social capital and public libraries: the need for research

Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 416–428

Social capital and public libraries: The need for research

Andreas Vårheim

Faculty of Humanities, University of Tromsø, NO-9037 Tromsø, Norway

Abstract

Empirical research on public libraries and social capital has primarily been oriented towarddiscovering how libraries contribute to social capital in local contexts, rather than contributing tosolving the theoretical puzzles of the social capital literature. In spite of this, it has produced interestingfindings that align with new developments in social capital research. These findings emphasize thesignificance of institutions in generating social capital. By outlining and applying the main theoreticalperspectives on generating social capital, this paper analyzes the findings of the literature on publiclibraries and how social capital is created. Theoretical perspectives on social capital will undoubtedlybenefit the study of social capital's creation in and by the library. Including library-specific socialcapital research within the wider social capital research community can benefit social capital researchin general.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research into social capital, “social organization such as networks, norms and social trust thatfacilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, p. 67), has grownexponentially since the early 1990s. Before 1992, little was published. From 1992 up to andincluding 2005, 1,999 documents (of which 82.6 percent are articles) with “social capital” in title,keywords, or abstract fields have been registered in the ISI Web of Science database (search

E-mail address: [email protected].

0740-8188/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.009

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.009

417A. Vårheim / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 416–428

performed on January 3, 2006).1 The years from 1998 (112) until 2005 (332) (latest availableyear) were especially productive; articles span subject areas from sociology to virology.

However, the relationship between libraries and social capital has not been much explored.The President of the American Library Association (ALA) found that public libraries had notbeen considered among the institutions creating social capital, historically or in contemporarysociety (Kranich, 2001). Even this discovery did not inspire corresponding research on socialcapital and the public library. A literature search in ISI Web of Science for “‘social capital’AND libra*” retrieved only seven documents, the aforementioned ALA presidential reportamong them. A search in Library and Information Science Abstracts database (LISA) (searchperformed on March 17, 2006) produced nine additional articles in peer-reviewed journals,and a search in WorldCat (search performed on February 20, 2006) retrieved 19 books, ofwhich only one chapter from one book is relevant (Putnam, Feldstein, & Cohen, 2003).

Considering the promotion of the importance of public libraries for social capital byprofessional organizations, this low research output reveals an underresearched area.2 Notmuch is known about whether and how libraries contribute to creating social capital. Mostliterature on libraries and social capital does not discuss social capital theory, but the roleascribed to public libraries in relation to social capital can be discerned relatively easily,making it possible to categorize and analyze the literature on libraries and social capital fromtheoretical perspectives. Different perspectives assign different roles to the public library in thecreation of social capital. This study examines how social capital and social capital generationhave been studied in library research. Has the research focused on how the public librarycreates social capital through enhancing participation in voluntary associations and generallocal community work? Have researchers studied social capital generation involvingtraditional library activities that are offering literacy and information to the general public?The findings will provide more knowledge as to the role of the public library in creating socialcapital. This is not only important for the work of libraries and for library research, but alsobecause studies of social capital generation in institutional settings such as the public libraryare vital for the progress of social capital research in general. Even though the research onlibraries and social capital is scarce, it provides important stepping-stones for an increasedresearch effort.

2. Two perspectives on social capital

Social capital has been credited with having positive effects on democracy, economicdevelopment, government efficiency, community development, schooling, individual health

1 The databases analyzed have been selected presuming that they contain most of the quality peer-reviewedarticles within library and information science as well as within general research on social capital. A broadselection of social capital literature covering social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities is found in the ISIWeb of Science database. Because of the low number of documents in the ISI database relating to social capital andlibraries, the scope was extended with LISA.2 On the other hand, there are many studies of the social impact of public libraries (see, e.g., reviews in Aabø,

2005; Debono, 2002; Kerslake & Kinnel, 1997; Linley & Usherwood, 1998).

418 A. Vårheim / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 416–428

and well-being, and with combating crime, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancies (Granovetter,1985; Hutchinson & Vidal, 2004; Putnam, 1993, 2000, 2004; Wakefield & Poland, 2005). Abroad consensus has developed that the definition of social capital should include attitudinalcomponents, norms of generalized trust and reciprocity, and structural components in the formof networks (see, e.g., Putnam, 1993, 2000, perhaps the most influential works on socialcapital to date).3 Generalized trust means relations to people outside one's own group andacross divisions of class, education, and ethnicity.

One important and disputed issue in the literature on social capital is how it is generated.This is a crucial question for the role of public libraries as instruments in creating social capital,and accordingly a crucial question for library policy. The issue of causal mechanism isanswered in two ways within the social capital literature: from a society-centered perspectiveand from an institution-centered perspective (Hooghe & Stolle, 2003; Stolle, 2003).

2.1. Social capital and civil society

The societal approach to social capital generation focuses on social networks and forums offace-to-face interaction, primarily voluntary associations, as the loci of social capital (Putnam,1993, 2000). This perspective holds that regular social interaction through voluntaryassociations and/or informal settings as neighborhoods and the family generate social trust.

The proof for the effect of voluntary association membership on social capital is at bestvague (Stolle & Hooghe, 2003). The effects of participating in voluntary associations largelyresult from self-selection: participants are trusting in the first place. An increase in trustthrough participation is an increase in in-group social capital, or bonding social capital. Thereis little evidence that this translates into out-group trust, that is, generalized trust or bridgingsocial capital. One study, Togeby (2004), found no significant effect on social trust fromorganizational participation, ethnic or nonethnic, for any of three immigrant groups of second-generation immigrants to Denmark. On the other hand, voluntary associations remain im-portant vehicles for aggregating interest and connecting citizens with government. A lot oftheir work is valuable to many people in local communities.

The present status of research on voluntary organizations and social capital suggests alter-native avenues for research on the generation of social capital. According to Stolle and Hooghe(2003), if social interaction affects social capital, the most promising routes are the study ofbridging (as opposed to bonding) social interactions and their potentially positive effects onsocial trust. Workplaces, neighborhoods, communities, dinner parties, and other informalarenas are potential routes to civic attitudes and behaviors. Also, the role of the family in socialcapital formation has been left mostly unexplored (Stolle, 2003). Parents' social experiencesand roles as primary educators shape the social trust and civic engagement of their children.This socialization process varies considerably between nations, regions, and communities.Because voluntary association-related variables cannot fully explain the creation of socialcapital, a search for possible institutional explanations is also relevant.

3 For a short introduction to the development of the concept of social capital, see Goulding (2004). For anelaborate treatment of the historiography of social capital research, see Putnam (2000).


2.2. Social capital and government institutions

The institutional approach to the generation of social capital maintains that social capital isincreased by efficient political institutions and public policies, a working democracy, politicalrights, and civil liberties (Rothstein & Stolle, 2003a; Stolle, 2003). This approach underscoresthe importance of institutional variables in the creation of social capital.

Social capital varies greatly between countries and also between democracies. The Scan-dinavian countries, as well as China, Finland, and the Netherlands, are consistently at the topof the league regarding social trust in the World Values Survey (2006).4 On average, more than50 percent of the population in these countries think that most people can be trusted. France(23 percent) is at the other end of the Western European spectrum, while Turkey (10.5 percent)holds the world record in low social trust. The Scandinavian countries also have the lowesteconomic inequalities. They pursue public policies for creating equal conditions for citizens inimportant policy areas such as education, health care, and social security and apply thosepolicies across differences in income, race, ethnicity, and religion (Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005).In fact, research finds that social trust is highly correlated to equality, economic equality, and“equality of opportunity” (Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005). Moreover, according to this researchequality encourages social capital, not the other way around. Economic equality or equality ofoutcome relates to how fairly economic resources are distributed. Equality of opportunity,narrowly defined, involves policies for creating equal opportunities in areas such as healthcare, education, and social security while disregarding social class. It conveys the possibilityfor future change in economic conditions towards greater equity.

Universal government social programs (e.g., in health and education) advance a more equalallocation of resources and opportunities (Korpi & Palme, 1998; Rothstein, 1998; Rothstein &Uslaner, 2005). Policies that apply to the whole population increase social solidarity andgenerate generalized trust. Increased trust has feedback effects on policy; creating policies withuniversal scope leads towards equality. Universal social policies are more effective thanselective policies in creating both types of equality and thereby social trust (Rothstein & Stolle,2003b; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005; Swank, 2002).

Several studies of social capital have underscored that level of education has a strong effecton generalized trust (e.g., Bjørnskov, 2004; Marschall & Stolle, 2004, 2005; see also Rothstein& Uslaner, 2005). However, to increase the level of trust by raising educational level,education must be a universal service (Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005).

High levels of inequality segregate people so that the poor and the rich do not meet innonhierarchical situations. Private schools, private health care, and security services cater onlyto the rich. Societies with few common societal arenas and streets crowded with begginghomeless people do not imbue shared values and social solidarity. In-group social capital isfostered at the expense of bridging social capital. On the other hand, generalized trust bothreflects and reinforces concern for others, especially for the less wealthy and people who areobjects of discrimination. It thus increases social integration (Uslaner, 2002).

4 These figures are based on at least three of the four waves of the World Values Survey. The validity of theChinese score is disputed (Uslaner, 2002, p. 220, n. 1; Bjørnskov, 2007; Chen & Lu, 2007).


By reducing inequality, universal welfare policies generate social trust. Universal programsincrease social capital by instilling a feeling of procedural justice among users of socialservices (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005). Universal policies are more redistributive than selectivepolicies involving means-tested social services (Korpi & Palme, 1998; Rothstein & Uslaner,2005; Swank, 2002). While taxes are proportional or progressive, universal services arenominal; everyone gets the same. Redistribution from the rich to the poor without the universalelement, which attempts to reduce poverty by selective policies, can be theoretically appealingon the surface. However, it is ineffective. Taxing the rich and giving to the poor alienates themiddle classes from political parties promoting high taxes and selective policies because themiddle classes want services in return for high taxes. Universal programs also makebureaucracies determining eligibility in selective systems unnecessary. They avoid some of thefeelings of unworthiness, hostility, and distrust among recipients generated in contact withstreet-level bureaucrats. The programs reduce the branding of “welfare clients” and theassociated stigma. Universal policies and universal social provisions do not single out theweakest as social clients who benefit from economic resources collected at the expense oftaxpayers. Universality gives social welfare a higher level of legitimacy among citizens; boththe poor and the well-off benefit. Redistributive efforts through the tax system and selectivewelfare services decrease trust between classes and between people and the government. Thisreduces the flexibility of the economy and economic growth.

Institutional variables are important for social capital creation. Especially importantvariables are related to the universal aspect of welfare services, instances where citizens are indirect contact with the government, and services affecting their daily lives (Kumlin &Rothstein, 2005). Hence, policy implementation, institutional performance, and high-qualityservices provided in accordance with the principle of universality are crucial. The implicationsfor design of public institutions, public policies, and services are clear. To increase the level ofsocial capital in society, citizens must consider institutions, policies, and services to be fair andefficient, that is, the services must be universal in character and perform well. Here policyfeedback processes are witnessed (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005; Pierson, 1993, 2004, 2006).Previous institutional processes and policies shape social groups, values, and interests. That is,public policies create social trust through policy effects and procedural justice, and theincreased levels of trust shape the reception of new policies. High levels of trust thus give thegovernment a leeway for policy flexibility and a greater potential for policy change andinnovation. Many observers find this flexibility to be one reason for the high level of economicgrowth and low unemployment in Scandinavia. In contrast, France and Germany also havewell-established welfare systems but seem unable to introduce vital reforms for sustaining theeconomic basis of the welfare state. This inability resides partly in having low social trust. Thetrap of low social capital seems very difficult to escape.

3. Perspectives on social capital generation in public libraries

Seeing social capital formation from a public library perspective means viewing the libraryas an instrument for creating social capital. There, an institutional starting point is pre-


supposed no matter whether society-centered or institution-centered strategies are consideredfor implementation. In analyzing the question of social capital building in the literature onsocial capital and libraries, this study looked for indicators of a society-centered participationperspective, a meeting place perspective, and a universalistic service perspective.

Public libraries can choose from three major strategies for creating social capital. Firstly,libraries can generate social capital by working with voluntary associations to find ways ofenhancing participation in these organizations and thus increasing participation in localcommunity activities. Secondly, libraries can develop their capacity as informal meetingplaces for people. Thirdly, libraries can create social capital in their role as providers ofuniversal services to the public. Of these, the second and third routes seem by far the mostpromising because the creation of social capital through voluntary associations is doubtfulat best. However, the public library can also contribute to the social capital-formingpotential of the family by directing services towards children and their families. Librariesalready do this to a great extent. Services directed towards children will not be discussedfurther at this point. There needs to be more research on role of the family in social capitalformation.

4. The role of the public library in the formation of social capital

The literature on public libraries and social capital is small. Of seventeen documents re-trieved, only twelve actually treat the subject matter of social capital and libraries. Four reportsresult from empirical research. Two focus on immigrants and social capital creation in thelibrary, a specialized question that is too big for discussion in this paper. Of the remaining eightarticles, one is a review of literature on social capital and public libraries, and seven are policy-oriented papers arguing for the importance of public libraries in the creation of social capital.This study analyzes the most relevant policy paper, the literature review, and two articlesreporting empirical research.

4.1. Empirical studies

One of the two empirical studies investigating the public library as a generator of socialcapital is Hillenbrand's (2005a) study of Mount Barker Community Library in SouthAustralia. Library use patterns at Mount Barker were consistent with what is known elsewhere.The author distinguished between core library use and noncore library use. Regarding coreuse, 89 percent of users borrowed documents from the collection, 49 percent came to thelibrary looking for information, 29 percent came to browse, 24 percent to read, 24 percent tostudy, and 45 percent to use computers. Regarding noncore use, 32 percent came to the libraryto relax, 13 percent came because it was a place to go, and 8 percent because it was consideredsafe. Only 19 percent did not talk to anyone during their visit. Hillenbrand's survey also usedopen-ended, qualitative questions about benefits and importance of the library. The resultsconfirmed the pattern of usage with the important addition that “equity of access for all” rankedsecond in importance, after traditional core functions. Hillenbrand concluded that according to


its users, the key purpose of the public library remains distribution of documents (information),while the social aspects are important by-products.

Interestingly, Hillenbrand contrasted the opinion of users with the views of library manage-ment. Mount Barker Library management emphasized different priorities than the users.Management focus shifted from a traditional collection focus to a focus on the library as asocial agency. Later this focus was reoriented toward a balance between traditional corefunctions and the social community function. The compromise was articulated in four stra-tegies in the library's business plan: “information literacy; social inclusion; staff development;community partnerships” (Hillenbrand, 2005a, p. 50). The strategies of social inclusion andcommunity partnerships are both strategies aimed at combating social exclusion—to open thelibrary to groups that seldom use the library, in particular marginalized groups as the homelessand the unemployed. New services and partnerships with local groups and organizations areinstruments for implementing strategies to enhance social capital by developing servicesreflecting community needs.

Putnam et al. (2003) depicted the public library as an active, responsive part of the localcommunity and an agent for change. Their study focused on a Chicago branch library, NearNorth Beach Library. The library was built for two different local communities: one with amajority of wealthy people and one with a larger number of less fortunate people. One possibleoutcome could have been that middle-class users stopped visiting the library altogether,especially since the new library is located in the poorer neighborhood. However, plentifuleconomic resources and resources among library staff have made the Chicago library systemattractive. People consider the library a resource, a meeting place for library and local com-munity events, an informal meeting place, and a safe place.

4.2. The review of the literature

Hillenbrand (2005b) traced the social impact of libraries and their potential for creatingsocial capital back to the historical roots of the public library. She found that few studies focuson public libraries as institutions for building social capital. This is not surprising when relatedto the survey of the social capital literature conducted in this article. Hillenbrand cited policy-oriented articles by Kranich (2001) and Preer (2001) and referred to a consensus “across all theliterature that libraries already create social capital in a number of ways” (p. 9). She argued that“the primary way libraries build social capital is by providing a shared, public space for avariety of different groups within the community, accommodating diverse needs andenhancing social interaction and trust” (p. 9).

Hillenbrand considered the report A Safe Place to Go: Libraries and Social Capital (Cox,Swinbourne, Pip, & Laing, 2000)5 to be the only empirical study of the role of the publiclibrary in creating social capital. In this study it is claimed that the findings show that “librariesfunction to enhance social interaction and trust, and that they foster equal access and a sense ofequity within the community within which they are placed, which in turn contributes to social

5 Additionally, Hillenbrand's own study of Mount Barker Library (Hillenbrand, 2005a) and Putnam et al. (2003)are empirical studies found in Web of Science and WorldCat.


capital” (Cox et al., 2000, p. 10). The authors underlined this by stressing that the existence ofmunicipal library buildings is seen as “a public statement of governmental community com-mitment” (p. 4). The rest of the social capital literature reviewed by Hillenbrand is policyoriented. It argues the importance of libraries for social capital creation and the importance ofmarketing this point of view to the general public.

4.3. Policy papers

All the policy papers promote the public library as generating social capital, and many ofthem criticize Putnam for hardly mentioning the role of libraries in his main work on socialcapital in America, Bowling alone (2000) (Boaden, 2005; Bourke, 2005; Bundy, 2005;Goulding, 2004; Kranich, 2001; Preer, 2001). In essence, they all try to connect the traditionalinstitution of the library with the trend of the times. However, Goulding (2004) provided aninteresting overview and perspective on the field. Contrary to most social capital and librarypolicy papers, she advocated a sophisticated position regarding the mechanism by which thepublic library is supposed to contribute to the creation of social capital. Goulding stressed theimportance of voluntary associations in creating social capital, in accordance with the societalperspective on the generation of social capital. Yet she also underlined the importance of thegovernment in creating policies for voluntary associations and social capital to flourish, at leastin the UK. This is done by supporting local political institutions and community institutions. Inaddition, she asserted that services and places allowing people to meet on a regular butinformal basis are as critical as associations. In short, she emphasized the importance oflibraries as public spaces “that bring together diverse populations into one community to learn,gather information and reflect” (Goulding, 2004, p. 4), and said they are increasingly viewedas important in area regeneration.

5. Discussion

5.1. Social capital generation in the library

Hillenbrand (2005a) presented a public library that utilizes all three strategies for socialcapital building: activation of community groups, meeting-place strategies, and universal coreservices. Mount Barker Library is not leaving behind its core functions; this is shown by itsinitiatives for creating a space for young people in the library and forming “cyber senior”computer groups to enhance information literacy. Rather, the information literacy strategymeans that library core functions are both deepened and broadened through making themavailable to wider sections of the community. This gives the universal library services an evenbetter grounding in the local community, enhancing the public library's potential for buildingsocial capital. As a universal service, the library seems an important factor in creating socialtrust. In opening it to a greater plurality of groups (making universality even more universal),the library becomes an informal meeting place for more people and increases social trust. Thefocus is not on increasing local community social capital per se (for example, by promoting


voluntary association membership), but instead the focus is on the interaction of local organ-izations and the public library. Involving community groups in library activities enhanceslibrary use and the universality of library services—services that enjoy a high standing amongthe population.

The real meaning of the library as a creator of social capital is captured by Millie, a 48-year-old African American mother of five and a user of Near North Beach Branch Library inChicago: “Putting this library here was more than just adding a building. It was about changinga perception. Before, I thought no one cared about people around Cabrini. And so we didn'tcare. Now I feel someone is watching, trying to make things better. So I am trying to bettermyself and my children” (Putnam et al., 2003, p. 37). The display of the universal values of thepublic library in her neighborhood reveals the potential of public institutions and policies forgenerating social capital. As in Mount Barker Community Library, users in the Near NorthBeach Branch mostly go to the library for information, but they also meet others there. Thelibrary is a “third place,” a place that is neither work nor home where people can spend time.Even though it has a purpose and is not purely a place for socializing like the ideal third place,the library is unique in offering free services. Users do not have to buy anything; the service istruly universal and inspires social trust.

In her review of the libraries and social capital literature, Hillenbrand (2005b) contendedthat the primary way public libraries create social capital is by providing a public space, thatis, a meeting place. Although Hillenbrand acknowledged that the library generates socialcapital in many ways, her conclusion left out the fact that the library is an institution with apurpose. It thus misses what people primarily come to the library for. This is all the moresurprising as Hillenbrand herself found that most people came to the Mount Barker Libraryfor its core services. Therefore, it is likely that social capital is generated at the libraryprimarily when people come to the library to find information and use a universal publicservice.

Existing studies confirm the importance of the library in generating social capital. This meansthat the universality of the service that is offered creates social capital. In addition, because thelibrary is an institutionalized public space for all, it creates social interaction and trust and a feelingof equity within the local community. That, in turn, generates more social capital.

5.2. Towards a research agenda: public libraries and social capital

The gap between the strong call for giving libraries their “true” credit in the creation ofsocial capital and the lack of research regarding libraries and social capital calls for anexplanation in itself. Research on the topic is very much needed. However, despite its lowquantity, the research that has been done is of high quality. The findings and results of researchinto public libraries and social capital in some ways anticipate the theoretical advances insocial capital research, focusing on the institutional origins of social capital. The reason for thisis probably straightforward: when the public library's contribution to social capital becomesthe focus of research, it is difficult to avoid discussing institutional impacts on social capitaleven though they have only recently become part of the mainstream social capital literature.Thus, studies of public libraries and social capital can not only give a boost to library research,


but they can also contribute important information to research on the institutional aspects ofsocial capital.

Until now, the institutional impact of public libraries on social capital mostly has beenstudied without a basis in an articulated theory on the creation of social capital. So far,considering the limited research activity, this has been a minor problem. However, in order toincrease the knowledge about libraries and social capital, theoretically focused research isnecessary. This will also benefit social capital research in general. Both surveys and qua-litative studies are needed to describe whether and how public library services generate socialcapital. What services are the most promising, and which policy instruments can bring newgroups to the library? Is the library generating social trust mostly as a meeting place, or do itsuniversal services matter more—or is it both? What kinds of community-directed initiativesare relevant—initiatives linking the local groups with library services or participating in moregeneral social and cultural work in the community focused on voluntary associations?Building on findings in the social capital literature, it is probable that libraries working withvoluntary associations to recruit new members do not increase the social capital of theseassociation members. However, there might be positive involvement if these organizationsdirect their work towards other groups in the community and get them involved with the publiclibrary. These basic questions are badly in need of answers.

6. Conclusion

The three empirical studies all highlight the impact of the library in generating social capital.Furthermore, they support the importance of traditional library services in creating socialcapital. This is in line with research on social capital that emphasizes the importance ofinstitutions and universal services for social trust.

People mainly use the library for document-related activities. However, many find it a placethey just want to be: a third place for informal, low-intensive meetings (for this concept, seeAudunson, 2005). In addition, users prioritize the equity of access for all and consider librarybuildings a symbol of government commitment.

From an institutional perspective on the making of social capital, the main strategy for thepublic library is to offer better core services and to make services more universal by attractingnew groups of library users. This calls for outreach activity grounded in a library servicesperspective. A general community perspective may divert attention from the library servicesthat form the basis for the library's generation of social capital, which would be counter-productive. If libraries turned into local community centers, merely functioning as hubs andrecruiting areas for voluntary associations, there would be little evidence of their social capital-building properties. There is scant evidence that voluntary associations create social capital,regardless of their other positive effects.

The main institutional effects of the public library in creating social capital can be expectedto be at least threefold. Firstly, the library provides universal services; the public library is foreverybody. Universal public policies create social capital, especially if they are public servicesin close contact with the user. This is exactly the situation experienced in the public library.


Users primarily go to the library for core services: to access documents. Furthermore, libraryusers consider the key purpose of the library to be the distribution of documents and inform-ation. Usage patterns and user evaluations give the traditional library services a prominent rolein the public library's contribution to social capital.

Secondly, the public library building is a public space. This space is defined by the insti-tutionalized principle of equitable access for all. To access the library space, citizens do nothave to become members of a voluntary organization. In the library, they can in principle meeteverybody on an equal footing. This means that the library also can be an important creator ofsocial capital from below, an institution facilitating social meetings and social capitalgeneration (Audunson, 2005). The issue of users' self-selection cannot be ignored, but the verylow requirements for entering a public library may speak against this.

Thirdly, as an institution for information, the library is a place for bringing people togetherfor knowledge and reflection. Ultimately, this means that the library is not only a repository ofdocuments and social capital, but also a repository working for democracy in the Habermasiansense. However, libraries are already virtual places in addition to physical spaces. They willprobably remain physical spaces; given that documents and information are social phenomena,people will still visit the physical library space in future (Brown and Duguid, 2000). The themeof equity and universality runs through the question of the social capital-forming potential ofthe public library in all three respects: service, access, and information. The key word isuniversality. From this point of view, the library can become even better in creating socialcapital by making its universal services of even higher quality and by increasing its appeal touser groups in the relative minority.

This far, empirical findings suggest that the universal access aspect of the public librarymakes it extraordinarily suited for the task of creating social capital. Not only does the libraryprovide a universal service to all citizens without any means testing, it also provides a publicspace for the diversity of information and creation of meaning crucial for democracy. Being forall, the library enhances not only social capital but also democracy. Sustaining the universalservice aspect and equality of access are probably conditions for democracy in the long run. Inthe short run, the library has a vital role in maintaining the public sphere in times ofcommercial and political threats to the free formation of public opinion. The public library thusmakes a potential contribution to both the social and the political fabric of society andgovernment.

Acknowledgments

This paper is written as part of the research project “PLACE: Public Libraries—Arenas for Citizenship” conducted by researchers at Oslo School of Architecture andDesign, Oslo University College, and the University of Tromsø. I thank Svanhild Aabø,Ragnar Audunson, Eisaku Ide, and Sven Steinmo for their helpful comments to earlierversions. The participants at the meeting of library directors of Troms in Harstad,Norway, June 19–20, 2006 are thanked for constructive comments, and Tone Mikkelsenfor library services. The research has been funded by the University of Tromsø and theResearch Council of Norway.


References

Aabø, S. (2005). The value of public libraries: A methodological discussion and empirical study applying thecontingent valuation method. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity oflow-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61(3), 429−441.

Bjørnskov, C. (2004). Social trust and the growth of schooling. Paper presented at the 1st CRISS Annual Meetingfor Young Economists, Rome, Italy. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.unisi.it/criss/download/meeting2004/papers/bjornskov.pdf

Bjørnskov, C. (2007). Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public Choice, 130(1), 1−21.Boaden, S. (2005). Building public library community connections through cultural planning. Australasian Public

Libraries and Information Services, 18(1), 29−36.Bourke, C. (2005). Public libraries: Building social capital through networking. Australasian Public Libraries and

Information Services, 18(2), 71−75.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Bundy, A. (2005). Twelve million Australian public library friends: Worth an investment? Australasian Public

Libraries and Information Services, 18(3), 84−92.Chen, J., & Lu, C. (2007). Social capital in urban China: Attitudinal and behavioral effects on grassroots self-

government. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 422−442.Cox, E., Swinbourne, K., Pip, C., & Laing, S. (2000). A safe place to go: Libraries and social capital. Sydney:

University of Technology, Sydney, and the State Library of New South Wales.Debono, B. (2002). Assessing the social impact of public libraries: What the literature is saying. Australasian

Public Libraries and Information Services, 15(2), 80−95.Goulding, A. (2004). Libraries and social capital. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 36(1), 3−6.Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of

Sociology, 91(3), 481−510.Hillenbrand, C. (2005a). A place for all: Social capital at the Mount Barker Community Library, South Australia.

Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(2), 41−58.Hillenbrand, C. (2005b). Public libraries as developers of social capital. Australasian Public Libraries and

Information Services, 18(1), 4−12.Hooghe, M., & Stolle, D. (Eds.). (2003). Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative

perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Hutchinson, J., & Vidal, A. C. (2004). Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 142−192.Kerslake, E., & Kinnel, M. (1997). The social impact of libraries: A literature review. London: British Library

Research and Innovation Centre (Report No. 85).Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions,

inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661−687.Kranich, N. (2001). Libraries create social capital. Library Journal, 126(19), 40−41.Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare-state institutions.

Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 339−365.Linley, R., & Usherwood, B. (1998). New measures for the new library: A social audit of public libraries. London:

British Library Board (British Library Research and Innovation Centre Report, No. 89).Marschall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the city: Neighborhood context and the development of generalized

trust. Political Behavior, 26(2), 125−153.Marschall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2005). Seeing or living diversity: Contact with diverse others and the development of

generalized trust. Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, London,Ontario.

Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4),595−628.

http://www.unisi.it/criss/download/meeting2004/papers/bjornskov.pdf

http://www.unisi.it/criss/download/meeting2004/papers/bjornskov.pdf


Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Pierson, P. (2006). Public policies as institutions. In I. Shapiro, D. Galvin, & S. Skowronek (Eds.), Rethinkingpolitical institutions: The art of the state (pp. 230−266). New York: New York University Press.

Preer, J. (2001). Where are libraries in bowling alone? American Libraries, 32(8), 60.Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65−78.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and

Schuster.Putnam, R. D. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public

health: Commentary: “Health by association”: Some comments. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4),667−671.

Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L. M., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003a). Introduction: Social capital in Scandinavia. Scandinavian Political Studies,26(1), 1−26.

Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003b). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state: An institutional approach. InM. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparativeperspective (pp. 191−210). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1),41−72.

Stolle, D. (2003). The sources of social capital. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civilsociety and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 19−42). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2003). Conclusion: The sources of social capital reconsidered. In M. Hooghe &D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp.231−248). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Swank, D. (2002). Global capital, political institutions, and policy change in developed welfare states. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Togeby, L. (2004). It depends... How organisational participation affects political participation and social trustamong second-generation immigrants in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 509−528.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.Wakefield, S. E. L., & Poland, B. (2005). Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of

social capital in health promotion and community development. Social Science and Medicine, 60(12), 2819.World Values Survey. (2006). Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.jdsurvey.net:8080/bdasepjds/wvsevs/

PrinAnalize.jsp

http://www.jdsurvey.net:8080/bdasepjds/wvsevs/PrinAnalize.jsp

http://www.jdsurvey.net:8080/bdasepjds/wvsevs/PrinAnalize.jsp

social capital and public libraries: the need for research

Documents