Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ


ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2016.44/1-04
CC BY-SA   Open Access   CEEOL

Issue archive / nr 44/1 2016
ROLA ORGANIZACJI POZARZĄDOWYCH W BUDOWANIU KAPITAŁU SPOŁECZNEGO – UJĘCIE TEORETYCZNE
(The role of voluntary organizations in building social capital – theoretical approach)

Authors: Danuta Miłaszewicz
Uniwersytet Szczeciński

Małgorzata Zakrzewska
Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Keywords: NGOs social capital women voluntary organizations
Data publikacji całości:2016
Page range:12 (45-56)
Klasyfikacja JEL: L31
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Literature increasingly emphasizes the role of NGOs in building social capital, it also distinguishes between different forms of social capital, depending on whether created net- Danuta Miłaszewicz, Małgorzata Zakrzewska 55 Rola organizacji pozarządowych w budowaniu kapitału społecznego – ujęcie teoretyczne works are dense and within homogeneous groups (bonding social capital) or less dense and between heterogeneous groups (bridging social capital). Studies have shown that voluntary organizations have different functions in different societies from their adversarial and advocacy role to supplement what other sectors are notable to provide. However, parrarely changes the nature of the activities of their members from more collective to more individualistic, organizations are also differentiated by which system there are in and by the characteristics of their members, ie. gender and the culture of origin.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Cohen, S.S., Fields, G. (2000). Social Capital and Capital Gains in Silicon Valley. W: E.L. Leeser (red.), Knowledge and Social Capital (s. 179–200). Woburn MA: Butterworth- Heinemann.
2.Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
3.Dawson, L.M. (1997). Ethical Differences between Men and Women in the Sales Profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (11), 1143–1152.
4.Duchesne, D. (1989). Giving Freely: Volunteers in Canada. Statistics Canada Labour Analytic Report, Cat: 71-535 No. 4. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
5.Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
6.Florida, R., Cushing, R., Gates, G. (2002). When Social Capital Stifles Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80, 20.
7.Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social Capital and the Global Economy. Foreign Affairs, 74 (5), 89–98.
8.Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
9.Greeley, A. (1997). Coleman Revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 587–594.
10.Hall, M., Banting, K.G. (2000). The Nonprofit Sector in Canada. W: K.G. Banting (red.), The Nonprofit Sector in Canada: Roles and Relationships (s. 1–28). Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Montreal: Queen’s University.
11.Helegsen, S. (1990). The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday.
12.Halpern, J.J., Parks, J.M. (1996). Vive la Difference: Differences between Males and Females in Process and Outcomes in Low-Conflict Negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7 (1), 45–60.
13.Hustinx, L., Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and Reflexive Styles of Volunteering: A Sociological Modernization Perspective. Voluntas, 14 (2), 167–187.
14.Knack, S., Keefer, P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4), 1251–1288.
15.Kramer, R. (2000). A Third Sector in the Third Millennium? Voluntas, 11 (1), 1–23.
16.Leonard, R., Onyx, J. (2003). Networking Through Loose and Strong Ties: An Australian Qualitative Study. Voluntas, 14 (2), 189–203.
17.Meinhard, A.G., Foster, M.K. (2003). Differences in Response of Women’s Voluntary Organizations to Shifts in Canadian Public Policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 32 (3), 366–396.
18.Newton, K. (1997). Social Capital and Democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 575–586.
19.Olson, M. (1986). The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.Onyx, J., Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36 (1), 23–42.
21.Portes, A., Landolt, P. (1996). The Downside of Social Capital. The American Prospect. Pobrano z: www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V726/26-cnt-2.html/ (25.01.2016).
22.Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Application in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
23.Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
24.Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.
25.Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Shuster.
26.Rosener, J.B. (1990). Ways Women Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 109–125.
27.Rosener, J.B. (1995). American’s Competitive Secret: Utilizing Women as a Management Strategy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.Salamon, L.M. (1999). Partners in Public Service: Government and Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.Salamon, L.M., Anheier, H.K (1998). Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally. Voluntas, 9 (3), 213–248.
30.Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social Economy. New York: Foundation Centre.
31.Woolcock, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.
32.Wuthnow, R. (2002). Religious Involvement and Status Bridging Social Capital. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (4), 669–684.
33.Woolcock, M., Narayan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development and Theory Research and Policy. The World Bank Observer, 15 (2), 225–249.
34.Young, D. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 149–172.