Once again, Stumbling and Mumbling relays a potentially huge insight here, as part of a wider post on how pogroms of various kinds can leave a lasting mark upon the place that they happened in:
“When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe.”
Those of us that think that the solving of very local problems (the lack of neighbourhood networks, recognisable legitimate and effective forms of governance, neighbourhood infrastructure, etc) have always nodded vaguely towards the concept of social capital, urging people we talk to to find out a bit more about it. But Chris’ emphasis on the damage that is done when the middle class is decimated is one that I think raises questions about how far economic centralisation results in the development of local social capital being relegated as a priority.
Is it the case that a huge leap in national productivity and prosperity could be created if we could find a way of persuading the middle classes to live and work in the towns that they grew up in?
