Robert David Putnam (born January 9, 1941) is an American political scientist specializing in comparative politics. He is the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Putnam developed the influential two-level game theory that assumes international agreements will only be successfully brokered if they also result in domestic benefits. His most famous work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences.Marc Parry, "Can Robert Putnam Save the American Dream" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 12, 2015 Chronicle Review In March 2015, he published a book called Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis that looked at issues of inequality of opportunity in the United States. According to the Open Syllabus Project, Putnam is the fourth most frequently cited author on college syllabi for political science courses.
Join or Die, a 2023 documentary film about community connections and club participation that is available on Netflix, features Putnam and is based on Putnam's works.
Early life and career Robert David Putnam was born on January 9, 1941, in Rochester, New York, and grew up in Port Clinton, Ohio, where he participated in a competitive bowling league as a teenager. Putnam graduated from Swarthmore College in 1963 where he was a member of the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity. He won a Fulbright Fellowship to study at Balliol College, Oxford, and went on to earn a master's degree and doctorate from Yale University in 1970.
He taught at the University of Michigan until joining the faculty at Harvard in 1979, where he has held a variety of positions, including Dean of the Kennedy School, and is currently the Malkin Professor of Public Policy. Putnam was raised as a religiously observant Methodist. In 1963, Putnam married his wife Rosemary, a special education teacher and French horn player. Around the time of his marriage, he converted to Judaism, his wife's religion.The Forward, Robert Putnam Assays Religious Tolerance From a Unique Angle, Retrieved November 26, 2010
Making Democracy Work His first work in the area of social capital was Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, published in 1993. It is a comparative study of regional governments in Italy that drew great scholarly attention for its argument that the success of democracies depends in large part on the horizontal bonds that make up social capital. Putnam writes that northern Italy's history of community, guilds, clubs, and choral societies led to greater civic involvement and greater economic prosperity. Meanwhile, the agrarian society of Southern Italy is less prosperous economically and democratically because of less social capital. Social capital, which Putnam defines as "networks and norms of civic engagement", allows members of a community to trust one another. When community members trust one another, trade, money-lending, and democracy flourish.
Putnam's finding that social capital has pro-democracy effects has been rebutted by a sizable literature which finds that civic associations have been associated with the rise of anti-democratic movements.
Bowling Alone
In 1995, he published "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital" in the Journal of Democracy. The article was widely read and garnered much attention for Putnam, including an invitation to meet with then-President Bill Clinton and a spot in the pages of People.
In 2000, he published Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, a book-length expansion of the original argument, adding new evidence and answering many of his critics. Though he measured the decline of social capital with data of many varieties, his most striking point was that many traditional civic, social and fraternal organizations – typified by bowling leagues – had undergone a massive decline in membership while the number of people bowling had increased dramatically.
Putnam distinguishes two kinds of social capital: bonding capital and bridging capital. Bonding occurs among similar people (same age, same race, same religion, etc.), while bridging involves the same activities among dissimilar people. He argues that peaceful multi-ethnic societies require both types. Putnam argues that those two kinds of social capital, bonding and bridging, do strengthen each other. Consequently, with the decline of the bonding capital mentioned above inevitably comes the decline of the bridging capital leading to greater ethnic tensions.
Since the publication of Bowling Alone, Putnam has worked on efforts to revive American social capital, notably through the Saguaro Seminar, a series of meetings among academics, civil society leaders, commentators, and politicians to discuss strategies to re-connect Americans with their communities. These resulted in the publication of the book and website, Better Together, in 2003 which provides case studies of vibrant and new forms of social capital building in the United States.
In 2016, Putnam explained his inspiration for the book, by saying,
In a review essay, economist Steven Durlauf criticized the scholarly analysis in Bowling Alone. He argued that Putnam uses the term social capital inconsistently for distinct phenomena, including social networks, information flows, reciprocity, and trustworthiness, without adequately explaining why they should be treated as a single concept. Although Durlauf regarded Putnam’s documentation of declining participation in voluntary organizations as persuasive, he argued that the book provides neither a well-developed causal explanation for this decline nor convincing evidence that it represents a decline in social capital. Declining participation could, for example, reflect reduced social pressure to join organizations, while government programmes or markets may sometimes replace functions previously performed through informal associations, such as private welfare provision, parental involvement in education, or mutual credit arrangements. Durlauf also argued that Putnam frequently treats correlations between measures of social capital and socioeconomic outcomes as evidence of causal effects, although the studies and state-level comparisons presented in the book do not adequately distinguish social-capital explanations from competing explanations. He further maintained that Putnam sometimes draws claims from cited studies that those studies do not support. Finally, although Putnam acknowledges a “dark side” of social capital, Durlauf argued that he underestimates how group solidarity and social sanctions can reinforce conformity, racial segregation, stereotyping, and hostility toward outsiders. Durlauf concluded that the book presents an impressive collection of facts but is ultimately unsuccessful as a work of social-science scholarship because of its conceptual ambiguity and failure to address fundamental problems of causal inference.
Critics such as the sociologist Claude Fischer argue that Putnam (a) concentrates on certain forms of social organizations, and pays much less attention to privatized networks or emerging forms of support organizations on and off the Internet; (b) relies on contradictory data that hasn't fully been explained; and (c) underestimates the impact of women's workforce participation. Fischer calls for reconceptualizing social capital and proposing other explanations of the decline in public civic participation.
Social capital Putnam theorizes a relation in the negative trends in society. He envisions a uniting factor named social capital; originally coined (no evidence provided) by social theorist Alexis de Tocqueville as a strength within America allowing democracy to thrive due to the closeness of society, "trends in civic engagement of a wider sort". Putnam observes a declining trend in social capital since the 1960s. The decreasing in social capital is blamed for rising rates in unhappiness as well as political apathy. Low social capital, a feeling of alienation within society is associated with additional consequences such as: Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media. Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence. Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups. Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result. Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage). Less likelihood of working on a community project. Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering. Fewer close friends and confidants. Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life. More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
Diversity and trust within communities
Putnam examined the relationship between ethnic diversity and trust using survey data from approximately 30,000 respondents, including samples from 41 communities across the United States. He reported that, in the short to medium term, greater neighbourhood ethnic diversity was associated with lower trust both between ethnic groups and among members of the same ethnic group. Putnam described residents of diverse communities as “hunkering down”: withdrawing from collective life and expressing less trust in their neighbours. In his multivariate analysis of trust in neighbours, the association with ethnic diversity remained after controlling for individual and neighbourhood characteristics, including poverty, income inequality, and crime. Putnam says, however, that "in the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits."
In a 2011 study, Patrick Sturgis, Ian Brunton-Smith, Sanna Read, and Nick Allum reconsidered Putnam’s “hunkering down” thesis using survey data from nearly 25,000 people in Britain. They argued that Putnam’s conclusions do not clearly distinguish between generalized trust in people generally and strategic trust in people known to the respondent, because survey questions used to measure trust do not necessarily capture the same form of trust. They also questioned the substantive importance of Putnam’s findings. Although the association reported in Putnam’s study was statistically significant, ethnic diversity accounted for less than 0.1 per cent of the variation in trust. In their own analysis, they found no effect of neighbourhood ethnic diversity on generalized trust. Diversity was statistically associated with strategic trust, but the association was substantively trivial and was dwarfed by the effects of economic deprivation and individuals’ social contact with their neighbours (social connectedness). The authors therefore concluded that the relationship between ethnic diversity and trust was weak, contingent on its social and economic context, and less generally corrosive than Putnam’s account suggested.