The paper explores the association between social capital of young people at 12–13 years and their subjective well-being using Finland’s sub-sample of the third wave of the International Survey of Children’s Well-Being. Despite much previous research on this topic, relatively little knowledge is accumulated given that different studies define and measure social capital differently. In line with Robert Putnam, we understand social capital as a combination of social networks, trust, and norms of reciprocity. We measure well-being with two context-free scales: a one-dimensional overall life satisfaction scale and a five-dimensional Student’s life satisfaction scale. The analysis is done with linear and unconditional quantile regression. The results indicate that all three dimensions of social capital are significantly associated with well-being. Of the three, trust is the strongest predictor explaining over 30% of the variance in both well-being scales. The study demonstrates the relevance of considering all dimensions of social capital together to avoid unobserved variable bias. Quantile regression reveals that while social capital is important for well-being across the quantiles, it is particularly important for the youth who fare poorly otherwise. Family-related variables showed the strongest association with well-being while relationships with friends, schoolmates, teachers, and other people mattered considerably less.

The paper explores the association between the social capital of young people at 12-13 years and their subjective well-being using Finland’s sub-sample of the third wave of the International Survey of Children’s Well-Being. Despite many previous studies on this topic, relatively little is known of the actual effect of social capital given that different studies define and measure social capital differently. We rely strictly on Robert Putnam’s theory and understand it as a combination of social networks, trust, and norms of reciprocity. We measure well-being with two context-free scales: a one-dimensional overall life satisfaction scale and a five-dimensional Student’s life satisfaction scale. The analysis is done with linear and unconditional quantile regression. The results indicate that all three dimensions of social capital are significantly associated with well-being. Of the three, trust is the strongest predictor explaining over 30% of the variance in both well-being scales. Quantile regression suggests that while social capital is important for young people across the quantiles, trustful relations with family members are particularly important for those who fare poorly otherwise. For those who are satisfied with their lives, the importance of family members is lower, albeit still significant, but for them relationships with other people gain greater importance.

Much research has been done on the importance of social networks, but less is known about how social networks are built. This paper explores underlying factors that may contribute to the development of foreign-born populations’ social relationships in Finland. The study builds on Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) dyad of strong and weak ties and a spectrum of social connectedness, which is used as the dependent variable. Multinomial regression analyses are done separately for the tertiary educated and those with secondary education or less. The data comes from the Survey on Well-Being among Foreign Born Population in Finland (n: of 5,343). The study finds notable differences between the education groups. Overall, one out of four foreign-born persons has developed only limited strong and weak ties. This pattern is notably more common among those with lower education levels. Among those with higher education, the most common combination is extensive strong and weak ties. The only predictor that appears strongly and consistently relevant for both groups is a sufficient level of income, which facilitates the development of extensive social networks and protects against limited networks. Moreover, relevant local language skills appear to protect both groups against a limited social network composition.

the area is described. At the same time, these descriptions are suffering from a lack of any interpretation, and cannot aspire to the name of thick description. Moreover, some of the descriptions are somehow generic and definitely not class-related. For example, while Gorman's picture of school bullying (violence, ridiculing, etc. in peer groups) reveals some truth about this social phenomenon, at the same time, it does not apply solely to the working class; bullying can affect all children regardless of class or place. The third main problem with the book is that Gorman does not even try to compare his own case with similar works, for example, by Carolyn Steedman (1986) and Christine Walley (2013), only noting their existence in passing (p. 6), which shows a serious lack of engagement with the field. Despite the narrow focus of the book, the uniqueness of some of Gorman's ideas must be questioned, as many ethnographies and other analyses of similar neighborhoods are available, inter alia the works of Jonathan Rieder (1985), Marianna De Marco Torgovnick (1997), or Walter Thabit (2003), to which Gorman refers only loosely. He also notes, but only refers to in passing, a book of stories about growing up in that time and place, written by his old friend Tom Crockett (2015). To sum up, it is worth emphasizing that Gorman gathered rich and differentiated material which comprises memories, informal interviews, social media hangouts, and biographical materials, such as a letter cited in full and a complete study program. Nevertheless, the structure of the book should have been thoroughly rethought; because some parts seem unnecessary and contrast with brilliant pieces of sociological analysis. Sometimes less is more.

Introduction: Social capital is a valuable asset that spawns multiple benefits, but little is known about its origins. This study narrows the gap by exploring the extent to which adolescents’ social capital is shaped by their parents’ social capital, the socioeconomic status (SES) of their families, or that of their neighbourhood. The study also explores which dimensions of adolescent social capital are most sensitive to intergenerational or socioeconomic influence.Methods: The study uses survey data gathered from adolescents aged 12–13 years and their parents (n = 167) in Southwest Finland. For the analysis, adolescents’ social capital was disaggregated into four dimensions: social networks, social trust, tendency to receive help, and tendency to provide help. For each dimension, the associations with the hypothesised predictors were analysed separately using structural equation modelling. Results: The results suggest that parents’ social capital is the most influential predictor to each dimension of adolescents’ social capital establishing stronger associations as compared to the other two predictors. However, it is not the parents’ actual social capital as they report themselves, but their offspring’s perception of their social behaviour. Family’s SES relates to young people’s reciprocal tendency and level of trust only indirectly through parents’ social capital. Conversely, a disadvantaged socioeconomic neighbourhood is directly negatively associated with adolescents’ level of trust and frequency of receiving help. Conclusions: This study suggests that social capital is distinctly, although not exclusively, an intergenerational resource. Parents are critical role models for adolescent children.