INTERNAL DYNAMICS IN COMMUNITY SOCIAL CAPITAL. AN EXPLANATORY STRUCTURAL MODEL

The notion of social capital has been discussed in detail in the research literature, and its components have been analyzed. However, little research has been conducted into the internal influence relationships between them so as to determine explanatory orders and differentiate between elements which are causes and elements which, on the other hand, are a product or consequence 4 This article is a revised, corrected and expanded version of a preliminary text by the author, “An approach to the concept of social capital through the structural modelling technique.” SOCIOLOGIADOS. Revista de Investigación Social Vol. 1, n.o 1, 2016; pp. 49-64 ISSN: 2445-2661 DOI: 10.14198/socdos.2016.1.1.02 of the former in social capital formation. This article presents the testing and empirical assessment of a model comprising four key variables in this area: sociability, associative activity, identification with everyday spatiality and soli darity. The analysis results show the importance of the variable “informal so ciability” in the case of Spain for the development of the remaining elements comprising social capital, as well as the mediating role of the spatial dimension. These aspects are relatively opaque in many analyses about this concept.


INTRODUCTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OBJECT OF STUDY
The study of community social capital in modern societies has gradually become a fundamental line of research in order to understand the dynamics of democracy and their internal mobilization processes.In reality, though, it is an object of study which goes beyond the scope of social sciences; in fact, at a moment of social uncertainty as to the aspects which shape collective identities and collective will-building processes, this concept is a major focus of attention in institutional, administrative or political contexts.Paldam (2000) described social capital as "the glue that holds societies together."According to Teorell (2000), social capital is formed by "different facets of the networks connecting people to their social environment."As can be imagined, its transcendence in these terms has given rise to comprehensive literature about it.As Fine aptly points out (Fine, 2001), when conducting a literature review of social capital, we immediately find ourselves chasing a target that moves and multiplies at a pace that defies our capacity to catch up.This should not be taken as an excuse but rather as a warning about the scope of the object of study in question.Theories such as those concerning social capital are made up of constructions from a wide array of disciplines, including sociology, economics, political science or anthropology.As a result, a variety of approaches have been adopted, sometimes in parallel, sometimes challenging other views, as we will see.
One of the facets shared by the various theories about social capital has to do with the nature of this concept.What is social capital?How is it theoretically defined, how is it empirically measured?There are ongoing debates on these issues in the literature.As a property of the system of relationships connecting an agent with its social environment, this concept refers neither to "physical capital", such as material property or income, nor to "human capital", for instance knowledge, information or other cognitive dispositions.The intrinsic feature of social capital is that it is relational, hence its remarkable explanatory poten-tial in a complex, heterogeneous and increasingly fragmented society, such as the one we live in today.That is why social capital has been widely accepted as an interesting theoretical approach for understanding and predicting the inter-agent relationships taking place within social structures.The idea of social capital, therefore, is persuasive for two main reasons.Firstly, this concept is focused on the positive aspects of interpersonal relationships, thus setting aside their most negative features.Secondly, in spite of the economic implications that, in the view of several authors, are inherent to its development, the idea at the heart of social capital is that of non-monetary capital as a source of power and influence (Pope, 2003).
From this basic consensus, the methods to discuss social capital clearly differ depending on the trend of thought.As noted by López, Martín and Romero in their literature review (2007), theoretical and practical research in this area differs both in the conceptualization of the object of study itself and in the variables it comprises.For the purposes of this article, the most interesting recent approaches, which also propose a variety of reasons on which the internal logic of social capital is based, are the ones put forward by Bourdieu, Putnam and Coleman.
Bourdieu addresses the notion of social capital by emphasizing the growing benefits of individuals when they participate in groups, as well as the deliberate construction of sociability in order to create resources.These resources, in theory, comprise three existing forms of capital -economic, cultural and social-, which come into effect and legitimize their property by means of a fourth form of capital: symbolic capital.This author makes specific reference to the term "potential resources" to stress the fact that being employed by an individual is not a requirement for these resources to be considered social capital -it is enough that they could potentially be used at some time, that is, they must be within the social network the subject belongs to (Portocarrero, 2003).Symbolic exchanges enhance a sort of group solidarity which transforms sporadic relationships into durable ones, based on mutual acquaintance and, consequently, on homogeneity.These forms of capital (economic, cultural and social) are, according to Bourdieu, the key factors determining each agent's positions and possibilities in any social field.It is thus a resource which must be connected with the fact of belonging to a group and with social networks: "the volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent thus depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize" (Bourdieu, 1985).Belonging to groups and actively participating in the social networks developed within them, as well as the social relationships born from this, can improve the agents' position in a huge variety of fields.Differences in the con-trol of social capital may explain why the same set of economic and cultural capital can result in different degrees of benefit, power and influence in different agents.The social capital creation originated by this belonging multiplies the influence of other forms of capital.A second feature of this author's approach to social capital is the importance of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu, 1998).This is how it becomes symbolic and transforms into symbolic capital.Bourdieu draws a parallel between the concepts of symbolic capital and legitimate capital, as symbolic capital is the one defining the forms and uses of capital which are recognized as the legitimate basis of the social positions in a given society.Symbolic capital exists and grows only in inter-subjective reflection, and only there can it be recognized.Economic and social capital have their own modes of existence (money, diplomas, etc.), but symbolic capital exists only "in others' eyes."The development of social networks would depend, at the same time, on individual subjective feelings (recognition, respect and communality) and on the safety allowed by the rest of the subjects in the community.To that end Bourdieu develops the concept of 'habitus', so as to include the subjective role played by the agents who are within the objective structures of society, understood as a set of dispositions, reflexes and forms of conduct gained by the subjects through their action in society.
Coleman, for his part, defines social capital, according to its function, as "a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors -whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure" (Coleman, 1988).What is important here in order to understand social capital are the rules, obligations and forms established by relationships in social life, in which subjects can use their positions to develop social capital as a cumulative resource.
Although Bourdieu' s and Coleman' s conceptualizations set the boundaries of a common field, we can find a basic difference between them regarding how they understand the dynamics of the social processes in which social capital takes part.Bourdieu considers that these social processes are constrained by the underlying economic organization; Coleman, on the other hand, thinks that they are created by individuals' free will (even if with their actions they are trying to achieve an economic goal).Bourdieu argues that the presence of benefits is the true reason behind the solidarity which makes a group possible; the economic structural organization underlies the creation of social capital -which, in Coleman' s view, is created by rational individuals who build social capital so as to maximize their individual chances.Therefore, he sees social capital as some sort of contract concluded between individuals who are not influenced by the underlying economic factors.
Based mainly on these two authors' works, it will be in the 1990s when theoretical and empirical studies about the concept of social capital flourish.The best-known definition of social capital is probably Putnam' s, for whom it consists of "features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions" (Putnam, 1993).According to Putnam, the concept of social capital actually conveys the sociological essence of community vitality, and in his definition he proposes three basic elements: norms and moral obligations, social values (especially trust) and social networks (particularly voluntary associations).In parallel to Putnam, other authors have developed and examined the features of social capital.Portes (Portes, 1998), for instance, distinguishes three functions applicable in a variety of contexts in a society: social capital as a source of social control, as a source of family support and as a source of benefits through extrafamilial networks.This contribution delves into the economic impact on subjects caused by the establishment of social capital, which, in some cases, has limited the scope of research to this area.As a consequence, studies on social capital have occasionally tended towards a certain economic reductionism.As commented above, it is not the objective of this document to discuss these implications; it is nevertheless necessary, in our opinion, to clearly state that the premise of this theoretical system, shared by Coleman and Putnam, among others, is that individuals' ability to gain access to economic rewards and resources increases with the existence of networks they end up joining.Therefore, individuals' major motivation for participating, for organizing themselves, for developing "togetherness" (that is, feeling together) is the increase of social capital, thus turning subjects, in Navarro' s words (2003), into "social capitalists."Under the analytical objectives of this text, however, a different approach is conceived, according to which subjects' mo tivations to participate in the community and develop all the features of social capital are, at the very least, complex enough to go beyond the mere economic interests of individual actions.In this sense, it coincides with Eva Cox' s general idea, adding to the previous definitions that social capital is ultimately "a measure of satisfaction of the way we interact", assuming the no tion of social capital as a broader concept in which, as Charry (2003) suggests, we deal with a multi-dimensioned concept expressing the direct relation between trust, civic participation, associativity, social engagement and reciprocity, thus enhancing individual and collective capacities for action, regardless of whether these have an instrumental or an expressive purpose.
Under this broader perspective, we should then delimit its main components to subsequently analyze their place in the social capital development process.In this regard, in this article we have basically taken into account four elements: subjects' sociability, their associative activity, their identity with their everyday environments of existence, and finally, community engagement as a key aspect which defines and is a practical result of social capital development.These elements will be, precisely, the dimensions examined in the later empirical analysis.
Sociability plays an obvious role in the formation of relational networks and identities.The concept of sociability emerges as a driving force in the development of socio-cultural processes, especially in the context of today' s urban societies.Now a consensus seems to have been reached regarding the establishment of processes for weakening or disarticulating traditional spaces for formal sociability (work, political parties, churches, etc.) and the corporate groups they establish, thus making way for new and much vaguer forms of social interaction, with generalist as well as sectorial goals, which take the place of traditional participation channels.In social capital theories, this sociability would employ primary institutions (family, friends, primary groups to which we belong, leisure settings) as a framework for the creation and crystallization of interpersonal networks generating social capital.Simmel defined sociability as the play-form of socialization, and the truth is that subjects' interaction seems to have a rational and intentional component, but also an affective component which allows identification and makes relationships significant.In Maffesoli's words (1990), the role of sociability is to generate an "informal underground centrality" to guarantee life in society.Therefore, in post-modern societies, characterized by complex structures, there is a shift from contractual groupings, typical of the economic-political organization of modern societies, to affective micro groupings.In Maffesoli' s view, we are faced with a trend by which the rationalized social is substituted by a sociability founded on empathy, co-existing with an opposite process of progressive massification in interaction patterns.For the purposes of our analysis, oriented towards the study of the internal dynamics of social capital, sociability will be understood as a large primary space of social interaction in which subjects engage in dynamic interactions, thus creating groupings which are diverse in form but articulated through symbolic exchanges based primarily on affective and everyday elements, and also playing a big role in the generation of identities.With this in mind, aspects such as the importance the subject attaches to family, friends or leisure time are relevant.Social ties provide people with strong roots in the community, a sense of empowerment.Besides, social interaction in these primary groups gives rise to a "socialization experience" promoting certain forms of conduct.Strong ties, which enhance cooperation among people and are more easily and immediately accessible, as well as weak ties, which give access to information and resources other than the ones available in an individual' s social circle and act as bridges between two or more groups, contribute to the consolidation of a community' s social capital.
The space of sociability is formally, but only partially, covered by the specific manifestation of associative activity, which is the main framework for expressing the sociability organized in industrialized urban societies.According to Putnam and others, voluntary associations play a key a role as instruments for social capital creation, since they provide the subject with multiple assets (Sáiz and Jiménez, 2008): they facilitate social connections, propose social norms, are a pedagogical instrument of socialization, enhance cooperation, etc. Above all, though, they are fundamental in converting interpersonal trust into generalized trust, that is, attitudes and actions in which individual actors do something for the common good not because they are acquainted with the other actors, but rather because they are confident that their own actions will be recognized through the positive development of community relations.Intersubjective relationships at the micro level produce, in the first place, recipro city and affinity, and in the second place, as an unintentional consequence of these choices, trust at the macro level, as well as integrative values which inter-subjectively ratify the trust expressed through sociability networks.Associative activity thus generates a sense of solidarity in a group of people and institutionalizes the capital being accumulated through its members' actions.This generalized trust, in turn, lays the foundations for creating and developing formal social networks and alternative associations.In terms of social capital, then, we could say that trust generation forms a circle (Siisiäinen, 2000): trust creates reciprocity and voluntary associations, and these strengthen trust.
But all these collective actions and predispositions do not operate in a vacuum.The context provided by the immediate everyday coexistence framework is another indispensable element in the formation of social capital, in this case spatial identification.Here the qualification of space is fundamental in developing interpersonal relationships and identities.In this regard, subjects' spatial reality is, therefore, relational.Space is not only bounded by individuals' physical presence; it also is "the substrate on which the interaction of the different groups is traced" (García, 1976).This way a non-neutral space is arranged, a space which is symbolically appropriated by means of social interaction practices involving several actors, whether individuals or groups; a space on which subjects operate by decoding its meanings.Consequently sociability and trust networks, both informal and formal, get gradually involved in the space they live in, and this space becomes part of the social capital generated within these networks.In this sense, spaces act as catalysts for interpersonal contact and, as mentioned above, are a framework which activates relations.Spaces are territories where subjects, from everyday complexity, engage in "inhabiting", as opposed to the "habitat" generated by the segregated and functional conception of space (Rodríguez Villasante, 1998).Becoming involved in the local context, in everyday spaces, does not normally appear as a component of social capital, but we understand that it is a very important element which emerges as the territorial framework within which social capital development takes place.
Finally, the fourth element of social capital we analyze is solidarity, considered to be, together with trust, one of the resulting social values inherent to the dynamics of social capital.In this context, solidarity is understood as a prerequisite to set social capital in motion: it indicates a sense of belonging to a social group in terms of orientation towards community development and action, so, if there is no sense of solidarity, the action of these networks will hardly crystallize.Thus, the presence of solidarity would enable the establishment of what authors such as Pizzorno call "social capital of reciprocity", consisting of the "relationship between two parts, in which one anticipates the other' s help when pursuing their goals, to the extent that it is assumed that a dyadic relationship of mutual support is formed" (quoted by Sáiz and Jiménez, 2008).A high degree of interaction and belief in common norms, associated with a sense of identity in the networks we belong to, reduces the need for formal controls (Adler and Kwon, 2002), as solidarity among group members is what facilitates the successful development of social capital.From this perspective, solidarity emerges as a result of interaction, whether formal or informal, and of the shared feelings of identity, an issue we will discuss in the analysis.

OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES
In this text we aim to examine the social capital process, focusing the analysis on its behavioural component and therefore setting aside other possible components or effects, such as the economic potential generated by social capital creation and establishment.While we are aware that some dimensions which are commonly accepted to be part of the notion of social capital are not included in the structural model proposed here, this model is an attempt at empirically studying the elements it comprises.A satisfactory empirical treatment of social capital has yet to be found; investigations linking theoretical production to its manifestation in reality are somewhat scarce, even if some significant partial studies have been carried out (see Narayan and Cassidy, 2001;Hjollund and Svendsen, 2000).In any case, most empirical analyses are devo -ted to finding out the components -the dimensions-of the notion of social capital, or to demonstrating the positive effects of its development in communities or social agents.Establishing a structural model should allow us to go towards an explanatory knowledge, in which we do not merely describe and account for the existence of the variety of components but also try to determine how they interact, how they are articulated, their driving forces.In summary, this article is primarily aimed at identifying the structural order of the four variables inherent to social capital analyzed here: sociability, associative activity, spatial identification and solidarity, so as to show the dynamic internal logic of the concept of social capital.
In order to achieve this goal, we propose an explanatory model comprising the working hypotheses to be compared in the analysis, which are based on the idea that the generating principle of social capital is the everyday sociability taking place in the informal networks in which subjects interact.Thus, the hypotheses refer to what Robert Putnam calls "bonding social capital", that is, relationships between relatively homogeneous groups with strong ties.These informal networks (family, friends, colleagues, etc.) are the spaces where individuals' trust and reciprocity are established, if common experiences develop satisfactorily.It is also the place where values, norms and sanctions are internalized, where bridges, ties and connections giving access to other social networks appear.Indeed, from everyday sociability networks, a process of community involvement -to a greater or lesser extent-is developed and relationships with formal networks are established, forming what Putnam calls "bridging social capital."Here ties are weaker and more heterogeneous, and in the case of social participation they usually crystallize through associative practices or groups.The first hypothesis, therefore, refers to the idea that membership of and interaction in voluntary groups (associative activity) results from satisfactory informal sociability processes.Civil organizations would thus be the place where, according to Mauro Wolf (1979), "the reciprocally attributed trust and the reciprocally affirmed morality are proved," enhancing the development of extended solidarity feelings (Hypothesis 2).Following the same logic, a high degree of informal sociability would also be at the root of and explain subjects' identity with everyday space (Hypothesis 3).And in parallel to this process, the sense of solidarity would also be catalyzed through spatial identification (Hypothesis 4) -"spatial" is understood in this case as the everyday territorial environment, thus giving rise to the spatial or territorial component we add to the notion of social capital.This way, the symbolic appropriation of territory through sociability may promote the establishment of attitudes of solidarity.Thus, we formulate a hypothetical model in which subjects' solidarity stems from the interaction between the concept of sociability as an engine-generator of social capital and the positive reinforcement its development has on the ties to everyday territory (spatial identification) as well as on associative activity as the formal expression of the trust generated through sociability.

METHODOLOGY
The empirical basis for the projected analysis employs the data of a 2002 CIS (Spanish Sociological Research Centre) survey on "Citizenship, participation and democracy" (Study 2450).Even if this database is not recent, we have chosen it because it is the only identified survey in Spain dealing with the variables used in the analysis.In spite of that, we assume that the results do not distort the current reality, as the processes underlying social capital formation are structural rather than short-term.
In order to validate the proposed theoretical model and empirically test the working hypotheses, the analysis is based on the structural equation modelling technique.To that end, the LISREL (V8.8) software program has been employed.
The four variables comprising the model are considered to be latent variables.In this case, they are measured as follows: • The latent variable "Informal sociability" is measured by means of three indicator variables: importance the subject attaches to family in his or her life, importance the subject attaches to friends in his or her life, and importance the subject attaches to leisure time in his or her life.The three variables are measured on a scale ranging from 0=Not important at all to 10=Very important.• The latent variable "Identification with everyday spatiality" is measured by means of two indicator variables: subject' s attachment to the neighbourhood in which he or she lives, and subject' s attachment to the town or city in which he or she lives.Both variables are measured on a scale ranging from 0=None at all to 10=Much.• The latent variable "Associative activity" is measured by means of two indicator variables: subject' s membership of civic organizations and subject' s participation in civic organizations' activities.Both variables in this case are dichotomized according to the following values: 0=No; 1=Yes.• The variable "Solidarity" is measured by means of two indicator variables: importance the subject attaches to showing solidarity with people in a worse situation, and importance the subject attaches to thinking of others rather than on him or herself.Both variables are measured on a scale ranging from 0=None at all to 10=Much.
Out of all cases, a total of 3782 replied to all the variables included in the model and were consequently valid for analysis.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The assessment, testing and analysis of the results obtained from the model have been carried out through two strategies: firstly, assessing the general model fit to the data by means of goodness of fit indices, and secondly, testing the significance of the diagram coefficients, which help us assess the dependency relationships between the variables included in the model.The results are presented below:

Assessment of goodness of fit indices
The most frequent goodness of fit indices in model validation are the following: Chi-square test, degrees of freedom, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) and p-Value.The resulting Chi-square value is relatively low (22.90) and furthermore fits the degrees of freedom ( 22), which indicates a good fit.In any case, given how sensitive this measure is to sample size, many researchers have proposed a wide array of indices to assess model fit.All goodness of fit measures are functions of chi-square and degrees of freedom, and many of these indices take into account not only model fit, but also its sim-plicity.Jöreskog and Sörbom, creators of the Lisrel software program, also recommend two goodness of fit indices called GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) and AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index).Rex Kline (1998), regarding structural model fit assessment, recommends finding out and interpreting the results of another three statistical tests: NFI (Normed Fit Index), NNFI (Non Normed Fit Index) and SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual).Below are the results of all these indices for the proposed model.As can be observed, the values of the fit indices are within the ranges considered to be acceptable.The fit tests show a very low RMSEA (0.003), as well as a probability much greater than 0.005 (p = 0.407), which indicates that the model correctly fits the data.

Figure 2. Values of global model fit indices
Significance of the relationship coefficients from the diagram.
The diagrams have been interpreted in order to describe and assess the dependency relationships between the variables included in the model.We now present the model diagram in its standardized solution.
When interpreting the results of the structural model, the values of the dependency relationships outlined in our initial hypothesis are significant, and therefore validated.The dependency relationships established by sociability as a source of community engagement are consistent as a whole (0.18 for identification with everyday spatiality, 0.08 for associative activity and 0.16 for its direct relationships with solidarity-related attitudes).The values of the relationships between the latent dependent variables are valid as well: 0.17 for the relationship between spatial identity and solidarity, and 0.12 for the relationship between associative activity and solidarity.
In summary, we can conclude that the empirical fit of the model is correct and validates the theoretical proposals developed about the dependency relationships between the elements of social capital studied here.

CONCLUSIONS
In light of the results obtained from the analysis, social capital is not a product formed by a juxtaposed amalgam of the characteristics through which it deve lops.Quite the contrary, when the relationships between its elements are at stake, we discover a structure representing an internal dynamic in which we can differentiate between driving forces and results within the notion of social capital.
Sociability, as confirmed above, seems to be a good predictor of the other analyzed elements comprising the idea of social capital, both directly and  .17 .75 .

53
.12 .99 .00 .44 .72 through parallel processes it brings about.Contrary to the interpretations offered by certain explanatory approaches, the product of social capital is not formed in subjects' formal interaction contexts, in organizational networksactually, the trust and generalized reciprocity produced by these settings stem from subjects' actions within everyday sociability spheres.This idea would undermine the theses taking an instrumental approach to the articulation of social capital formation.This purpose-oriented conception of social capital is substituted by a more expressive conception, in which social capital is not a group of rational subjects seeking to optimize their individual chances through participation in collective contexts, but can be understood, rather, as a product added to the contact between social subjects and agents in various socialization networks.Networks which are rooted in the expressive need for subject interaction, whether in the informal contexts in which everyday sociability takes place or within formal networks in which the subjects' trust in the other agents is put to a test.Based on the result of the proposed model, a satisfactory and rewarding primary sociability allows individuals to project trust in formal sociability spaces, which ultimately act as vehicles for community engagement and solidarity.From this standpoint, social capital would expand from concretion -what takes place every day and is affective-to abstraction, which is community-based, rational and socially desirable.
In our view, including the element of identification with everyday spatiality in the analysis should be particularly highlighted; after all, it makes reference to the impact of space or territory on social capital formation.It is an element which, in most approaches, is not emphasized as a factor promoting or forming social capital in a community.Nevertheless, as seen in the model presented above, it is a crucial bridge which channels informal, affective and expressive everyday sociability, with the necessary development of extended solidarity attitudes.Therefore, it seems relevant to take into account the integrative function of territory between formal and informal coexistence spheres, by virtue of which physical space acts as the substrate or context where subjects engage in actions and exchanges, and which, ultimately, emerges as an element generating social capital.
As already commented, the model proposed in the analysis does not examine all the components of a concept as broad in scope as social capital, but it does try to go beyond the merely descriptive knowledge about this concept (a list of components) in an effort to reach an explanatory knowledge (how these components are internally related and generate a structure).Consequently, we intended to explicitly state the dynamic nature which lies within a far-reaching social process such as this one.We thus understand that it is not enough to know the factors which determine social capital development in a territory or in a certain set of actors.Instead, we should try and examine their internal relationships, how the dependency relationships between the concepts comprising social capital are established.In this way we will be able to determine the aspects which generate something (social capital in this case) and should be highlighted, and those which ultimately appear as a product or consequence of the former.

Figure
Figure 1.Theoretical model and causal hypotheses

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Structural model of internal dynamics of community social capital