This study investigates the relationship between social connections and collective civic action. Measuring social capital in eight Phoenix, Arizona, neighborhoods allowed the authors to determine that individuals with strong social bonding (i.e., association and trust among neighbors) are more likely to take civic action. However, while social capital lessens the relationship between an individual’s social status and the likelihood of taking action, it does not eliminate the positive relationship. The analysis also suggests that bonding and bridging are distinct forms of social capital that have some different antecedents
Alinsky, S.1971. Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
2.
Bandura, A.1997. Self-efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
3.
Boardman, J. D., and S. A. Robert. 2000. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and perceptions of self-efficacy. Sociological Perspectives43 (1): 117-136.
4.
Bourdieu, P.1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. J. G. Richardson, 241-258. New York: Greenwood.
5.
Brooks-Gunn, J., G. Duncan, J. Klebanov, and N. Sealand. 1993. Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development?American Journal of Sociology99 (2): 353-395.
6.
Carmon, N.1997. Neighborhood regeneration: The state of the art. Journal of Planning Education and Research17:131-144.
7.
Coleman, J. S.1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94:S95-S120.
8.
Coleman, J. S.. 1994. Foundations of social theory. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
9.
Davis, M.2001. Magical urbanism: Latinos reinvent the US big city. New York: Verso.
10.
Durkheim, E.1895/1962. The rules of sociological method. Trans. Sara Solovay and John Mueller. New York: Free Press.
11.
Edin, K., and L. Lein. 1997. Making ends meet. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12.
Ferguson, R. F., and W. T. Dickens. 1999. Introduction. In Urban problems and community development, ed. R. F. Ferguson and W. T. Dickens, 1-31. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13.
Gans, H.1962. The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press.
14.
Granovetter, M.1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78 (6): 1360-1380.
15.
Harlan, S., T. Rex, L. Larsen, E. Hackett, A. Kirby, S. Wolf, R. Bolin, A. Nelson, and D. Hope. 2003. The Phoenix area social survey: Community and environment in a desert metropolis, central Arizona-Phoenix long-term ecological research project contribution, no. 2. Tempe: Arizona State University, http://www.asu.edu/clas/sociology/pass.htm/ (accessed March 2003).
16.
Jargowsky, P. J.1997. Poverty and place. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
Kasarda, J., and M. Janowitz. 1974. Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review39:328-339.
18.
Massey, D. S., and N. A. Denton. 1993. American apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Mesch, G. S., and K. P. Schwirian. 1996. The effectiveness of neighborhood collective action. Social Problems43 (4): 467-483.
20.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy. 2000. Hits and misses: Fast growth in metropolitan Phoenix. Tempe, AZ: Author.
21.
Paxton, P.1999. Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology105 (1): 88-127.
22.
Portes, A., and J. Sensenbrenner. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology98 (6): 1320-1350.
23.
Putnam, R. D.1993. The prosperous community. American Prospect. 7 (Spring): 35-42.
24.
Putnam, R. D.. 1999. Bowling alone. New York: Touchstone Books.
25.
Rohe, W. M., and M. A. Stegman. 1994. The effects of homeownership. Journal of the American Planning Association60 (2): 173-184.
26.
Rydin, Y., E. Falleth, H. O. Brata, and I. Saglie. 2003. The role of social capital in spatial planning for resource management. Paper presented at the ACSP-AOESP Third Joint Congress, July 9, in Leuven, Belgium.
27.
Sampson, R. J.1988. Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review53 (October): 766-779.
28.
Sampson, R. J.. 1991. Linking the micro and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces70:43-64.
29.
Sampson, R. J.. 1999. What “community” supplies. In Urban problems and community redevelopment, ed. R. F. Ferguson and W. T. Dickens, 241-292. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenoff, and F. Earls. 1999. Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review64 (5): 633-660.
31.
Sampson, R. J., S. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277:918-924.
32.
Steinberger, P. J.1981. Social context and political efficacy. Sociology and Social Research65 (2): 129-141.
33.
Temkin, K., and W. M. Rohe. 1998. Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate9 (1): 61-88.
34.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan statistical area population demographics, http://www.census.gov/ (accessed March 2002).
35.
Varady, D. R.1983. Determinants of residential mobility decisions. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. 49 (Spring): 184-199.
36.
Warren, M. R., J. P. Thompson, and S. Saegert. 2001. The role of social capital in combating poverty. In Social capital and poor communities, ed. S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, and M. R. Warren, 1-28. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
Wilson, W. J.1987. The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Wilson, W. J.. 1996. When work disappears. New York: Knopf.
39.
Witte, A. D.1996. Urban crimes: Issues and policies. Housing Policy Debate7 (4): 731-748.
