. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001

12. Chuang, M.-Y., Chen, C.-J., and Lin, M.-J. J. (2016). The impact of social capital oncompetitive advantageThe mediating effects of collective learningand absorptive capacity. Management Decision, 54(6), 1443–1463.

13. Comer, J. P. (2015). Developing Social Capital in Schools. Society, 52, 225–231. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9891-5

14. Cosyns, H., Van Damme, P., De Wulf, R., and Degrande, A. (2014). Can Rural Development Projects Generate Social Capital? A Case Study of Ricinodendron heudelotii Kernel Marketing in Cameroon. Small-Scale Forestry, (13), 163–182. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-013-9247-1

15. Cristina Viana Campos, A., Marques Borges, C., Maria Duarte Vargas, A., Elisangela Gomes, V., Dutra Lucas, S., and Ferreira Ferreira, E. (2015). Measuring social capital through multivariate analyses for the IQ-SC. BMC Research Notes, 8(11). http://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-0978-2

16. Darcy, S., Maxwell, H., Edwards, M., Onyx, J., and Sherker, S. (2014). More than a sport and volunteer organisation: Investigating social capital development in a sporting organisation. Sport Management Review, (17), 395–406. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.01.003

17. Doh, S., and McNeely, C. L. (2012). A multi-dimensional perspective on social capital and economic development: An exploratory analysis. Annals of Regional Science. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-011-0449-1

18. Doh, S., and Zolnik, E. J. (2011). Social capital and entrepreneurship: An exploratory analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(12), 4961–4975. http://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.095

19. Grant, A. M., and Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission Possible? The Performance of Prosocially Motivated Employees Depends on Manager Trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 927–944. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014391

20. Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. N., Woolcock, M., and The World Bank. (2004). Measuring Social Capital An Integrated Questionnaire.

21. Hays, R. A. (2015). Neighborhood networks, social capital, and political participation: The relationships revisited. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(2), 122–143. http://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12137

22. Hu, J., Jiang, K., Mo, S., Chen, H., and Shi, J. (2016). The motivational antecedents and performance consequences of corporate volunteering: When do employees volunteer and when does volunteering help versus harm work performance? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (137), 99–111. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.005

23. Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 130–149. http://doi.org/10.1108/17508611111156600

24. Kebede, G. F. (2017). Exploring the Social Capital of the Urban Poor for Successful Microenterprise Development Programs in Ethiopia. Urban Forum, (1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-017-9305-4

25. Kitchen, P., Williams, A., and Simone, D. (2012). Measuring Social Capital in Hamilton, Ontario. Social Indicator Research, (108), 215–238. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0063-3

26. Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., and Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 528–545. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.007

27. Lawson, B., Tyler, B. B., and Cousins, P. D. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of social capital on buyer performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 446–460. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.001

28. Li, P. P. (2007). Social tie, social capital, and social behavior: Toward an integrative model of informal exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24, 227–246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-9031-2

29. Li, Y., Ye, F., and Sheu, C. (2014). Social capital, information sharing and performance Evidence from China. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 34(11), 1440–1462. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2013-0132

30. Loebach, P., and Stewart, J. (2015). Vital Linkages: A Study of the Role of Linking Social Capital in a Philippine Disaster Recovery and Rebuilding Effort. Social Justice Research, 28, 339–362. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0246-6

31. Løkke, A.-K. (2016). Social capital and health and job related outcomes: the case of a large municipality. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(1), 17–31. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-12-2014-0055

32. Lyberaki, A., and Paraskevopoulos, C. J. (n.d.). Social capital measurement in greece. OECD-ONS International Conference on Social Capital Measurement London U.K.

33. Manning, P. (2010). Putnam and radical socio-economic theory. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(3), 254–269. http://doi.org/10.1108/03068291011018794

34. Mark S. Granovetter. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2776392.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab87f3322bd56ae73cfb39ab049cf09be

35. McLoughlin, J. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of socialenterprises: The SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 31–48.

36. Moody, M., Littlepage, L., and Paydar, N. (2015). Measuring Social Return on Investment: Lessons from Organizational Implementation of SROI in the Netherlands and the United States. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(1), 19–37. http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21145

37. Nahapiet, J. ;, and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/210947641/fulltextPDF/6126AE45A56F425EPQ/1?accountid=39226

38. Narayan, D., and Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory. Current Sociology, 49(2), 59–102. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011392101049002006

39. Nichols, M. F., and Fernandez, M. (2007). Bridging and bonding capital: pluralist ethnic relations in Silicon Valley. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(5), 104–122. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330210790175

40. Nicholson, S., A Cleland, B. J., and Nicholson snicholson, S. (2016). “‘It’s making contacts’”: notions of social capital and implications for widening access to medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9735-0

41. Oh, H. (2000). Ties That Link: The Antecedents Of Social Capital And Itseffects On Entrepreneurial Success. Thesis, Pen State Uni, Social Entrepreneurship + Social capital.

42. Omorede, A. (2014). Exploration of motivational drivers towards social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 239–267. http://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2013-0014

43. Onyx, Jenny, and Bullen. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), 23.

44. Park, H., Tsusaka, T., Pede, V., and Kim, K.-M. (2017). The Impact of a Local Development Project on Social Capital: Evidence from the Bohol Irrigation Scheme in the Philippines. Water, 9(3), 202. http://doi.org/10.3390/w9030202

45. Paul, N., Sherry, K., Jackson, A., and Prater, E. (2016). Examining the impact of socialization and information sharing and the mediating effect of trust on innovation capability. International Journal of Operations and Production Management International Journal of Operations and amp; Production Management Iss International Journal of Operations and amp; Production Management, 36(11), 1601–1624. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2015-0558

46. Pinho, J. C. (2013). The e-SOCAPIT scale: a multi-item instrument for measuring online social capital. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(3), 216–235. http://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-May-2012-0020

47. Presutti, M., and Boari, C. (2008). Space-related antecedents of social capital: Some empirical inquiries about the creation of new firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-007-0063-y

48. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

49. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Ahmad, A. G., and Barghi, R. (2017). Community participation in World Heritage Site conservation and tourism development. Tourism Management, 58, 142–153. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.016

50. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Jaafar, M., and Ramayah, T. (2017). Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tourism Management, 60, 147–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.019

51. Richey, S. (2007). Manufacturing trust: Community currencies and the creation of social capital. Political Behavior, (29), 69–88. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9028-7

52. Rydin, Y., and Holman, N. (2004). Re‐evaluating the Contribution of Social Capital in Achieving Sustainable Development. Local Environment, 9(2), 117–133. http://doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000199561

53. Salazar, J., Husted, B. W., and Biehl, M. (2012). Thoughts on the Evaluation of Corporate Social Performance Through Projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 175–186. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0957-z

54. Schneider, A. (2016). Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Collectivism, and Everything in Between: Prototypes and Continuous Dimensions. Public Administration Review, 77, 421–431. http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12635

55. Schoenherr, T., Narayanan, S., and Narasimhan, R. (2015). Trust formation in outsourcing relationships: A social exchange theoretic perspective. Intern. Journal of Production Economics, 169, 401–412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.026

56. Shoji, M. N., Haskins, A. R., Rangel, D. E., and Sorensen, K. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, (29), 600–613. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.07.003

57. Stecker, M. J. (2014). Revolutionizing the Nonprofit Sector Through Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Issues / Association for Evolutionary Economics Journal Of Economic Issues, XLVIII (2), 349–357. http://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624480208

58. Subramanian, S. V., Lochner, K. A., and Kawachi, I. (2003). Neighborhood differences in social capital: A compositional artifact or a contextual construct? Health and Place, (9), 33–44. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-8292(02)00028-X

59. Svendsen, G. T., and Lene, H. (2000). Social Capital: A Standard Method of Measurement. In Trust, Social Capital and Economic Growth: An International Comparison. Retrieved from http://www.hha.dk/eok/nat/staff/gts_form.htm

60. The World Bank. (n.d.). Instruments of the Social Capital Assessment Tool.

61. Titeca, K., and Vervisch, T. (2008). The Dynamics of Social Capital and Community Associations in Uganda: Linking Capital and its Consequences. World Development, 36(11), 2205–2222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.021

62. Tom Healy, and Sylvain Côté. (2001). The Well-being of Nations The Role Of Human And Social Capital Education And Skills The Well-Being Of Nations Education And Skills. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforum/33703702.pdf

63. Urban, B. (2015). An Exploratory Study on Outcomes of Social Enterprises in South Africa. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 23(2), 271–297. http://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495815500090

64. Vajja, A., and White, H. (2008). Can the World Bank Build Social Capital? The Experience of Social Funds in Malawi and Zambia. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(8), 1145–1168. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220380802242404

65. Whitman, J. R. (2009). Social Entrepreneurship syllabus. John R. Whitman. Harvard University Extension School.

66. Woolcock, M. (2001). The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes. Development Research Group, World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/innovation/research/1824913.pdf

67. Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.

68. Yamaoka, K., Tomosho, T., Mizoguchi, M., and Sugiura, M. (2008). Social capital accumulation through public policy systems implementing paddy irrigation and rural development projects. Paddy and Water Environment, (6), 115–128. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-008-0113-2

69. Zetter, R., Griffiths, D., Sigona, N., Flynn, D., Pasha, T., and Beynon, R. (2006). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: What are the links? Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Received on 08.05.2019 Modified on 31.05.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(3):891-898.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00147.5