1 the spatial dimension of social capital: an exploration zong-rong lee 李宗榮 institute of...

1

The Spatial Dimension of Social Capital: An Exploration

Zong-Rong Lee李宗榮

Institute of SociologyAcademia SinicaTaipei, Taiwan

2

Spatially Bounded Social Interactions

Earlier writers have found that people are localized in their social contacts and that their interactions are mediated by conditions of urbanization and locals of neighborhood where they dwell in (Park, Fisher 1982, Wellman…)

Geographical and social space structure the likelihood of social interactions; proximate actors form ties more frequently and have stronger influence on each other. (Festinger 1950; W. White1956; Blau 1977)

Other similar studies on mate selection, political attitude, social trips between city areas etc.

Spatially proximate companies are more likely to share directors. Mints and Schwartz (1985); Kono et al, (1998) Burt (2006)

The likelihood that a venture capitalist invests in a new target declines with the distance between venture capitalist and its target. Sorensen and Stuart (2000)

3

Spatial Dimension of Social Capital? Social Capital: resources embedded in a social networks that can be accessed and

mobilized in instrumental actions (Lin 2001)

> Is there a spatial dimension behind the generation of social capital? And if so, what’s its pattern?

1. As social capital represents the network embedded resources and is mostly unequally distributed, is there any spatial association of this distribution? Do people endowed with different levels of social capital also show differences in geographic reach?

2. What social economic factors account for such differences? For example, do people of a higher status (e.g, job prestige, education, wealth) tend to have a social capital of a higher geographic reach, or vice versa?

3. Studies show consistent impact of social capital on instrumental actions. How may this effect be conditioned by the factor of proximity. What kind of roles does the factor of spatial distance play in the process of instrumental actions where the effect of social capital is at work?

4

Sample: Social Capital Survey, USA 2007 Cross-Sectional Data. (n=1443 )

Distance measurement in Position-Generator module

Is there anyone you know who is a NURSE? [Yes, No.]

Typically, how long does it take you to travel to meet this person?

(1) Less than 15 minutes(2) 15-30 minutes(3) 30-60 minutes(4) 1-2 hours(5) 2-3 hours(6) 3-5 hours(7) 5-12 hours(8) more than 12 hours

Distance to Accessed Position

5

Social Relations Tend to be LOCAL

76.7% of all reported ties fall within a 1 hour distance range between egos and reached alters.

(1433 respondents report 10807 ties for 22 positions)

010

2030

40%

of T

otal

N

<15min. 15-30min.30-60min. 1-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-5hrs 5-12hrs >12hrs

6

N=1433

Position (Prestige Score)

% of Respondent Accessing

Average Respondent

Prestige

Average Distance (1-8)

Professor (78) 40.27 50.80 3.29 Lawyer (73) 59.39 48.67 3.12 CEO (70) 22.12 49.32 3.21 Congressman (64) 16.61 48.58 3.21 Production manager (60) 17.24 46.00 2.53 Middle school teacher (60) 33.43 47.18 2.30 Personnel manager (60) 45.64 48.57 2.26 Writer (57) 25.33 50.61 3.36 Nurse (54) 72.09 47.64 2.88 Administrative assistant (53) 34.40 49.19 2.51 Computer programmer (51) 44.45 49.10 2.91 Bookkeeper (49) 29.59 48.42 2.60 Farmer (47) 41.10 47.07 3.46 Policeman (40) 50.59 47.05 2.39 Receptionist (38) 38.38 48.43 2.09 Operator in a factory (34) 23.10 44.62 2.53 Hair dresser (32) 60.78 47.05 2.10 Taxi driver (31) 9.49 43.35 2.26 Security guard (30) 25.75 45.00 2.27 Janitor (25) 34.12 47.97 1.95 Babysitter (23) 26.80 46.63 1.81 Hotel bell boy (22) 3.49 46.48 3.06

Some Descriptive Statistics ( 22 positions)

7

Correlation

N=22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Ave. Distance .61* .47* .45* .06 .26 .20 .61* .24 .29 2. Position Prestige .64* .70* .51* .25 -.18 .42 .51* .43* 3. Ego Prestige .96* .31 .16 -.19 .32 .58* .11 4. Ego Education .36 .24 -.28 .31 .63* .19 5. Ego Income .19 -.37 .21 .19 .47* 6. Weak Tie (%) -.65* .33 .03 .60* 7. Kin (%) -.28 .03 -.42 8. Executive (%) .08 .29 9. White (%) .18 10 .Age * Significance at 5%

8

“Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”

prfssr_78

lwyr_73ceo_70

cngrss_64

prmgr_60prdmgr_60 tchr_60wtr_57

nrs_54 adasst_53prgmmr_51

bkkp_49fmr_47

plcman_40rcpnist_38

oprtr_34hrdrssr_32taxid_31 secur_30

jntr_25bbstr_23bllb_22

2040

6080

Pre

stig

e of

Acc

esse

d P

ositi

on

14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5ave. ego-edu

Fitted values prestige

9

nrs_54wtr_57

fmr_47

lwyr_73

tchr_60

bbstr_23jntr_25

prmgr_60

adasst_53

hrdrssr_32

bkkp_49

secur_30

prdmgr_60

oprtr_34

prgmmr_51

rcpnist_38

cngrss_64

taxid_31

prfssr_78

bllb_22

plcman_40

ceo_70

2040

6080

Pre

stig

e of

Acc

esse

d P

ositi

on

44 46 48 50 52Ave. Ego-Prestige


Prestige Homophily and Social Networking

People of a higher status tend to connect with others also of a higher status.

10

Distance is NOT a Function of Income Level

prfssr_78

lwyr_73ceo_70cngrss_64

prmgr_60

prdmgr_60

tchr_60

wtr_57

nrs_54

adasst_53

prgmmr_51

bkkp_49

fmr_47

plcman_40

rcpnist_38

oprtr_34

hrdrssr_32

taxid_31secur_30

jntr_25

bbstr_23

bllb_22

1.5

22.

53

3.5

Ave

rage

Dis

tanc

e

17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20Ave. Ego's Income

Fitted values distance

11

Ego’s Prestige vs. Distance to Accessed Position

nrs_54

wtr_57fmr_47

lwyr_73

tchr_60

bbstr_23

jntr_25

prmgr_60

adasst_53

hrdrssr_32

bkkp_49

secur_30

prdmgr_60oprtr_34

prgmmr_51

rcpnist_38

cngrss_64

taxid_31

prfssr_78

bllb_22

plcman_40

ceo_701.

52

2.5

33.

5av

e. d

ista

nce

44 46 48 50 52ave. ego-prestige


Respondents of a higher job prestige tend to have spatially distant networks (that are also more likely to be high in job prestige)

12

Spatial Distance vs. Positions PrestigePercentage Distribution of Respondents’ Distances to 22 Positions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

bllb

_22

bbst

r_23

jntr_

25

secu

r_30

taxi

d_31

hrdr

ssr_

32

oprtr

_34

rcpn

ist_

38

plcm

an_4

0

fmr_

47

bkkp

_49

prgm

mr_

51

adas

st_5

3

nrs_

54

wtr_

57

tchr

_60

prm

gr_6

0

prdm

gr_6

0

cngr

ss_6

4

ceo_

70

lwyr

_73

prfs

sr_7

8

>12hr

5~12hr

3~5hr

2~3hr

1~2hr

30~60m.

15~30m.

<15min.

13

Spatial Distance vs. Position Prestige

nrs_54wtr_57

fmr_47

lwyr_73

tchr_60

bbstr_23jntr_25

prmgr_60

adasst_53

hrdrssr_32

bkkp_49

secur_30

prdmgr_60

oprtr_34

prgmmr_51

rcpnist_38

cngrss_64

taxid_31

prfssr_78

bllb_22

plcman_40

ceo_70

20

40

60

80

Pre

stig

e o

f A

cce

sse

d P

ositi

on

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Average Distance


The distance b/w egos and alters is highly associated with alter job prestige. Valuable networks are geographically distant!

14

A Prestige-Spatial Network Structure

1.Respondents with higher education level, job prestige are more likely to access valuable networks. (human capital principle).

2.They are also more likely to extend the reach of their networks beyond their surrounding geographic neighborhood.

3.The prestige of accessed positions is highly associated with the geographical distances between egos and reached alters.

A Three Way Interaction! Individuals of a higher social status tend to have spatially distant

networks that are also more likely to be of a higher status.

When the principle of homophily is working so that two persons both demonstrating high job prestige will be more inclined to maintain their friendship, the underlying fact is that their geographic distance from each other more likely will be greater than that of others.

15

Executives Have Greater Geographic ReachDistance vs. Percentage of Executive Respondents

nrs_54

wtr_57fmr_47

lwyr_73

tchr_60

bbstr_23

jntr_25

prmgr_60

adasst_53

hrdrssr_32

bkkp_49

secur_30

prdmgr_60oprtr_34

prgmmr_51

rcpnist_38

cngrss_64

taxid_31

prfssr_78

bllb_22

plcman_40

ceo_70

1.5

22.

53

3.5

ave.

dis

tanc

e

.08 .1 .12 .14 .16 .18executive (%)


16

The Strength of Distant Ties

Remember that valuable networks tend to be geographically distant. Do they give STRENGTH?

Empirical test on acquisition of job information

J1. Now I would like you to think of the last months, did someone mention job possibilities, openings or opportunities to you, without your asking, in casual conversation? (1) Yes (0) No

Would social capital at different geographical distances deliver differing effects? Would distant ties fare better?

Previous Studies: Weak Ties (Granovetter) Social Capital: extensity, range, upper prestige (Lin) Structural Holes: brokerage position (Burt)

17

Variables

Extensity: the number of positions accessed (0~22)Highest Prestige: prestige score of highest position accessed Range: range of the prestige scores of positioned accessed (difference b/w highest and

lowest scores)

Sum of Distance (1~8) for 22 accessed positionsMean of Distance for 22 accessed positions

In general, we expect social capital that is geographical distant to deliver a better effect on an individual’s acquisition of job information.

Social Capital

<30min.

30min~2hrs

2hrs~5hrs

5hrs~12hrs

Extensity ExtensityD1 ExtensityD2 ExtensityD3 ExtensityD4 Highest Prestige SC_HighD1 SC_HighD2 SC_HighD3 SC_HighD4 Range SC_RangeD1 SC_RangeD2 SC_RangeD3 SC_RangeD4

18

Determination of Receipt of Routine Job Information [exp (B): odds ratio]

Variable Model 1 Model 2

Agea

Age (squared)a

Male Native born Race/ethnicity (base: non-Latino white)

African-American Latino Other

Marrieda

Year of education

Social Capital Extensity Extensity_D1

Extensity_D2 Extensity_D3 Extensity_D4

1.000 (.994) 1.000 (.672) 1.143 (.311) 1.338 (.202) 0.544*** (.005) 1.947*** (.001) 1.167 (.613) 0.931 (.608) 1.030 (.124) 1.078*** (.001)

1.003 (.954) 1.000 (.617) 1.127 (.366) 1.371 (.170) 0.566*** (.009) 1.975*** (.001) 1.149 (.650) 0.935 (.635) 1.020 (.296) 1.046** (.016) 1.134*** (.001) 1.148** (.017) 1.182*** (.001)

Observations 1,411 1,411

* Significance at 10%; ** Significance at 5%; ***significance at 1%

>The further the network extensity, the greater its effect!>Network resources bounded locally get discounted!

19

>Network range further away has greater effect!>The greatest effect is at third distance (D3) level.

Determination of Receipt of Routine Job Information [exp (B): odds ratio]


Agea

Age (squared)a



Marrieda

Year of education

Social Capital SC_Range SC_Range_D1 SC_Range_D2 SC_Range_D3 SC_Range_D4

1.009 (.853) 1.000 (.557) 1.160 (.259) 1.410 (.131) 0.577*** (.010) 1.937*** (.001) 1.196 (.557) 0.939 (.654) 1.031 (.108) 1.018*** (.001) --->

1.014 (.771) 1.000 (.488) 1.139 (.327) 1.400 (.141) 0.578** (.011) 1.939*** (.001) 1.133 (.684) 0.954 (.736) 1.023 (.233) 1.008** (.025) 1.013*** (.003) 1.019*** (.007) 1.016*** (.005)

Observations 1411 1411


20

>Upper network prestige that is further away has stronger effect.

Determination of receipt of routine job information [exp (B): odds ratio]


Agea

Age (squared)a



Marrieda

Year of education

Social Capital SC_High SC_High_D1 SC_High_D2 SC_High_D3 SC_High_D4

1.014 (.765) 1.000 (.482) 1.132 (.346) 1.406 (.134) 0.586** (.013) 1.905*** (.002) 1.161 (.624) 0.946 (.689) 1.029 (.140) 1.020*** (.001)

1.014 (.777) 1.000 (.486) 1.140 (.324) 1.429 (.122) 0.602** (.019) 1.995*** (.001) 1.096 (.765) 0.944 (.683) 1.018 (.372) 1.005 (.102) 1.007*** (.001) 1.006*** (.008) 1.008*** (.001)

Observations 1411 1411


21

Predicted Probability of Job Information Acquisition for Network Extensity at Different Levels of Distance

.2.4

.6.8

1P

r(Ln

Job

Info

rmat

ion)

0 5 10 15 20Network Extensity

Distance Within 30 Min. Distance 30min.~2hrs.

Distance 2hrs.~5hrs. Distance 5hrs.~>12hrs.

22

.15

.2.2

5.3

.35

.4P

r(Ln

Job

Info

rmat

ion)

0 20 40 60Social Capital (range)

SC_Range Within 30 Min. SC_Range 30min.~2hrs.

SC_Range 2hrs.~5hrs. SC_Range 5hrs.~>12hrs.

Predicted Probability of Job Information Acquisition for Network Range at Different Levels of Distance

23

Predicted Probability of Job Information Acquisition for Highest Network Prestige at Different Levels of Distance

.15

.2.2

5.3

Pr(

Ln J

ob In

form

atio

n)

0 20 40 60 80Highest Network Prestige

Distance Within 30 Min. Distance 30min.~2hrs.

Distance 2hrs.~5hrs. Distance 5hrs.~>12hrs.

24

Summary

1. A spatial dimension of social capital was identified, and social capital varies by distance: The prestige of accessed positions is highly associated with the geographical distances between egos and reached alters. Higher-status networks tend to be geographically distant.

2. Prestige Homophily principle works Over the Proximity principle: People of a higher prestige form networks with each other, despite the likely long distance separating them.

3. “The Strength of Distant Ties”: A geographically distant social capital delivers a stronger effect on the acquisition of job information than a geographically closer one. Beneficial effect of social capital gets discounted when network bounded locally.

4. The function of spatial influence on network utility may not be linear. (curvelinear ?)

25

Discussion

Spatial Extensity is congruent with the concept of Social Capital Individuals with a wide variety of networks (i.e., extensity, diversity) might

also have networks of wider geographic reach.

Such spatial extensity can probably prevent them from being constrained by local networks that mostly deliver redundant information, as weak-ties and structural holes arguments suggest.

Instead of asking “Why do weak ties have strength?”, we should ask

Why do ties with strength tend to be WEAK?

This study suggests that it’s probably because valuable networks tend to be geographically distant; as the result, the relationships may tend to be weaker as well).

Is SPACE an endogenous dimension of social capital? remember the prestige-spatial network structure that we identified

26

Is “Structural Holes” A Spatial Concept?

Ave. Distance of Robert’s Ties > Ave. Distance of James’ Ties

27

Thank You!

1 the spatial dimension of social capital: an exploration zong-rong lee 李宗榮 institute of...

Documents