| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 | 28 |
29 |
« Automatically Sensing Social Networks | Main | Clinton v Obama: battle of the fund raising networks »
6 May 2007
Last week Wayne E. Baker of the University of Michigan spoke on "Social Capital and Generalized Reciprocity". This is a belated entry to request reactions to the talk and topic. Here is the abstract he provided for the talk:
"Reciprocity is a human universal. It is the engine of social capital in groups, organizations, and communities. I present results from three pilot studies of generalized reciprocity in organizational settings. Using the Reciprocity Ring™ to collect data on generalized reciprocity, I explore three topics: network evolution, values and positive mood, and the role of pre-existing networks."
Let me briefly elaborate. The key question about reciprocity explored in the talk was why A helps B given that B may not be in a position to help A in the future. Prof. Baker has developed a particular research paradigm (the “Reciprocity Ring”_, in which a group is told to ask for and give help (on anything), where the empirical puzzle is what drives some people to be more helpful than others. In any case, if you were at the talk and reactions to his presentation, or if you had comments about the drivers of “generalized reciprocity,” so defined, please comment here.
Posted by David Lazer at May 6, 2007 3:26 PM
This seems to be re-inventing the Marcel Mauss' Gift paradigm: several reasons to give, from structural gift (it makes you a better, more respectable person, as in many charities) to evergetism (you give because you hold a power position, as did Roman patrons or todays CEOs); what he describes is the "belonging gift": gift as an entry contribution to a cooperative group.
Posted by: Bertil at May 14, 2007 10:36 AM