an economics metaphor for social support
14 october 2003

In "Network Capital in a Multi-Level World," Wellman and Frank make the point that whereas in yesteryear social support was thought of in terms of personal membership in solidary groups such as a family, a church, and a career, today's networked world shifts emphasis from solidary groups to individual ties. It seems as if solidary groups give support for free. So it comes as no surprise that living in a day and age when nothing-is-free, and no cultural, moral, or civic duty compells us to freely support those in our group, the amount of social support we receive is now more a function of small-scale exchange of social capital. Wellman and Frank speak of three factors affecting social support: the characteristics of the individual, the nature of our ties, and responsibility of group membership. In declaring that our day and age is one of networked individualism, Wellman and Frank are really conceding the eroding role of group membership in social support. We don't really feel a duty, or possess an altruism to the group. We expect to only give what we get from the group. This thrusts the group into a tragedy of the commons deadlock, where members are not willing to give unless they've gotten, so there is a stalemate. There are, however, exceptions. The family, or at least, the nuclear family, is still intact in western societies. So are community churches (where duty is bound by fear of damnation!! how's that for altruism??).

With the decline of group influence, social support becomes more heavily a factor of the individual and of his/her ties. The characteristics of the individual can be thought of as the potential of a person to receive and give support. The nature of a person's ties can be thought of as the realized pool of resources for support. Just as Wellman and Frank talk about networks in terms of capital, economics is a good all-around metaphor for social support. I would suggest that it can even be measured that economics is the metaphor they actually use for social support. Taking this purely economics position of social support, I propose the following reworking of Wellman and Frank's analytical model.

Written sketch: Here is a rudimentary proposal and written sketch. Think of social supports as services you can purchase. Think of your immediate social network as vendors, each of whom carries a different offering of social support services (e.g. romantic, friendship, business). You yourself are a vendor of services, and the services you can offer and their costs are a function of the character of your individual. You have an account with each of them with a certain balance. If you sell them a service, money is put into your account with them. The more business you do with one another, perhaps the lower the cost of each service (we are more cheerful to support a good friend), and the higher the line of borrowing credit (we are willing to pull huge favors for someone given we trust they are capable of reciprocating). How services are priced is up to the individual. Other factors also come into play. For example, a particular vendor (person) may be very popular with other customers (their friends), and thus, their supply is lowered. Of course, when they have less inventory, that inventory costs more. This explains how getting a support favor from a very in-demand friend "means" more. It may either cost you a lot of social capital if that person is not fond of you, or not cost much at all (if that person gives you the wholesale price on the service since you are such a good customer).

Given the above sketch, we can make some nice predictions. If you are the needy type of person, you will spend more at your vendors they you probably have credit for, and very quickly, you will lose friends. If you are very busy and your attention is fragmented, you have a very low account balance with a lot of vendors, but not enough balance to purchase anything from anyone. If you are very busy but you give slightly more attention to a few people, these people will pay you more for your services, in recognition of their scarcity and thus, you will have a good account balance with these vendors. Finally, no one likes to shop at a vendor with a bad selection, so people are more likely to want to do business with you if you have a lot to offer in different departments. Similarly, no one shops at a place where supply is too low, or prices are too high. To increase supply, keep fewer friends. To lower prices mutually, do more mutual business. Just as in economics, I believe there is a sweet spot where social support's supply and demand meet. So perhaps given a person's needs and their friends, it is possible to calculate just how much business should be done with each person.