Good point – I am sure a lot of people just use the term, which is disappointing.

The context I see it in is one of reputation, and the accumulation of “trust” in so far as it can be costly to verify statements so trust leads to people using a heuristic where they just believe you (reputation again!). This is, of course, a concept that is already used extensively within economics – both micro and macro.

In this context I’d see co-operation as a result of other things – rather than a product of.

And having people build up these heuristics does not seem like an easy thing to analyse, or a “self-evidently good” thing either. I had thought this point was obvious for a long time, and then I read the Spirit Level 😉

Indeed – it is more the point that, if you want to “set policy on the basis of it”, make sure what you are assuming is clear and consistent.

My problem is that people are using “social capital” to justify whatever they want – rather than recognising that the concept is as old as the hills, and is a massive clusterf*** 😉

Hearing people talk about status goods as if it is a new idea, rather than being from the institutional schools of the 19th century, or even older Marxists (although I never found their conception as clear as Veblen), really indicates people are being a bit cheeky.

Indeed, tis rocking!