Do libraries matter? Public libraries and the creation of social capital

Purpose – Librarians and the library profession keep repeating that libraries contribute greatly to generating social capital by “building community”. However, little evidence of this has been presented. This paper aims to be a first step towards correcting this situation by asking whether public libraries matter in the creation of generalized trust. Design/methodology/approach – This study used quantitative data in analyzing macro-level data on whether public library expenditure could explain social trust patterns in the OECD countries. Additionally, a few qualitative interviews with public library leaders in the USA and Norway were used to indicate by what mechanisms, or by which processes, libraries generate generalized trust. Findings – The main finding is that public libraries seem the most important factor in creating generalized trust in the OECD area, even more so than efficient/impartial public institutions. However, there is the problem of causal direction. It might be the case that it is high trusting countries that prioritize public libraries. Therefore, times series data are needed as well as qualitative data on the process of trust creation in the library. Interviews with library leaders point towards the fact that they see outreach activities as creating trust and that people trust the library. Replication of these results, however, is crucial. Moreover, the findings appear to indicate that when the library's attention is directed at disadvantaged groups of non-users it is the widespread trust in the public library institution that breeds trust among these groups too. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the understanding/theory of the creation of generalized trust in general and to the role of the public library in this process.This paper was written as part of the research project “PLACE: Public Libraries – Arenas for Citizenship” lead by Professor Ragnar A. Audunson, Oslo University College, and financed by the Research Council of Norway. The authors would like to thank members of the PLACE research group, master students in the class on information and cultural policy (fall semester 2007) within the LIS program at Oslo University College, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. They would also like to thank Professor Susan Clarke and the Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences (CARTSS) at the University of Colorado at Boulder for having provided an excellent work environment

Tomemos en serio la evolución: Análisis institucional y teoría evolutiva.

En este ensayo exploramos los supuestos epistemológicos y ontológicos que se adoptaron para que la ciencia política fuera “científica”. Mostramos que adoptó en general una filosofía ontológicamente reduccionista de la ciencia derivada de la física newtoniana. Este marco mecánico tiene problemas y restricciones en su poder explicativo porque el énfasis en el análisis del equilibrio es inadecuado para el estudio del cambio político. Describimos las principales diferencias entre una ontología evolucionista de la ciencia social y la filosofía basada en la física que se suele utilizar. Por último, mostramos que el pensamiento evolutivo mejora la comprensión de fenómenos políticos y preguntas de investigación que son de importancia central en este campo, como la formación de preferencias.cambio institucional endógeno, teoría evolutiva, sistemas adaptativos complejos, nuevo institucionalismo.

How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analyses of Capitalist Diversity

This essay reviews the development of approaches within the comparative capitalisms (CC) literature and points to three theoretical innovations which, taken together, define and distinguish these approaches as a group. First, national economies are characterized by distinct institutional configurations that generate a particular systemic 'logic' of economic action. Second, the CC literature suggests a theory of comparative institutional advantage in which different institutional arrangements have distinct strengths and weaknesses for different kinds of economic activity. Third, the literature has been interpreted to imply a theory of institutional path dependence. Behind these unifying characteristics of the literature, however, lie a variety of analytical frameworks and typologies of capitalism. This paper reviews and compares these different frameworks by highlighting the fundamental distinctions among them and drawing out their respective contributions and limitations in explaining economic performance and institutional dynamics. The paper concludes that the way forward for this literature lies in developing a more dynamic view of individual institutions, the linkages between domains, and the role of politics and power.In diesem Discussion Paper werden Ansätze der Comparative-Capitalism-Diskussion vorgestellt. Sie haben drei theoretische Innovationen gemein. Erstens: Nationale Ökonomien werden durch institutionelle Konfigurationen geprägt, die auf jeweils eigene "systemische Logiken" wirtschaftlichen Handelns hinwirken. Zweitens: Die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur beinhaltet eine Theorie der komparativen institutionellen Vorteile, der zufolge institutionellen Konfigurationen spezifische Wettbewerbsvorteile zugeordnet werden können. Zudem, drittens, beinhaltet die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur auch eine implizite Theorie der Pfadabhängigkeit. Trotz dieser Gemeinsamkeiten unterscheiden sich die Ansätze hinsichtlich analytischer Zugriffe und Vorschläge zur Typologisierung nationaler Kapitalismen. Beim Vergleich dieser Ansätze werden besonders deren Stärken und Schwächen bei der Analyse wirtschaftlicher Performanz und institutioneller Entwicklungsdynamiken hervorgehoben. Der Aufsatz kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Comparative-Capitalism-Literatur in dreierlei Hinsicht der Weiterentwicklung bedarf: hinsichtlich einer dynamischeren Modellierung von Institutionen, einem besseren Verständnis der Interaktion institutioneller Domänen und der Berücksichtigung von Macht und Politik in der Analyse von Produktionsregimen