ABSTRACT This study examines the role of social capital in shaping the individual likelihood of “civic engagement” defined specifically as informal and formal political participation. Based on a subset of the Asian Barometer Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development (2006), a representative cross-national dataset, it examines how and to what extent network size, voluntary association, generalized trust, and particularized trust differentially influence the political behaviors of the survey participants in Korea. The dependent variable is measured in terms of first, discussing political topics in an informal social context and, second, getting together with others in order to raise a political issue or sign a petition. Four independent variables are measured: 1) the size of egocentric network; 2) the membership in voluntary organizations and formal groups; 3) the degree of trust placed in generalized others (i.e., strangers); and 4) the extent to which survey respondents place their trust in particularized others (those with whom one has a personal relationship). Quantitative analyses show that, ceteris paribus, network size and voluntary association have a strong causal impact on both outcome variables. Generalized trust is found to be a non-significant factor, however, while particularized trust has a contingent effect. Along with the interpretation of statistical results, their broad theoretical implications are also discussed.
Cite this paper
Kim, H. (2012). How Do Network Size, Voluntary Association, and Trust Affect Civic Engagement? Evidence from the Asian Barometer Survey. Advances in Applied Sociology, 2, 253-259. doi: 10.4236/aasoci.2012.24033.
 Bahry, D., Kosolapov, M., Kozyreva, P., & Wilson, R. (2005). Ethnicity and trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 521-532.
 Braithwaite, V., & Levi, M. (2002). Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
 Burt, R. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Dekker, P., & Uslaner, E. (2001). Social capital and participation in everyday life. London: Routledge.
 Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts: The origins of social trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5, 93-137.
 Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and creation of prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
 Gibson, J. (2001). Social networks, civil society, and prospects for consolidating Russia’s democratic transition. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 51-68. doi:10.2307/2669359
 Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469
 Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.
 Ikeda, K., & Richey, S. (2005). Japanese network capital: The impact of social network on Japanese political participation. Political Behavior, 27, 239-260. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-5512-0
 Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political changes in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Jamal, A., & Nooruddin, I. (2010). The democratic utility of trust: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Politics, 71, 45-59.
 Kim, J. Y. (2005). Bowling together isn’t a cure-all: The relationship between social capital and political trust in South Korea. International Political Science Review, 26, 193-213.
 Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social networks, social capital, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567-584.
 Lee, J. (2008). Path toward democracy in South Korea: Social capital & democracy embedded in the citizens. Asian Survey, 48, 580-602.
 Marsh, J. (2005). Social capital and democracy in a new democracy. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 593-615.
 Mishler,W., & Rose, R. (2005). What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 1050-1078.
 Nannestead, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? American Review of Political Science, 11, 413-436.
 Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22, 201-214.
 Newton, K., & Norris, P. (2000). Confidence in public institutions: Faith, culture, or performance? In S. Pharr, & R. Putnam, (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 Newton, K., & Zimerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review, 3, 169-200.
 Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67, 254-277.
 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 and Schuster.
 Rothstein, B. (2002). Social capital in the social democratic state. In R. Putnam, (Ed.), Democracies in flux. The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41-72.
 Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2008). The state and social capital. Comparative Politics, 40, 441-459.
 Stolle, D. (2001). Clubs and congregations: The benefits of joining an association. In K. Cook, (Ed.), Trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
 Tavits, M. (2006). Making democracy work more? Exploring the linkage between social capital and government performance. Political Science Quarterly, 59, 211-225.
 De Tocqueville, A. (1969 ). Democracy in America. New York: Harper Perennial.