Social capital is very good for people. It builds relationships, improves life and increases development. Social capital should not be focused on the big or small, but on the community as a whole. Robert Putnam's view is on the side of community good over personal good and that is why I am on Putnam's side. Robert Putnam's theory of social capital is widely applied and is not focused on prestigious groups or self-centeredness like Pierre Bourdieu's. The civic community, a major factor contributing to government effectiveness, is included in Putnam's study and discussed in depth, which Coleman and Bourdieu failed to do. Bourdieu focused on social capital as a means by which the powerful and wealthy could protect their position and continue to prosper through group monopoly. Thus keeping strangers away. In a Marxist sense, he is primarily interested in the capital of capitalists. While Bourdieu saw it from one extreme, Coleman saw it from another, focusing more on the benefits of social capital for the less wealthy. However, Coleman's view of social capital also has its reasons...