Paper Summary:

Putnam believes that the building of social capital and the presence of civic culture play an important role in both promoting and strengthening democracy, whereas both Caplan and Fiorina suggest that social capital is at best neutral, and at worst corrosive, of democracy. This paper will argue that, while social capital and a civic culture may coincide with democracy, they do not necessarily promote or strengthen it. Specifically, this essay will make the case that there can be social capital without democracy; meanwhile, the example of America in what Putnam calls the age of bowling alone will make the complementary case that there can be democracy without social capital.

From the Paper:

Why Social Capital Is Unnecessary for Democracy Introduction Putnam believes that the building of social capital and the presence of civic culture play an important role in both promoting and strengthening democracy, whereas both Caplan and Fiorina suggest that social capital is at best neutral, and at worst corrosive, of democracy. This paper will argue that, while social capital and a civic culture may coincide with democracy, they do not necessarily promote or strengthen it. Specifically, this essay will make the case that there can be social capital without democracy; meanwhile, the example of America in what Putnam calls the age

Visitors who viewed this Essay also liked these:

• Term Paper # 142783 : "Why High Inflation Is Bad For The Economy"
• Analytical Essay # 138889 : "Why the Press is Called the Fourth Estate"
• Article Review # 96256 : "Research and Evaluation for Social Capital and Generosity"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: