European Societies

ISSN: 1461-6696 (Print) 1469-8307 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reus20

CLASS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN EUROPE

A transnational analysis of the European Social Survey

Renato Miguel Carmo & Nuno Nunes

To cite this article: Renato Miguel Carmo & Nuno Nunes (2013) CLASS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN
EUROPE, European Societies, 15:3, 373-387, DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2012.691171

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.691171

Published online: 12 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1336

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reus20
 European Societies,
2013
Vol. 15, No. 3, 373
387,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/14616696.
2012.691171

CLASS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN

EUROPE
A transnational analysis of the European
Social Survey

Renato Miguel Carmo and Nuno Nunes

CIES, Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT: This paper seeks to understand the way in which social capital
resources are incorporated, appropriated and distributed by different social
classes in Europe. Its main goal is to produce a conceptual framework by
linking the concepts of social capital with the different theoretical
assessments made by the sociology of social classes. We use multivariate
analysis to work a set of quantitative indicators from the European Social
Survey 2008 in order to assess the relationship between these concepts.
Our methodological approach combines transnational levels, i.e., it is not
an international comparison between European countries but an analysis
of individual people and their belonging to social classes.
Key words: class; social capital; social space; Europe

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the

relationships between class and social capital dimensions in Europe. How
can we regard the influence of social conditions of life and class position
on the production and reproduction of social capital? Sociology of class
offers a considerable stock of perspectives ranging from the ‘classics’
(especially Marx and Engels 1969 [1848]; and Weber 1978 [1922]) to
conflict theories (such as Dahrendorf 1959; Parkin 1971, 1979; or Wright
1997) and the contributions of Bourdieu (1985, 1986) and Giddens (1991).
A discussion of authors who addressed the problem of social capital more
directly (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993, 2000; Woolcock 2008) is also
fruitful, in articulation with these theories.
The problematic articulation of relations between class and social
capital discussed here is part of research into social classes at European

– 2013 Taylor & Francis 373

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

level (Costa et al. 2002, 2009). More specifically, we are seeking to conduct
a structural analysis to help identify social factors that foster some
dimensions of social capital, such as trust, sociality and civic participation,
especially with regard to social agents’ social position (class) and capital
structure (economic, cultural and social resources). This structural
analysis is based on Bourdieu’s theoretical framework.
The conceptualisation and empirical results come from the European
Social Survey (ESS 2008), which covered 26 European countries and a
sample of 50,000 subjects and is the empirical support for a European-
level transnational analysis.
This paper is structured as follows. It first reviews the theoretical
aspects of social capital and class analysis in the study of the European
transnational social space. Then it analyses the different dimensions of
social capital and relates them to some independent variables such as social
class, educational attainment, income, etc. Finally, we conduct a multi-
variate analysis of the social space of classes and social capital at European
level.

2. Social capital: classes and social closure

Social capital can be defined as a socioeconomic value embedded in

personal relationships and forged by social networks (such as sociability
networks) to achieve mutual goals that favour a specific group of
individuals (Shullerk et al. 2000; Carmo 2010). The central idea behind
the theory of social capital is the value of social networks, which enables
regular contact between different social agents as a way of improving the
social situation within the group or the community to which they belong
(Putnam 1993, 2000).
In addition to social networks and relationships, the other factor that
helps to generate social capital is trust. Without mutual trust it is not
possible for individuals to create a stable platform of relationships, at least
not medium or long-term ones. As Rothstein and Stolle say, ‘Social capital
is about the generation of trust and norms of reciprocity that go beyond a
particular group’ (2008: 276). It is therefore fundamental to promote the
necessary conditions to achieve this kind of social stability. The role of
political institutions is becoming more and more crucial in promoting the
generalisation of mutual trust. So, it is not wrong to say that institutional
and personal forms of trust are usually related to each other. These two
dimensions of trust are normally used in studies that compare different
countries by composing two distinct composite indexes (Halman and
Luijkx 2006; Herreros 2009; Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). This approach
is relatively appropriate when it comes to the issue of social inequalities.

374
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

For instance, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) establish an interesting

correlation between the level of trust within European countries and
their different income inequality rates.
Trust, social networks and also civic participation are regarded as the
main structural components of social capital. In fact, for Putman (1993,
2000) one of the most expressive indicators of the level of social capital
within regions and countries depends on the associative capacity of its
populations. ‘Official membership in formal organizations is only one
facet of social capital, but it is usually regarded as a useful barometer of
community involvement’ (Putman, 2000: 49). Nevertheless, we feel that
most studies of social capital have neglected the importance of other
structural factors like social inequalities and especially social classes and
social strata.
In fact, the two sociologists behind this concept, Pierre Bourdieu (1980)
and James Coleman (1990), did not neglect the function of these structural
mechanisms in generating social capital. Although their approaches are
different, both conceive social capital as an important resource resulting
from the degree of inter-connectivity of relationships and social networks.
Both authors consider social closure to be one of the main conditions for
producing forms of social capital among individuals in the same social
group or community. Social proximity is therefore an essential factor in
endorsing social ties and networks as a way of facilitating social action to
achieve the equivalent sort of resources and opportunities. In this sense,
social closure can be regarded ‘as a process by which social collectivities
seek to maximise rewards by restricting access to resources and
opportunities to a limited circle of eligibles’ (Parkin 1971: 44).
Despite this definition, which is based on Weber’s perspective, we can
say that social closure has different meanings in both Coleman’s and
Bourdieu’s analyses. While Coleman regards social closure as a public good
that produces novel interactions and social relationships among the
members of a singular group, for Bourdieu social closure represents a
privileged good which excludes other groups from having the chance of
obtaining the same type of social benefits.
Therefore, while on the one hand social capital is based on the
persistence over time of the networks that feed on reciprocal relations
based on the sharing of certain norms and values, on the other hand it
produces different forms of appropriation and exclusion with regard to
economic, cultural and social resources.
Thus, social capital is a resource that tends to be differently maximised
according to different social class positions. In fact, as we are going to see
throughout the analysis, not only access to but also the generation of some
resources clearly depend on individuals’ positions in the social space.
According to Bourdieu (1979), the notion of social space is based on a

375
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

viewpoint that social relationships, which are intrinsically conflicting but

relatively institutionalised, produce differentiated structural configura-
tions resulting from mobilisation processes and distinct access to certain
valuable or prestigious resources. The author believes that each individual
corresponds to a given position in the social space, which is partly
structured by an amount of objective conditions defined in terms of
capital. These are unequally disseminated and possessed, meaning that not
everyone has the same chances or social conditions to appropriate more
valuable resources.

3. Class analysis in the study of the European transnational social space

In social space and in social-position systems, the concept of social class

has a capacity for instantiation that mediates between structure and action,
not only because of its delimitation between class positions and classes of
agents (Costa et al. 2009) but because of its intrinsic structural
referencing, which identifies conditions of life, social processes and
situations, attributes, leaderships and social practices. The importance
of social mediations and focus on social protagonists (Costa 1999) are
essential characteristics in the sociology of social classes today.
Class characterisation variables can be considered indicators of
relational distribution in social positions. This means that social positions
have certain relational configurations because, even though they constitute
distinct, coexisting positions that are separate from each other, they are
also defined by reference to the others (Bourdieu 1985).
The essential need to include other fundamental dimensions of class
analysis as aspects of the structure of contemporary social relations has
become a shared theoretic understanding (Silva 2003). The relational
dimension is observed through an intertwined analysis of social positions as
relative positions. A transnational analysis makes it possible to appraise and
assess the differences and similarities between social classes in Europe in
terms of greater or lesser possession of resources, power and opportunities.
We have adopted a transnational perspective, which will make it possible to
pinpoint structural inequalities between European social classes. Starting
from a class analysis that covers both national (European) and transnational
levels, it is possible to achieve an understanding of social capital from a
sociological analysis that uses theoretic and methodological class analysis
tools to explore the level of transnational analysis.
In fact, the first social class theories contained important national and
transnational dimensions (Costa et al. 2002). Other scales of analysis, such
as local or regional, have also contributed to class analysis, though the
national
state level has been the main frame of reference for most

376
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

research into social classes, at least as a geographical unit of empirical

analysis.
In recent years, some large international comparative research
programmes, such as those of Erikson and Goldthorpe (1993), Esping-
Andersen (1993) and Wright (1997), have made valuable contributions.
Studies of the European context by Portuguese authors (Costa et al. 2002;
Almeida et al. 2006; Costa et al. 2009) using the European Social Survey,
with simultaneous national and transnational articulation, illustrate a new
level in class analysis, which is still taking its first steps.
An understanding of many contemporary social phenomena, such as the
study of social classes, requires sociological analysis that articulates
between levels of national and transnational analysis. Comparisons
between countries still maintain their analytical validity, but the constitu-
tion of society also lends itself to transnational scales (Costa et al. 2009).
The analysis in this paper covers a multiplicity of social characterisation
indicators, all of which can be obtained in the European Social Survey,
such as the socio-professional indicator devised by Almeida, Costa and
Machado (Costa et al. 2009, 2002; Almeida et al. 2006) and Bourdieu’s
theories, i.e., economic capital (indicator of income), cultural capital
(educational attainment) and social capital. In the combination, articula-
tion and comprehensiveness of all indicators, it is important to explore the
structural and systemic effects between them and their differentiating
variability.

4. Class and the different dimensions of social capital

Before addressing the empirical part, we will base our analysis on the most
important indicators used in this study. The conceptualisation of social
class is normally a complex problem, the parameters of which are not
always properly clarified.
In the European Social Survey, the socio-professional indicators devised
by Almeida, Costa and Machado are often used as a measure and are based
on the variables ‘occupational status’ and ‘occupation’. Occupational status
is in turn divided into three categories: (i) employer, (ii) self employed,
and (iii) employee. Occupations are defined on the basis of the
International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). The
corresponding typology of class developed by Almeida, Costa and
Machado (ACM) is a complementary alternative to the main proposals
from international sociology, such as the French socio-professional
categories (Desrosières and Thévenot 1988), the class schema developed
by Robert Erikson and John H. Goldthorpe (1993), and Goldthorpe’s
(1980) and Erik Olin Wright’s (1997) typology of class locations.

377
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

The ACM typology seeks to overcome artificial dichotomies between

the Marxist and Weberian approaches and falls within the most important
theoretic frameworks of the sociology of class and stratification of class
locations. It is designed to cover economic/occupational and cultural/
symbolic fields for an analysis of class in today’s societies. It embraces the
main structural processes that contemporary societies are going through,
such as the reorganisation of the social division of labour, the impact of
schooling, different socio-cultural standards, institutional configurations
and different socio-political logics of collective action.
Using the ACM classification,1 we find that in the European social
structure (Table 1) routine employees make up the most numerous class in
Europe (29.4 percent). They are followed by industrial workers, at 26.5
percent, and then professionals and managers, at 26.4 percent of the sample.
Employers and executives represent 9.9 percent of Europeans, self-employed
workers 4.8 percent and private professionals 3 percent.2
As mentioned earlier, levels of social capital are normally measured
through three major dimensions: (i) trust, (ii) social networks, and
TABLE 1. Social classes in Europe

Employers and executives 9.9%

Private professionals 3%
Professionals and managers 26.4%
Self-employed workers 4.8%
Routine employees 29.4%
Industrial workers 26.5%

Source: European Social Survey (2008).

1. ACM class categories: Employers and executives, are employers or directors at private
companies or in the public administration. They may be recruited from any of the
groups in the occupational structure. Private Professionals are self-employed and very
qualified in certain specialized professions, such as lawyers, architects, etc.
Professionals and managers are employees in upper or mid-level intellectual, scientific
and technical jobs. They are different from the previous category essentially because
they are not self-employed. Self-employed workers work on their own account without
employees in administrative or similar occupations in services and commerce. They
include craftsmen and similar workers, farmers and qualified workers in agriculture
and fishery. Routine employees are administrative and similar personnel, service
employees and salespeople. Industrial workers are manual workers employed in less
qualified occupations in construction, industry, transports, agriculture and fishery.
2. This transnational European analysis of classes does not highlight the level of class
structures, though they are an essential analytical level and reflect important national
specificities, depending on the greater or lesser weight of certain class locations. For a
deeper comparative analysis between class structures see Wright (1997) and Costa
et al. (2009).

378
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

(iii) civic participation (Field 2008). But it is not easy to measure each of
them directly using the appropriate data and indicators. For example, it is
very difficult to measure the way which people organise and produce their
social networks. This requires specific data and methodologies that are not
available in surveys like the European Social Survey. This is why we have
defined three components based on the indicators used in ESS 2008,
which are directly or indirectly related with social capital dimensions. An
examination of the concept of social capital on the basis of the data in this
survey enabled us to consider: trust (broken down into personal3 and
institutional trust4), sociality practices (measured by informal sociality5 and
participation in social activities6) and associational membership (divided into
membership of trade unions or professional associations7 and membership
of political parties8) (Figure 1).
If we consider the question of trust, it is clear that professionals and
managers are those who have the highest levels of trust, followed by
private professionals and employers and executives (Figure 2).9 After that,
we find routine employees and self-employed workers. Industrial workers
are those with the lowest mean values.
Personal trust and institutional trust follow a regular pattern when we
compare the classes. Personal trust is higher than institutional trust in all
of them. Both types of trust are higher among professionals and managers,
employers and executives and private professionals, but are lower among
self-employed workers, routine employees and industrial workers than in
the better positioned classes in the social structure.
The different social classes show similar levels of informal sociality
(Figure 3). Although there are some variations, it is not possible to
conclude that there are any substantial differences. There is, however, a

3. An index was constructed from the following variables: ‘Would you say that most
people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?; ‘Do you
think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or
would they try to be fair?’; and ‘Would you say that most of the time people try to be
helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves?’ (Cronbach’s a  0.802)
4. The index was constructed from the level of trust that Europeans have expressed in
relation to their national parliaments, legal system, police, politicians and parties
(Cronbach’s a  0.906).
5. The question in the European Social Survey was: ‘How often do you meet socially
with friends, relatives or work colleagues?’
6. The question in the European Social Survey was: ‘Compared to other people of your
age, how often would you say you take part in social activities?’
7. People were asked whether they were or had ever been a member of a trade union or
similar organisation.
8. The question asked in the ESS was: ‘Are you a member of any political party?’
9. Values ranging from 0 (lowest) to 10 (maximum value).

379
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Figure 1. Measuring social capital and its components in the European Social
Survey.

trend for the less privileged classes to show a higher percentage of low
informal sociality.
We cannot draw the same conclusion with regard to participation in
social activities (Figure 4). On a par with greater participation by
employers, executives and private professionals, the curves of high and
low participation diverge progressively from self-employed workers,
routine employees and industrial workers. These are the classes with the
lowest levels of participation in social activities.
Associational membership shows none of the polarising trend that we
seem to find in trust and participation in social activities (with employers,
executives, private professionals and professionals and managers on one
side and self-employed workers, routine employees and industrial workers
on the other). Professionals and managers are the class with the highest
percentage of associational membership, the only one above 30 percent.

Figure 2. Personal and institutional trust by social class.

380
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

Figure 3. Informal sociality by class (%).

Source: European Social Survey (2008).

Figure 4. Participation in social activities by class (%).

Source: European Social Survey (2008).

Employers and executives are above 20 percent. Below 20 percent are

industrial workers, routine employees, private professionals and self-
employed workers, in this order.
Professional membership is higher among professionals and managers,
employers and executives, industrial workers and lower among private

381
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Figure 5. Associational membership by class (%).

Source: European Social Survey (2008).

professionals and self-employed workers.10 Political membership is much

lower in all the classes than membership of professional associations or
trade unions and hardly any routine employees or industrial workers are
party militants (Figure 5).
The different classes show diverse levels of social capital. Employers
and executives have higher degrees of trust and participation in social
activities. Private professionals are characterised by higher participation in
social activities and less associational membership. Professionals and
managers are the most trusting class with the highest associational
membership. Self-employed workers are those with the lowest member-
ship of professional associations. Routine employees show less levels of
trust. Industrial workers are those with the lowest levels of trust and
participate the least in social activities, though they are the second highest
class in terms of professional membership.

5. The social space of classes and capital structure

In this section we conduct a multiple-correspondence multivariate analysis

to identify the dominant profiles in the social space of classes. One of the
advantages of this method is the possibility of a graphic representation of
the multiple connections between the categories making up the variables
and the projection of the position of each object (individual) on a factorial
plot. The configuration of the plot is the result of cross-referencing two

10. This distribution seems to show different positions in the social area of work.

382
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

factors (or dimensions) formed by the polarisation established by the levels

of discrimination11 of the different categories. Thus, people with similar
response patterns tend to be positioned in coordinates close to the factorial
plot, unlike others whose response patterns have a different statistical and
sociological significance. Graphic proximity therefore indicates a certain
statistical homogeneity (Carvalho 2008).
The social space of classes, resources and social capital can be divided
into two dimensions12: one more positional (Dimension 1) and the other
more societal (Dimension 2). Dimension 1 revolves around the distribution
of resources and trust, while Dimension 2 is based on sociality practices
and professional membership (Figure 6). The positional and societal
dimensions of social space reveal the divisible, flexible nature of the
possession of social capital.
The empirical results for Europe obtained in a multiple correspondence
analysis show the existence of certain well-defined social configurations in
the social space of classes and capital structure (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Dimensions and discrimination measures.

11. ‘Discrimination measures quantify the variance of each variable, and so the closer its
value is to the upper limit (i.e., 1), the more the variables in question discriminate the
objects being analysed’ (Carvalho 2008: 75).
12. In the multiple-correspondence analysis, the dimensions found are the main
structural axes that configure the different positions of the social categories present
in the social space in question.

383
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Figure 7. The social space of classes and social capital in Europe (MCA).

. The configuration in Quadrant 3 is characterised mainly by

appropriation of resources among professionals and managers, high
school attainment, higher average income and high institutional and
personal trust.

. In a very different situation of partial deprivation of resources we find

industrial workers with very low incomes and school attainment and
poor social trust and low participation in social activities (Quadrant 4).

. The more intense relational pattern in Quadrants 1 and 2 is

characterised by higher informal sociality, medium participation in
social activities and no membership of professional associations.

There is an interconnection between the different resources and the way

in which their distribution is closely linked to social class positions with
impacts on social capital dimensions. Economic and educational resources
produce forms of capital mainly associated with levels of trust and
associational membership. However, having more resources does not
necessarily mean higher relational intensity, even though there are some
differences in participation in social activities, especially when economic
resources are considered.

384
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

A multivariate analysis of the data and their conjugation with a bivariate

analysis clearly shows the relevance of the class effect on differentiated
social capital. Among social agents, economic resources and educational
attainment mainly produce forms of social capital related above all to
levels of trust and associational membership. Nonetheless, possession of
more resources does not necessarily mean greater societal intensity, even
though there is some differentiation with regard to participation in social
activities, especially when we consider possession of economic resources.
Among social agents who are partially lacking in resources, low
economic resources and school attainment walk hand in hand with low
social trust and low participation in social activities.

6. Conclusions

Our analysis shows a close relationship between some of the addressed

dimensions: mainly between class and trust. Indeed the projection of the
different variables on the factorial plan reveals a markedly stratified social
space where the some components of social capital tend to be appropriated
on the basis of class location. Differentiated economic, social and
educational resources are not only not indifferent to social position but
also reveal a close relationship with social agents’ class situation.
Particularly evident is the relationship between class and trust, which is
expressed mainly in Dimension 1 of the factorial plan. It is curious to note
the significant association between the perception of an environment of
personal and institutional trust and a privileged social position. It is as if
the latter constituted a fundamental condition for the existence of the
former. In other words, according to the data, we can conclude that the
issue of trust is a matter of class. There is a structural social closure
expressed in the duality between the large social stratum of the dominated,
which has low levels of institutional and personal trust, and the dominant
social positions, in which there is more. In turn, the components of social
capital that tend to escape this duality are those of a more societal nature,
expressed, for example, in more intense sociality.

References

Almeida de, J. F., Machado, F. L. and Costa da, A. F. (2006) ‘Social classes
and values in Europe’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science 5(2): 95
117.
Bourdieu, P. (1979) La Distinction, Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (1980) ‘Le capital social: Notes provisoires’, Actes de la
Recherche en Sciences Sociales 31: 2
3.

385
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES

Bourdieu, P. (1985) ‘The social space and the genesis of groups’, Theory
and Society 14: 723
44.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘Forms of capital’, in J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook
of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Westport, CT:
Greenwood, pp. 241
58.
Carmo do, R. M. (2010) ‘Albernoa revisited: Tracking social capital in a
Portuguese village’, Sociologia Ruralis 50(1): 15
30.
Carvalho, H. (2008) Ana´lise Multivariada de Dados Qualitativos: Utilizaça˜o
da Ana´lise de Correspondeˆncias Mu´ltiplas com o SPSS, Lisbon: Edições
Sı́labo.
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Costa da, A. F. (1999) Sociedade de Bairro: Dinaˆmicas Sociais da Identidade
Cultural, Oeiras: Celta Editora.
Costa da, A. F., et al. (2002) ‘Social classes in Europe’, Portuguese Journal
of Social Sciences 1(1): 5
39.
Costa da, A. F., Machado, F. L. and Almeida de, J. F. (2009) ‘Social classes
and educational assets: A transnational analysis’, in A. F. da Costa, F. L.
Machado and P. Ávila (eds), Knowledge and Society, Portugal in the
European Context, Lisbon: CIES, ISCTE-IUL/Celta Editora, pp. 5
20.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959) Class and Class Conflict in an Industrial Society,
London: Keagan and Paul.
Desrosières, A. and Thévenot, L. (1988) Les Cate´gories
Socioprofessionnelles, Paris: La Découverte.
Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. H. (1993) The Constant Flux: A Study of
Class Mobility in Industrial Societies, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
ESS Survey (2008) Available online from: http://www.europeansocial-
survey.org/.
Esping-Andersen, G. (org.) (1993) Changing Classes: Stratification and
Mobility in Post-Industrial Societies, London: Sage Publications.
Field, J. (2008) Social Capital, London, New York: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the
Late Modernity, Oxford: Polity Press.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (ed.) (1980) Social Mobility and Class Structure in
Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Halman, L. and Luijkx, R. (2006) ‘Social capital in contemporary Europe:
Evidence from European Social Survey’, Portuguese Journal of Social
Science 5(1): 65
90.
Herreros, F. (2009) ‘The state’, in G. Svendsen and G. Svendsen (eds),
Handbook of Social Capital, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 179
96.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848 [1969]) ‘Manifesto of the Communist
Party’, in L. S. Feuer (ed.), Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics
and Philosophy, Douglas (Isle of Man): Fontana.

386
Class and social capital in Europe CARMO & NUNES

Parkin, F. (1971) Class Inequality and Political Order, London: Granada.

Parkin, F. (1979) Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, London:
Tavistock.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rothstein, B. and Stolle, D. (2008) ‘Political institutions and generalized
trust’, in D. Castioglione, J. Van Deth and G. Wolleb (eds), The Hand-
book of Social Capital, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 273
302.
Shuller, T., et al. (2000) ‘Social capital: A review and critique’, in S.
Baron, J. Field and T. Schuller (eds), Social Capital: Critical
Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1
38.
Silva, M. C. (2003) ‘Por uma concepção multidimensional de classe: O
contributo de Bourdieu’, Fo´rum Sociolo´gico 9
10: 111
26.
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit Level. Why More Equal
Societies Almost Always do Better, London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books.
Weber, M. (1978 [1922]) Economy and Society, Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Woolcock, M. (2008) ‘Civil society and the formation of social capital’, in
M. Villaverde Cabral (ed.), Sucesso e Insucesso: Escola, Economia e
Sociedade, Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Wright, E. O. (1997) Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renato Miguel Carmo is a Portuguese sociologist working at the Centre

for Research and Studies in Sociology, University Institute of Lisbon
(CIES-IUL). His research interest has been orientated to the subject of
social and spatial inequalities. Issues such as social exclusion, territorial
marginalization, spatial mobility and social capital have been at the core of
his individual and collective research projects.

Nuno Nunes is a researcher at the Centre for Research and Studies in

Sociology, University Institute of Lisbon (CIES-IUL). His research interest
includes social inequalities, class analysis, collective action and social
change.

Address for correspondence: Renato Miguel Carmo PhD, CIES, Lisbon

University Institute Lisbon, Edifı́cio ISCTE, Av. das Forças Armadas, Lisbon
1649-026, Lisboa Portugal.
E-mail: renato.miguel.carmo@gmail.com

387