Scholarlink

<p>Social capital is widely theorized as a critical resource for refugee livelihoods, yet quantitative evidence on its effects and whether different forms of social capital benefit different households remains limited. The distinction between <i>bonding</i> capital (ties within refugee communities) and <i>bridging</i> capital (connections with host communities) is conceptually well-established, but empirical tests of their relative importance in displacement contexts are scarce. This study tests whether bridging social capital is a stronger determinant of livelihood resilience than bonding social capital among refugee households in Uganda, and investigates whether effects vary across the resilience distribution. Using data from 1,810 refugee households across 13 settlements in Uganda (UBOS/FAO, 2021), we construct standardized bonding and bridging social capital indices. We employ OLS regression with settlement fixed effects and quantile regression at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles to examine whether social capital effects vary across the resilience distribution. Bonding and bridging social capital are orthogonal dimensions (r = − 0.009), indicating they are distinct, non-substitutable resources. OLS reveals modest but significant effects: bonding (β = 0.053, <i>p</i> = 0.041) and bridging (β = 0.049, <i>p</i> = 0.052). Quantile regression reveals striking heterogeneity: bonding capital effects are largest at the median (β = 0.128, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and negligible at extremes; bridging capital effects are concentrated at upper quantiles (75th: β = 0.106, p &lt; 0.001; 90th: β = 0.059, <i>p</i> = 0.002), with a suggestive negative coefficient at the 25th percentile (β = − 0.066, <i>p</i> = 0.068). Bonding and bridging capital serve complementary functions and matter differently for different households. Bonding capital provides critical support for households facing moderate adversity; bridging capital benefits already-resilient households but may impose costs on the most vulnerable. Policy should adopt a portfolio approach rather than privileging one form over another.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The heterogeneous effects of bonding and bridging social capital on livelihood resilience among refugee households in Uganda

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月15日

查看全文
  • John Paul John Tugume,
  • Bernard Bashaasha,
  • Elizabeth Ahikiriza,
  • Felix Wamono,
  • Ronald Ogenrwot

摘要

Social capital is widely theorized as a critical resource for refugee livelihoods, yet quantitative evidence on its effects and whether different forms of social capital benefit different households remains limited. The distinction between bonding capital (ties within refugee communities) and bridging capital (connections with host communities) is conceptually well-established, but empirical tests of their relative importance in displacement contexts are scarce. This study tests whether bridging social capital is a stronger determinant of livelihood resilience than bonding social capital among refugee households in Uganda, and investigates whether effects vary across the resilience distribution. Using data from 1,810 refugee households across 13 settlements in Uganda (UBOS/FAO, 2021), we construct standardized bonding and bridging social capital indices. We employ OLS regression with settlement fixed effects and quantile regression at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles to examine whether social capital effects vary across the resilience distribution. Bonding and bridging social capital are orthogonal dimensions (r = − 0.009), indicating they are distinct, non-substitutable resources. OLS reveals modest but significant effects: bonding (β = 0.053, p = 0.041) and bridging (β = 0.049, p = 0.052). Quantile regression reveals striking heterogeneity: bonding capital effects are largest at the median (β = 0.128, p < 0.001) and negligible at extremes; bridging capital effects are concentrated at upper quantiles (75th: β = 0.106, p < 0.001; 90th: β = 0.059, p = 0.002), with a suggestive negative coefficient at the 25th percentile (β = − 0.066, p = 0.068). Bonding and bridging capital serve complementary functions and matter differently for different households. Bonding capital provides critical support for households facing moderate adversity; bridging capital benefits already-resilient households but may impose costs on the most vulnerable. Policy should adopt a portfolio approach rather than privileging one form over another.