"The norms and networks of civic engagement also powerfully affect the performance of representative government. That, at least, was the central conclusion of my own 20–year, quasi–experimental study of subnational governments in different regions of Italy [3]. Although all these regional governments seemed identical on paper, their levels of effectiveness varied dramatically. Systematic inquiry showed that the quality of governance was determined by longstanding traditions of civic engagement (or its absence). Voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and football clubs––these were the hallmarks of a successful region. In fact, historical analysis suggested that these networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being an epiphenomenon of socioeconomic modernization, were a precondition for it. ...
For a variety of reasons, life is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital. In the first place, networks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved. When economic and political negotiation is embedded in dense networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism are reduced. At the same time, networks of civic engagement embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a cultural template for future collaboration. Finally, dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, developing the 'I' into the 'we,' or (in the language of rational–choice theorists) enhancing the participants' 'taste' for collective benefits."
(Robert Putnam, Journal of Democracy 6:1, Jan 1995, 65–78)
Robert Putnam (1993). "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital", Journal of Democracy 6.1 65-78.
http://archive.realtor.org/sites/default/files/BowlingAlone.pdf