| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Introduction: This article is a critical paper related to outstanding paper, namely "Methodological and meaning critique of social capital" by Fariborz Raisdana in the 55th issue of the Journal of Social Welfare. Since the early 1990s the social capital appeared in the development lexicon as a positive phenomenon, in contrast to Marxist perspective that has always been theorized capital as a historically – specific social relation of class exploitation. In judging between two views, Raisdana defends the latter position. Theory of social capital mixed two domains "economic" and "non –economic" and allows researchers to import the concept of social in economic analysis through the backdoor. İn spite of two major theorists Coleman and Putnam this effort was unsatisfactory, because of its contradictory foundation and its impoverished notions of both the economic and social. Raisdana praises Fine because he critically regarded the issue and considered it as being contained discrimination as well as a vague and inaccurate and insists that the word social capital was based on conservative acceptance of capitalist accepted norms. However, in his critics, he follows Ben fine, but he forgets Fine emphasis on Braudel's critic of capital. Fernando Braudel is superior to Beurdiue in both scientific status and theoretical power in critical view on capital construct, Especially his suggestion that capitalism is something different from the market economy. Unlike the market economy two categories, namely material life and capitalist economy were in shadowy zone. In the current article the social capital is attributed to this shadowy zone and criticized as a fuzzy concept with illdefined meaning. Method:The method was a critical study that rational and structural critiques have been criticized in Raisdana's article due to its shortcomings, while its strengths are admired. Findings:The most significant strength of Raisdana was his attention to the notion of transforming capital in Marx view to its reconceptualisation in social capital (SC), his critique of replacing consequence of SC with causation, vagueness and ambiguity of SC is his strength.However, Raisdana can't explain intangible asset in SC, also Raisdand confused historical pionts such as Italian studies of Putnam and his references are wrong. By content analysis of Raisdana's article eleven axes in his critiques to SC concept are recognized, however many of them were discussed by Ben fine and Raisdana adopted his view points, But Raisdana creativity was the theory presented by him that he coined it an Anicapital theory of official corruption. Discussion: Raisdana notices only marxistian critic of social capital and neglects the outstanding scientist of Annals school. Ultimately, Raisdana's definition of anti-capital (instead of capital) of social capital is particularly important. It has been shown in this paper that it is possible to construct a more precise interpretation of capital in the negative sense of corrupt administration through Fernando Braudel's theory. The author of the current paper acknowledges Reisdana on social capital versus social theories, especially in (not mentioned by him) these two theories, namely social identity theory and strength of weak ties, and confirms Fine's suggestion to omit social capital word from social theory because of its incapability to explain social phenomena. The author expands Raisdana's statement of "Anticapital theory of corruption". Raisdana's protested to the idea of social capital based on inaccurate ideas is praised. The article accepts most of his criticisms, but emphasizes some of his mistakes |