FELIX REQUENA

SOCIAL CAPITAL, SATISFACTION AND QUALITY OF

LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE

(Accepted 23 July, 2002)

ABSTRACT. This article is an empirical analysis of the relationship between

social capital and satisfaction and quality of life in the workplace in Spain. Social
capital has been defined as the set of cooperative relationships between social
actors that facilitate collective action. This concept has been measured based on
five dimensions: trust, social relations, commitment, communication and influ-
ence. An analysis has been carried out applying regression and causal models to
determine the influence on satisfaction and quality of life at work of social capital
dimensions and of characteristics of the worker, work environment and company
or organization. The data is based on Spain’s 2001 Quality of Life at Work Survey.
The results of the analysis indicate that the models applied are significant, which
confirms the examined propositions. Higher levels of social capital imply greater
levels of satisfaction and quality of life at work. Social capital is a better predictor
of quality of life at work and job satisfaction than the characteristics of the worker,
the company or organization, and the work environment.

INTRODUCTION

This article examines how social capital affects levels of satisfac-

tion and well-being at work. Social capital is a multidimensional
concept. It has been defined in various ways depending on the broad
spectrum of different perspectives used to address it. One estab-
lishes the capital provided by social relations and links derived from
belonging to social networks (Burt, 2000, 2001); another addresses
the participation in associations that generate civil engagement
(Putnam, 1993a, b), and a third the formation of generalized trust in
others (Coleman, 1988; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Creed and Miles,
1996).
The importance of social capital lies in that it brings together
several important sociological concepts such as social support, inte-
gration and social cohesion. Social capital also relates to norms and
values. Another quality is it’s easy operationalization in economic

Social Indicators Research 61: 331–360, 2003.

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
332 FELIX REQUENA

activities and organizations (Lin et al., 2001). This concept can func-
tion in a great number of social and institutional contexts. All these
dimensions of social capital can be classified in two complementary
broad categories or conceptions: one considers it to be a quality of
individuals or groups; the other sees it as the value given to the
relationships between social actors. These two viewpoints actually
belong to the same relational reality.
In this article we shall address social capital in its broadest sense,
focusing on it as a quality of individuals and groups, and specifically
as confidence in others. This conception is partly cultural, partly
structural. It includes aspects such as submission to norms, social
integration and confidence in others and in institutions. Specifically,
it is a set of informal norms and values, shared by members of
a group, that permit cooperation. These shared norms and values
generate trust among the participants. In other words, it is the set of
cooperative relations between social actors that facilitate solutions
to collective action problems.
When considered as the set of informal norms and values shared
by the members of a group, social capital can be measured by
frequency of association, gathering, cooperation or levels of trust
and commitment generated in social groups. The fairly straightfor-
ward manner of operationalizing this concept is a clear advantage.
A quantitative measure of this meaning of social capital could
be, for example, the number of voluntary associations with free
participation.
It can also be measured by the level of trust between people that
interact with each other. This conception of social capital is present
in questions such as the degree of trust in political and economic
institutions, trust in co-workers, levels of camaraderie at work and
in other activities, etc. These sorts of questions can be found in
numerous surveys referring to the values and level of commitment
of individuals toward the social contexts in which they participate,
or in general towards the society to which they belong.
Social capital as generalized trust in others has multiple operative
applications for the analysis of social organizations, and especially
companies, which as organizations need the cooperation of their
members in order to successfully achieve objectives. This article
shall examine how certain aspects of social capital such as trust,
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 333

commitment and relations with others, impact the activities carried

out within companies and organizations, producing greater or lesser
levels of well-being at work.

THEORY AND PROPOSITIONAL STATEMENTS

Social Capital in Economic Institutions

If society is seen as a set of interrelated institutions, then the
economy cannot be separate from social life or social relations but
must be understood as part of the organization of societal struc-
tures (Fukuyama, 1995, 1999). In consequence, social capital and
the trust it generates are essential for the healthy functioning of
the market relations upon which economic institutions are based.
Certain ethical habits are essential to organizational innovation and
creation of wealth, habits such as the capacity for association,
commitment and positive social relations (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 57).
Social capital is a very important ingredient in the development
of economic institutions. Economic transactions such as contracts
or job searches are much more efficient when carried out within
social networks, as shown by research in the field of social networks
(Granovetter, 1985; Requena, 1991; De Graaf and Flap, 1988).
Examples of social networks empowering movement in the tech-
nological innovation market can be seen in the Silicon Valley
(Saxenian, 1994) and the industrial districts of Northern Italy (Pyke
et al., 1990). The networks of cooperation between workers and
small companies generate a high degree of flexibility in the face
of increasingly variable markets. Far from being a primal indus-
trial anachronism, these concentrations of social capital lubricate
the ultra-modern high-tech or fashion industries. The social capital
approach is an aid in formulating new development strategies.
Social institutions, especially economic ones, do not func-
tion correctly without processes for generating trust, establishing
expectations, and creating or reinforcing shared norms. All these
processes are facilitated by social capital. This is a form of intro-
ducing the matter of social organization and relations in the analysis
of economic systems, not only as an overarching structure that
includes the economic institutions but also as a structure with its
own history and continuity that produces an independent effect
334 FELIX REQUENA

on the functioning of the economic institutions (Coleman, 1988).

Simply stated, economic institutions cannot function without the
social relations that surround them.
This leads us to suggest that one of the best possible scenes for
observing social capital operating in advanced societies would be
in organizations, where social capital generates a high potential for
achieving objectives and facilitates higher goals with less effort.
In order for the corporate environment to function correctly,
it is fundamental to incorporate the social capital dimensions of
trust, social relations, commitment to the team and a process of
communication. In addition to norms and formal values expressed
in documents and contracts, the activities of the corporate world
can hardly be carried out unless certain informal and unwritten but
essential norms are present on a daily basis. At the same time, these
activities generate satisfaction and well-being among the people
involved precisely because of good relations, trust and commitment
between them. These activities can of course be carried out without
trust or commitment, but they no longer generate the same degree of
satisfaction and well-being. This leads us to advance the following
proposition (P1): The levels of well-being and satisfaction derived
from work activities will be higher in individuals that are fortunate
enough to work in companies or teams in which there are higher
levels of trust, social relations and commitment. That is to say, the
chances of obtaining a higher degree of satisfaction from work will
depend more on the level of relations, trust and social commitment
obtained from the work environment than on other personal or labor
characteristics.
In order to have quality of life at work, it is not enough to
have a job that generates labor satisfaction. There are other factors
involved, such as the physical conditions of the workplace, which
contribute to a better or worse quality of life at work. One factor
is satisfaction with one’s work, but other relevant factors are the
level of stress, fatigue, overcrowding, and weekend work sched-
ules. All these factors contribute to determine the quality of life at
work that a person experiences, but also influential are the relations
that the worker maintains with others in the workplace. A higher
quality of life at work will undoubtedly be determined by elements
relating to better or worse relationships, trust and commitment
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 335

Source: Adapted from Lowe and Schellenberg (2001, p. 6).

Figure 1. A model of the relationships between workplace environment, social
capital and quality of life at work.

with bosses and/or subordinates. This leads to a second proposition

(P2): Workers who maintain higher levels of trust, social relations
and commitment towards higher management and subordinates will
have a greater probability of reaching better levels of quality of life
at work.

The Importance of Work Relations

Lowe and Schellenberg (2001) have outlined a model for Canada
that causally links social capital with the level of satisfaction and
well-being generated by a work position. They examined how
trust, commitment and social relations affect workers’ personal
and subjective achievements. Both at individual and organizational
levels social capital predicts greater work achievements.
This multidimensional approach links employment relationships
and levels of trust with achievements in one’s work. The Lowe and
Schellenberg (2001) model (Figure 1) is composed of several levels
of variables: the amount of social capital is affected by personal
characteristics and workplace variables, and social capital affects
the degree of job satisfaction and quality of life at work. This
is a three-step model: (1) personal characteristics and the work
336 FELIX REQUENA

environment influence the level of social capital achieved; (2) social

capital affects success at work in regard to satisfaction and well-
being; and (3) a feedback effect results in satisfaction and well-being
generating a positive effect by increasing the social capital of the
worker.
Work relations are regulated by legal norms, regulations and
contracts involving mainly the employer and employee. But beyond
the legal base that institutionalizes them, job relationships manifest
social capital as trust towards higher management and co-workers,
commitment to the company or organization, friendship with the
people in the workplace, possibility of influence, and channels for
communication. These dimensions affect the personal achievements
of the worker in the workplace.
Lowe and Schellenberg (2001) propose a model in which the
individual characteristics of workers and their job position and
environment affect the nature of employment relationships, that is,
social capital, which in turn is linked with the quality of life at work
and levels of personal satisfaction that a job provides.
As the Lowe and Schellenberg model fits the two propositions
just advanced, this article applies the model to the case of Spain.
Thus we consider that personal and workplace characteristics affect
social capital, which is the main factor involved in achieving satis-
faction and well-being at work, and in turn satisfaction reinforces
the workers’ levels of social capital.

DATA AND VARIABLES

The data in this article are from the 2001 Survey on Quality of Life
at Work [Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo] (ECVT, 2001).
Spain’s Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has been carrying out
the ECVT research project since 1999. This yearly survey gathers
information on various aspects related to workers’ job settings in
Spain. It provides a panorama of the circumstances surrounding the
work environment, along with information concerning the worker’s
personal evaluation of the work environment and daily activities. As
a barometer of Spain’s quality of life at work,1 the data includes
information on work relations, degree of satisfaction with various
aspects of work, organization and division of labor, work integra-
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 337

tion and promotions, along with the occupational situation, family

context and values of the occupied labor force.
The data came from the Spain’s ECVT survey, conducted in
2001. It is a random representative national sample based on a three-
stages design, and stratified by regions and municipal size. The
sample size was N = 6020 occupied population of both sexes, aged
16 and over, living in a family setting. The survey was carried out
face to face at the respondent’s homes in order to avoid pressures
from the corporate setting. The confidence limit was 95.5% (2σ ),
and estimated error, for the most unfavourable case, was ±1.4%.
This project focuses on labor and corporate settings, so the
analysis is limited to salaried employees. The number of occupied
workers of either sex employed by public or private organiza-
tions/companies in the survey was N = 4800. In this fashion we
limit our study to social capitals’ effects on the processes that
generate quality of life at work within companies and organizations.
So when referring to hierarchy, management or subordinates, or to
employment relationships, we are referring only to processes within
companies or organizations.
The following variables have been used in the models:

Independent Variables
Social capital variables. These are the key variables of the analysis.
Several multi-item scales have been constructed linking social
capital variables to a set of related dimensions. All of them have a
good level of reliability. The five dimensions of the variable gener-
ically labeled “social capital” are trust, social relations, commit-
ment, communication and influence. Let us examine the items that
compose each dimension:
Trust: I have [much, some, little, almost no, no] trust in
management; In my company/organization people who work
together trust each other because that is the best and easiest way
to get the work done. (The internal consistency of the items that
compose this scale is measure by Cronbach’s alpha2 = 0.75.)
Social relations: Could you please tell me if you have strong
friendships with [all, most, some, almost none, none] of your
co-workers? (i.e., asking for a favor; going out to dinner or
coffee with them and/or their mate); In general how would you
338 FELIX REQUENA

describe the relationships between peers in your workplace?

[very good, fairly good, neither good nor bad, fairly poor, very
poor]. (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.59).
Commitment: I am willing to work more than required in order
to help my company or organization succeed; I am proud to
be working for my company or organization; I consider my
company’s/organization’s experiences as my own. (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.69).
Communication: I can share my opinion concerning matters
related to my job.
Influence: At work I can put my ideas into practice.
Attributes’ variables. These are composed of four large groups that
we have labeled personal attributes (sex, age, educational level,
income,3 and size of city); family characteristics (head of household,
marital status, and dependent children); corporate or organizational
characteristics (size of company, sector of the economy, state-owned
versus private sector company/organization, and working a shift
schedule); and characteristics of the workplace (weekly number of
hours at work, level in hierarchy, supervisory role at work, number
of years at the company, high-risk conditions at work).

Dependent Variables
Satisfaction and quality of life at work variables. The dependent
variables used in this research are the degree of job satisfaction and
the Index of Quality of Life at Work.
These both variables are difficult to measure because they are
hard to define. These terms may be understood in multiple ways
(Seed and Lloyd, 1997; Campbell et al., 1976; Türksever and Atalik,
2000). Difficulties arise when measuring either of these concepts
of job satisfaction (Hamermesh, 2000; Clark et al., 1998; Freeman,
1978) and quality of life at work (Krahn, 1992; Setien, 1993; Sirgy
et al., 2001).
This article attempts to maintain a balance between parsimony
and operationalization in the labor setting studied. Quality of
life involves both subjective aspects expressed by individuals and
objective aspects about which the subjects give a response.
Two indicators of personal well-being at work have been distin-
guished, a simple one – the satisfaction scale applied to work –
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 339

and a complex one – the index of quality of life at work. The job
satisfaction scale is a clear indicator providing direct information
on the level of general satisfaction that a worker derives from his
or her labor setting. On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 indicates lack of
satisfaction and 10 shows a high degree of satisfaction. This is a
subjective indicator.
The index of quality of life at work used by ECVT is a complex
measure referring exclusively to the worker’s job position. It is
composed of several items including subjective elements such as
personal job satisfaction and more objective elements such as the
worker’s shift and being required to work weekends. This indicator
is constructed to include both subjective and objective elements
affecting quality of life at work, and even though some aspects go
beyond labor, they are related to the job setting as they influence the
performance and well-being of workers.
In this index each of the following labor situations is scored with
a point:
Objective: independence in job position; not working on week-
ends; eating at home on work days; no overcrowding at home.
Subjective: demonstrating a high degree of satisfaction with the
work done (responses 8, 9, and 10 of a numerical rating scale
from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest work satisfaction); work
environment is considered stimulating; work is not exhausting.
The scale varies from extremely low quality of work life at 0 to
extremely high quality of work life at 7. In order to facilitate its
use and comprehension, the indicator has been transformed into
a normal scale ranging from 0 to 10.
The validity of the quality of life at work index has been
insured by factor analysis (Table I). The index is composed of three
factors that cover the subjective and objective elements in the factor
analysis:
1. A factor referring to stimulating work. It is composed of the
following elements: (a) working with independence; (b) being
highly satisfied with one’s work; (c) having a stimulating work
environment.
2. A factor referring to exhaustion at work. It is composed of: (a)
not being exhausted at the end of the work day; (b) being able
to eat at home;4
340 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE I

Factor Matrix∗ of the Principal Components of the Quality of Life at Work Index

Variables in the quality of life at Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Work Index Stimulating Non- Comfort
work exhausting
work

Works with independence 0.602 –0.138 0.096

Is very satisfied with job 0.750 0.111 0.006
Has a stimulating work environment 0.769 0.089 –0.034

Is not exhausted at the end of the work 0.116 0.677 0.127

day
Can eat lunch at home –0.081 0.772 –0.105

Does not have to go to work on 0.082 –0.018 0.635

weekends
Does not live in an overcrowded home –0.042 0.047 0.773

Overall Variance Explained = 52.58%

∗ Varimax rotated matrix.

3. A comfort factor, composed of: (a) not having to go to work

on weekends; (b) not living in overcrowded quarters,5 which
facilitates good home conditions for rest after work.
This index of quality of life is exclusively related to the work-
place. These three factors explain jointly 52.6% of the total variance
in the index of quality of life at work, which indicates that the index
has good internal validity.

ANALYSIS

Social Capital in the Workplace

Social capital is positively correlated with job satisfaction and
quality of life at work. Before analyzing how social capital affects
the dependent variables of job satisfaction and quality of life at
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 341

work, we shall analyze the demographic and labor market charac-

teristics that determine the social capital variables.
The range, mean and standard deviation of these variables can
be found in Table II. Table III shows how the level of social capital
as measured by trust, social relations, commitment, communication
and influence varies according to the demographic characteristics
of the employees, with modest but interesting differences. Males
and females present similar levels of trust, social relations and
influence at work. Gender is more significant in the matter of
level of commitment to the company or organization: men express
higher commitment than women, while women express higher
levels of communication at work. The levels of trust, relationships
and commitment remain relatively stable across the various age
brackets, while levels of communication and influence are greater
among 45 year olds and over. Trust and social relations present
similar distribution levels across educational and income levels,
but there are substantial differences in commitment, communica-
tion and influence at work. All three increase significantly at higher
educational and income levels, which fits with the realities of the
labor market. Positions of greater commitment, communication and
influence require higher levels of education and provide greater
income.
Table IV presents some of the variations in social capital dimen-
sions according to select labor market characteristics. The data in the
tables demonstrate logical coherence in that workers with stable jobs
have higher average trust, relationships, commitment, communi-
cation and influence scores than workers in temporary positions.
Workers who work part-time when they would prefer to work full-
time present lower social capital scores than the rest, which indicates
a somewhat uncomfortable status in relation to the company or
organization. Workers who have rotating shifts throughout the work-
week also show lower scores on all dimensions of social capital.
This might be explained by the fact that, due to their work schedule,
these workers are unable to develop the necessary links that provide
the basis for trust, relationships, commitment, communication and
influence. A certain investment in regular contacts with people is
required in order to develop these dimensions. When the work
schedule involves rotating or changing shifts contacts are more diffi-
342 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE II
Descriptive Statistics of the Variables in the Regression Models

N Min. Max. Mean Standard

Deviation

First group: Social capital

Trust 4356 1 5 3.77 0.77
Relationships 4511 1 5 3.76 0.81
Commitment 4581 1 5 3.14 0.94
Communication 4702 1 5 3.59 1.24
Influence 4765 1 5 3.32 1.36

Second group: Attribute variables

Personal:
Age 4800 16 71 37.64 11.44
Male 4800 0 1 0.61 0.49
Educational level in years studied 4790 0 20 10.08 4.14
Income∗ 4231 10.71 13.53 11.87 0.50
Size of city 4800 1 9 5.19 2.19
Corporate:
Size of company 4407 1 10 5.54 2.58
Agriculture 4759 0 1 0.039 0.19
Industry 4759 0 1 0.20 0.40
Construction 4759 0 1 0.11 0.32
Services 4759 0 1 0.64 0.48
Government/govt. Owned Co. 4800 0 1 0.22 0.41
Private sector firm 4800 0 1 0.78 0.41
Works a shift schedule 4800 0 1 0.20 0.40
Workplace:
Weekly hours of work 4747 3 98 39.41 9.95
Level in hierarchy 4752 1 3 1.18 0.46
Supervises 4750 0 1 0.21 0.40
Years working at the company 4743 0 49 9.13 9.99
Dangerous work conditions 4774 1 5 1.96 1.21
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 343
TABLE II
Continued

N Min. Max. Mean Standard

Deviation

Family:
Head of household 4800 0 1 0.53 0.50
Married 4800 0 1 0.57 0.50
Separated or divorced 4800 0 1 0.051 0.22
Widower 4578 0 1 0.014 0.12
Dependent children 4800 0 1 0.51 0.50

Third group: Dependent variables

Satisfaction with job 4763 1 10 7.09 1.99
Quality of Life at Work Index 4800 0 10 4.80 2.02

∗ Income has been included by applying a Naperian logarithm. See note 3.

cult to maintain between workers. This basically fits with Lowe and
Schellenberg’s (2001) data from Canada.

The Effects of Social Capital on Satisfaction

Table II presents the range, means and standard deviation of the
variables in this analysis. Table V shows how the five dimensions of
social capital correlate with job satisfaction. All of these correlate
positively, which leads us to the first proposition (p1), that the level
of satisfaction generated by work is higher in teams that function
with higher levels of social capital. In order to test this proposi-
tion, a regression model has been constructed and new groups of
variables have been introduced stepwise with the social capital vari-
ables included last. In this way the effect of social capital on job
satisfaction can be examined separately.
The strength of the relationship between the independent vari-
ables and job satisfaction is 0.567, with the coefficient of determina-
tion (that is, the squared multiple correlation coefficient) explaining
32.2% of the total variance in job satisfaction. As can be seen in
Table VI, each additional group of variables added to the regression
model increases the amount of variance explained. So worker and
corporate attributes along with the labor environment explain part
344 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE III
Mean Scores of the Social Capital Indexes by Demographic Variables

Scales of social capital at work

Trust Relation- Commit- Communi- Influence
ships ment cation

Gender
Male 3.77 3.77 3.19 3.55 3.32
Female 3.76 3.76 3.04 3.63 3.33

Age groups
16 to 19 3.74 3.84 2.75 3.02 2.71
20 to 24 3.74 3.77 2.93 3.37 3.14
25 to 29 3.79 3.85 3.09 3.63 3.39
30 to 44 3.75 3.74 3.12 3.62 3.35
45 to 54 3.78 3.73 3.28 3.64 3.38
55 to 64 3.88 3.86 3.34 3.74 3.41
65 and over 4.09 3.29 3.04 4.15 2.97

Educational level
Less than primary 3.86 3.63 3.02 2.90 2.78
Primary 3.77 3.78 3.09 3.19 3.05
Secondary 3.75 3.79 3.09 3.53 3.26
University 3.82 3.73 3.31 4.10 3.75

Monthly income∗
Less than 75 000 3.84 3.91 2.73 3.46 2.97
75 001 to 100 000 3.66 3.69 2.81 3.23 2.96
100 001 to 150 000 3.75 3.76 3.07 3.38 3.12
150 001 to 200 000 3.74 3.81 3.19 3.63 3.41
200 001 to 275 000 3.84 3.76 3.39 3.96 3.70
275 001 to 350 000 3.90 3.70 3.46 4.30 4.03
More than 350 000 3.91 3.75 3.79 4.50 4.16
∗ Income in Spanish Pesetas.
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 345

TABLE IV
Mean Scores of the Social Capital Indexes for Labor Variables

Scales of social capital at work

Trust Relation- Commit- Communi- Influence
ships ment cation

Type of work position

Permanent 3.80 3.79 3.26 3.74 3.49
Temporary
In training 3.80 3.76 2.99 3.17 2.92
Seasonal 3.70 3.79 2.81 3.20 2.73
Contract basis 3.64 3.65 2.80 3.18 2.94
Trial basis 3.68 3.68 3.00 2.98 2.97

Type of work day

Full 3.79 3.81 3.42 3.56 3.55
Part-time 3.96 3.98 3.25 3.78 3.51
Involuntary part-time 3.66 3.54 2.89 3.47 3.23

Shift schedule
Yes 3.65 3.74 2.99 3.35 2.95
No 3.80 3.78 3.17 3.65 3.41

TABLE V
Pearson Correlations of the Variables of the Social Capital Model for Job
Satisfaction

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Job satisfaction (1) — 0.413∗∗ 0.289∗∗ 0.453∗∗ 0.275∗∗ 0.345∗∗

Trust (2) — 0.434∗∗ 0.454∗∗ 0.335∗∗ 0.306∗∗
Relationships (3) — 0.279∗∗ 0.230∗∗ 0.206∗∗
Commitment (4) — 0.357∗∗ 0.382∗∗
Communication (5) — 0.508∗∗
Influence (6) —
Level of significance:
∗∗∗ p < 0.001; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗ p < 0.1.
346 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE VI
Effects on Job Satisfaction

Independent variables Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)

Multiple correlation 0.199 0.222 0.271 0.277 0.567

Constant –3.055 –3.020 –3.775 –4.125 –2.785
(–3.71)∗∗∗ (–3.33)∗∗ (–3.77)∗∗∗ (–4.04)∗∗∗ (–2.93)∗∗
Personal variables
Age 0.0004 –0.0004 –0.0014 0.0001 –0.0008
(0.15) (–0.036) (–0.39) (0.04) (–0.23)
Male –0.324 –0.257 –0.139 –0.050 –0.203
(–4.762)∗∗∗ (–3.51)∗∗∗ (–1.85) (–0.59) (–2.66)∗∗
Num. of years of –0.027 –0.042 –0.064 –0.064 –0.062
education (–3.23)∗∗ (–4.44)∗∗∗ (–6.50)∗∗∗ (–6.47)∗∗∗ (–6.90)∗∗∗
Income 0.905 0.921 1.117 1.143 0.576
(11.81)∗∗∗ (1.99)∗∗∗ (11.77)∗∗∗ (11.90)∗∗∗ (6.49)∗∗∗
Size of city –0.031 –0.038 –0.040 –0.036 –0.0025
(–2.16)∗ (–2.51)∗ (–2.61)∗ (–2.40)∗ (–0.18)
Corporate variables
Size of company –0.026 –0.024 –0.025 –0.031
(–1.78) (–1.63) (–1.67)∗ (2.35)∗
Industry 0.154 0.021 –0.0009 –0.201
(0.85) (0.12) (–0.01) (–1.20)
Construction 0.102 0.129 0.097 –0.024
(0.54) (0.67) (0.51) (–0.14)
Services 0.362 0.204 0.173 –0.192
(2.06) (1.15) (0.98) (–1.19)
Private sector –0.157 –0.157 –0.161 –0.169
(–1.69) (–1.66)∗ (–1.69)∗ (–2.01)∗
Working a shift –0.348 –0.239 –0.234 –0.091
schedule (–4.18)∗∗∗ (–2.83)∗∗ (–2.78)∗∗ (–1.21)
Workplace variables
Weekly hours of work –0.023 –0.022 –0.019
(–6.39)∗∗∗ (–6.34)∗∗∗ (–5.75)∗∗∗
Level in hierarchy 0.017 0.022 –0.035
(0.18) (0.24) (–0.43)
Supervisor 0.138 0.136 –0.084
(1.40) (1.38) (–0.96)
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 347
TABLE VI
Continued

Independent variables Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)

Years working at –0.005 –0.004 –0.007

company (–1.14) (–1.10) (–1.92)
Dangerous work –0.187 –0.183 –0.104
conditions (–6.66)∗∗∗ (–6.49)∗∗∗ (–4.11)∗∗∗
Family setting variables
Head of household –0.221 –0.040
(–2.55) ∗∗ (–0.51)
Married 0.188 0.098
(1.82) ∗ (1.04)
Separated or divorced 0.061 0.057
(0.35) (0.37)
Widower 0.737 0.736
(2.36)∗∗ (2.46)∗∗
Dependent children –0.148 –0.125
(–1.62) (–1.50)
Social capital variables
Trust 0.499
(11.22)∗∗∗
Relationships 0.188
(4.75)∗∗∗
Commitment 0.524
(14.67)∗∗∗
Communication 0.025
(0.87)
Influence 0.238
(9.51)∗∗∗

R-squared 0.040 0.049 0.073 0.077 0.322

F of the model 34.48∗∗∗ 18.11∗∗∗ 18.41∗∗∗ 14.75∗∗∗ 59.20∗∗∗
Comparison with prior model
Increase in R-squared 0.009 0.024 0.004 0.245
Times increased 1.23 1.49 1.05 4.18
Student’s t appears in parenthesis under the respective estimated parameter.
Level of significance:
∗∗∗ p < 0.001; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗ p < 0.1.
348 FELIX REQUENA

of the variance in job satisfaction. However, the variance is higher

when controlling for all the independent variables, including the
dimensions of social capital [equation (5)]. We shall examine this
in greater detail.
Among the personal attributes, income level always has a positive
effect on satisfaction, independently of whether or not we control
for other predictors. Age starts out with a positive impact [equa-
tion (1)] but then becomes negative when controlling for other vari-
ables except work environment ones. Some predictors are always
negative, such as size of city or number of years of education, so
that a higher value of the predictor indicates that the worker has
higher expectations from the work position, which then generates a
lack of satisfaction.
When introducing corporate/organizational variables [equation
(2)], we find that elements such as the size of the firm are always
negative. This may be due to the fact that the work environment
is more agreeable and less stressful in smaller companies. After
controlling for other factors, this predictor remains negative and
the same occurs with jobs in the private sector and jobs involving
rotating shifts. In Spain, public sector work in either government-
owned companies or government agencies generates a higher degree
of satisfaction than work in private sector companies or organiza-
tions.
The next group included in the model [equation (3)] is the set
of work environment variables. A greater number of hours at work,
longer job tenure, and working in dangerous physical conditions are
all negative predictors. It seems obvious that these would generate
lack of satisfaction, since they respectively produce fatigue, mono-
tony and risk. However, predictors like the position in a hierarchy
are generally positive until we control for social capital variables.
Usually a higher position provides a higher degree of job satis-
faction. But when controlling for social capital, trust and relation-
ships appear to inconvenience the exercise of hierarchy, as people
in higher hierarchical positions may be involved in disciplinary
relations with other workers.
Equation (4) introduces the worker’s family attributes into the
satisfaction model. As in the prior cases, predictors that indicate
responsibility mostly generate lack of satisfaction. Being the head
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 349

of a household or having dependent children are always negative

factors no matter what other variables are controlled for. This means
that workers with these sorts of responsibilities feel the weight of
keeping their job.
Even though all these variables explain part of the variance in
job satisfaction, the greatest increase in explanation occurs when
social capital variables are introduced [equation (5)]. The model
becomes 4.18 times more powerful in explaining variance and
accounts for 32.2% of the total variance in job satisfaction. All
the social capital predictors are positive – all generate job satisfac-
tion. In proposition one, job satisfaction is affected by the worker’s
personal attributes and work position, but social capital is what
really increases satisfaction: trust, social relations at work, commit-
ment to the company/organization and chances to communicate and
influence in the workplace.
Table VII shows the impact of social capital dimensions on
job satisfaction. The effects are all positive and accumulative, so
controlling for an additional dimension always increases the vari-
ance in satisfaction explained. In sum, social capital explains 28.3%
of the total variance in job satisfaction. This is a significant propor-
tion, so social capital is one of the key elements that explain
well-being at work. The dimensions of social capital that most
contribute to explain satisfaction are trust (0.535) and commitment
(0.526). The latter is the dimension with the greatest strength, since
introducing commitment in Table VII’s model [equation (3)] most
increases the variance in satisfaction explained [by 1.41 times the
variance in equation (2)]. This means that when a worker identifies
with corporate or organizational circumstances as his or her own,
this person is more fully integrated in the company/organization,
which in turn generates great work satisfaction.

Effects on the Quality of Life at Work

Let us examine how this set of factors affect quality of life at work.
The second proposition (p2) establishes that workers with higher
levels of trust, relationships and commitment are more likely to have
better levels of quality of life at work. In order to test this proposition
we have reconstructed the regression model with level of quality of
life at work as the dependent variable. Table VIII shows the results
350 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE VII
Social Capital Effects on Job Satisfaction

Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables

Multiple correlation 0.413 0.429 0.509 0.516 0.532

Constant 3.156 2.573 2.042 1.887 1.873
(23.24) ∗∗∗ (16.39) ∗∗∗ (13.23) ∗∗∗ (12.05) ∗∗∗ (12.09)∗∗∗

Social capital variables

Trust 1.054 0.921 0.610 0.571 0.535
(29.90)∗∗∗ (23.47)∗∗∗ (14.85)∗∗∗ (13.72)∗∗∗ (12.96)∗∗∗
Relationships 0.289 0.213 0.200 0.190
(7.73)∗∗∗ (5.84)∗∗∗ (5.47)∗∗∗ (5.25)∗∗∗
Commitment 0.635 0.592 0.526
(2.30)∗∗∗ (18.45)∗∗∗ (16.24)∗∗∗
Communication 0.134 0.032
(5.71) ∗∗∗ (1.28)
Influence 0.229
(1.07)∗∗∗

R-squared 0.171 0.184 0.259 0.266 0.283

F of the model 893.96∗∗∗ 471.50∗∗∗ 476.77∗∗∗ 367.65∗∗∗ 318.44∗∗∗

Comparison with prior model

Increase in R-squared 0.013 0.075 0.007 0.017
Times increased 1.08 1.41 1.03 1.06
Student’s t appears in parenthesis under the respective estimated parameter.
Level of significance:
∗∗∗ p < 0.001; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗ p < 0.1.

of the models. Given that it is a complex index that differs from

job satisfaction, the values of the factors vary with regard to the
prior model. The more complete model [equation (5)] shows that
the strength of the relationship between the set of factors and the
quality of life at work is 0.598. The coefficient of determination
explains 35.8% of the total variance in quality of life at work.
The attribute factors’ coefficients turn out differently in this
model. Age, number of years of education, and income level all
have a positive effect no matter what variables are controlled for.
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 351

The level of quality of life at work is lower for workers outside

of the public sector, and for those who work in shifts or in large
companies. The same can be said for working more weekly hours or
under dangerous conditions. Family responsibilities such as being
head of household or having dependent children determine a lower
quality of life at work.
All the dimensions of social capital are positive predictors of
quality of life at work. But after personal, family and workplace
attributes, social capital explains a smaller additional portion of the
variance than in the prior model even though the overall degree of
variance explained is greater (R2 = 35.8%). The equation (5) model
only increases the portion of variance explained 2.01 times.
Since the quality of life at work index is complex and composite,
personal, family, work and corporate characteristics explain a
greater portion of the variance in quality of life at work than of
job satisfaction. This is due to the fact that there are more elements
within the quality of life at work index than in the unidimensional
concept of job satisfaction. Components such as eating at home,
degree of overcrowding, or working in shifts are influenced by
aspects of the job position and by family conditions. Social capital
is the predictor that explains the largest portion of variance in both
quality of life at work and job satisfaction.

Social Capital and Well-being at Work

The Lowe and Schellenberg (2001) model holds that social capital
affects the levels of satisfaction and quality of life at work, but
these elements of labor well-being also have a positive impact on
the social capital of workers. In order to test this in the Spanish
case, we have constructed a causal model examining the feedback
between social capital and job satisfaction (Figure 2).
This causal model has been constructed with AMOS (Analysis
of Moment Structures) program. AMOS implements the general
approach to data analysis known as structural equation modeling
or causal modeling. AMOS performs state-of-the-art estimation by
full information maximum-likelihood. The program can fit Multiple
models in a single analysis. It examines every pair of models where
one model can be obtained by placing restrictions on the parameters
of the other.
352 FELIX REQUENA

TABLE VIII
Effects on Quality of Life at Work

Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables

Multiple correlation 0.238 0.312 0.411 0.421 0.598

Constant –0.596 –0.480 –2.192 –2.985 –1.209
(–0.72) (–0.53) (–2.26)∗ (–3.03)∗ (–1.27)
Personal variables
Age 0.018 0.012 0.002 0.008 0.01
(6.26)∗∗∗ (4.01)∗∗∗ (0.54) (2.22) (2.62)∗∗
Male –0.264 –0.173 0.01 0.07 –0.46
(–3.87)∗∗∗ (–2.38)∗ (0.13) (0.91) (–0.60)
Num. of years of 0.076 0.052 0.015 0.011 0.011
education (8.83)∗∗∗ (5.49)∗∗∗ (1.57) (1.18) (1.21)
Income 0.365 0.389 0.785 0.853 0.325
(4.75)∗∗∗ (4.67)∗∗∗ (8.55)∗∗∗ (9.21)∗∗∗ (3.65)∗∗∗
Size of city –0.045 –0.046 –0.05 –0.05 –0.46
(–3.16)∗∗ (–3.03)∗∗ (–3.42) ∗∗ (–3.41)∗∗ (–3.26)∗∗

Corporate variables
Size of company –0.064 –0.067 –0.067 –0.018
(–4.42)∗∗∗ (–4.69) ∗∗∗ (–4.73)∗∗∗ (–1.34)
Industry 1.164 0.965 0.927 0.829
(6.45)∗∗∗ (5.43)∗∗∗ (5.24)∗∗∗ (4.95)∗∗∗
Construction 0.515 0.580 0.559 0.568
(2.75)∗∗ (3.14)∗∗ (3.03)∗∗ (3.27)∗∗
Services 0.956 0.719 0.675 0.422
(5.48)∗∗∗ (4.19)∗∗∗ (3.95)∗∗∗ (2.60)∗∗
Private sector –0.501 –0.421 –0.422 –0.458
(–5.44)∗∗∗ (–4.58)∗∗∗ (–4.61)∗∗∗ (–5.46)∗∗∗
Working a shift –0.778 –0.626 –0.621 –0.433
schedule (–9.43)∗∗∗ (–7.69) ∗∗∗ (–7.66)∗∗∗ (–5.75)∗∗∗

Workplace variables
Weekly work hours –0.05 –0.047 –0.042
(–13.73) ∗∗∗ (–14.04) ∗∗∗ (–12.44)∗∗∗
Level in hierarchy 0.06 0.067 0.005
(0.69) (0.778) (0.06)
Supervisor 0.140 0.158 –0.111
(1.46) (1.66)∗ (–1.26)
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 353
TABLE VIII
Continued

Independent Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
variables

Years working at 0.006 0.007 0.004

company (1.49) (1.72)∗ (0.93)
Dangerous work –0.257 –0.249 –0.187
conditions (–9.44)∗∗∗ (–9.17)∗∗∗ (–7.38)∗∗∗

Family setting variables

Head of household –0.175 –0.007
(–2.10)∗ (–0.09)
Married 0.095 0.021
(0.96) (0.22)
Separated or divorced 0.198 0.135
(1.18) (0.86)
Widower 0.439 0.239
(1.46) (0.80)
Dependent children –0.412 –0.375
(–4.66)∗∗∗ (–4.50)∗∗∗

Social capital variables

Trust 0.261
(5.86)∗∗∗
Relationships 0.191
(4.79)∗∗∗
Commitment 0.317
(8.85)∗∗∗
Communication 0.018
(0.63)
Influence 0.419
(16.66)∗∗∗

R-squared 0.056 0.097 0.169 0.178 0.358

F of the model 5.437∗∗∗ 37.843∗∗∗ 47.616∗∗∗ 38.432∗∗∗ 69.707∗∗∗

Comparison with prior model

Increase in R-squared 0.041 0.072 0.009 0.18
Times increased 1.73 1.74 1.05 2.01

Student’s t appears in parenthesis under the respective estimated parameter.

Level of Significance:
∗∗∗ p < 0.001; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗ p < 0.1.
354 FELIX REQUENA

Figure 2. Causal analysis on social capital and satisfaction.

 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 355

As can be seen in the causal analysis, this set of predictors mainly

affects social capital positively and it then shows a positive influence
on job satisfaction, which in turn affects social capital. This is a
nonrecursive model: two structural equations where the dependent
variable of each equation becomes a predictor in the other (Arbuckle
and Wothke, 1999).
The model in Figure 2 is statistically significant (p = 0.000).
Personal, family, corporate/organizational and work attributes all
have a positive effect on the dimensions of social capital of salaried
employees. Age is an exception (beta = –0.01): the older the worker,
the less trust and other social capital dimensions he or she has in
the workplace, which is confirmed by Lowe and Schellenberg’s
data from Canada. The size of one’s city also shows a negative
relationship to social capital (beta = –0.03). Living in larger cities
leads to a certain caution or distrust of others, so that bigger cities
have a negative relationship with workplace trust, social relations,
communication... Regarding corporate or organizational attributes,
predictors such as firm size, working in shifts, number of weekly
work hours and working under dangerous conditions all impact
employees’ social capital negatively. These predictors manifest
elements that either limit the possibility of relationships with others
or create situations of discomfort, fatigue or stress at work. Each
of these in turn limits or decreases the social capital dimension
levels.
Social capital and job satisfaction present a positive feedback
relationship in both directions. The effect of social capital on job
satisfaction is much greater than the converse (0.48 versus 0.02). In
these nonrecursive models, where the dependent variable of a struc-
tural equation acts as independent variable in the other equation,
the two variables may affect each other indefinitely. So in order to
predict whether or not this model is stable, it is important to calcu-
late the stability index.6 The stability of the Figure 2 model is 0.011.
This positive value indicates stability, which in turn certifies that the
model has been constructed correctly.
So the model predicts the existence of a positive and stable
relationship between social capital and job satisfaction. According
to the regression analysis, even more than personal, family,
corporate/organizational or workplace attributes, the worker attrib-
356 FELIX REQUENA

utes that most affect job satisfaction and quality of life at work are
the dimensions of social capital. This indicates that social capital is
one of the key determinants in generating personal well-being in the
workplace.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the data examined, the following may be established:

First, social capital is a good explanatory factor for satisfac-
tion and quality of life at work. Trust, social relations on the
job, commitment to the company or organization, communication
and possibilities of influence are all elements that explain a large
portion of the total variance of satisfaction and quality of life in the
workplace.
Second, our analysis of the data supports the two propositions
examined. The degree of personal well-being at work increases
when the worker is in a context of greater trust, relationships,
communication, commitment and influence on the job. There is
a strong and significant association between social capital and
levels of satisfaction and quality of life at work. Disaggregating
social capital into its constituent dimensions results in 28.3% of
the variance in degree of job satisfaction being explained. Commit-
ment is the strongest dimension of social capital for producing job
satisfaction.
Third, two regression models were constructed and predictors
were added progressively, first to job satisfaction, and then to quality
of life at work. Both models turned out to be significant. They
respectively explain 32.2% and 35.8% of the variance in satisfaction
and quality of life at work. The models were constructed stepwise,
so that each phase included in the model a new group of variables:
personal, family, corporate/organizational, and workplace attributes,
and the dimensions of social capital. Separately each group of attrib-
utes was significant in explaining both satisfaction and quality of life
at work. When social capital was added to the regression models as a
predictor, the variance explained increased exponentially 4.18 times
in the case of job satisfaction and 2.01 times in the case of quality
of life at work. The worker, job and corporate attributes are very
important in explaining satisfaction and quality of life at work, but
social capital is even more powerful.
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 357

Fourth, a causal model was constructed using the AMOS

(Analysis of Moment Structures) program. In this model the attrib-
utes of the worker, company and job affect social capital, which then
affects the degree of job satisfaction, which in turn affects social
capital. So these attributes impact social capital positively, which
in turn influences and is influenced by the level of job satisfaction.
Social capital affects job satisfaction more strongly (0.48) than the
contrary (0.02). This confirms the Lowe and Schellenberg model
applied to Spain, so social capital does affect the degree of satisfac-
tion but personal well-being at work in turn also influences social
capital. However, the impact of social capital on satisfaction is 24
times higher than the opposite.
Once again these results confirm that the processes that generate
relationships and trust in settings where people interact are deter-
minants in the good functioning of individual and institutional
performance. Economic institutions such as companies and organi-
zations generate higher daily levels of job satisfaction and well-
being if their members are able to generate acceptable levels of trust,
relationships, commitment or communication, that is, social capital.
This demonstrates the importance of encouraging a culture that
values environments favorable to social capital dimensions, such as
those mentioned in this article. Finally, we have shown that social
capital has social utility for determining the amount of satisfaction
and quality of life at work that a person can achieve.

NOTES

1 The data of the Survey on Quality of Life at Work (Encuesta de Calidad

de Vida en el Trabajo – ECVT) are available in the Subdirección General de
Estadísticas Sociales y Laborales of the Spain’s Ministry of Labor (Ministerio del
Trabajo, Madrid, Spain. E-mail: estadistica@mtas.es). For a lengthier explanation
of the objectives and possibilities for social research provided by this survey, see
Requena (2000).
2 When a scale is compose by more than one item, it is used a measure of

its internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha is a statistical measure of the internal

consistency of the items that compose the scale. The Alpha ranges from 0 to 1,
and a score close to 1 means that most of the items on the scale are measuring the
same concept. The scales of social capital’s dimensions show a fairly good alpha
scores.
3 Income has been included in the regression equations by applying its Naperian
358 FELIX REQUENA

logarithm. When including income in regression models, the degree of income

explains more than the actual amount. By using the logarithm we normalize the
intervals, which levels out the slope of the curve. In addition, the distribution
becomes symmetrical and normal. So using the logarithm instead of the variable
in the regression increases the goodness of fit of the model.
4 In Spain the mid-day meal is held in the family setting whenever possible,

which shows the great importance of eating at home.

5 In the ECVT, level of overcrowding has been calculated as a function of the

number of rooms in a household per number of inhabitants, so that there would

be one or more rooms per person.
6 The existence of feedback links in a nonrecursive model gives rise to certain

problems that do not occur in a recursive one. In our model job satisfaction
depends on social capital, which in turn depends on job satisfaction, and so on
to infinity. So the question arises whether this infinite sequence of linear depend-
encies can be defined well in a relationship between job satisfaction and social
capital and the other variables of the model. This depends on the weights of the
regression. For some of the values of the regression weights, the infinite sequence
of linear dependencies will converge into a well-defined set of relationships.
In this case the system of linear dependencies is stable. In any other case it
is unstable. AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures) program can estimate the
regression weights of a population by the index of stability. If the stability index
falls between the range of –1 and +1 then the system is stable. In our case the
model is stable (as the stability index is 0.011 between social capital and job
satisfaction).

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J.L. and W. Wothke: 1999, Amos 4.0 User’s Guide (SPSS Inc, Chicago,
IL).
Brehn, J. and W. Rahn: 1997, ‘Individual-Level evidence for the causes and
consequences of social capital’, American Journal of Political Science 41,
pp. 999–1023.
Burt, R.: 2000, ‘The network structure of social capital’, in R.I. Sutton and
B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 22 (JAY Press,
Greenwich, CT).
Burt, R.: 2001, ‘Structural holes versus network closure as social capital’, in N.
Lin, K. Cook and R. Burt (eds.), Social Capital, Theory and Research (Aldine
de Gruyter, New York), pp. 31–56.
Campbell, A., P.E. Converse and W.R. Rogers: 1976, The Quality of American
Life (Russel Sage Foundation, New York).
Clark, A., Y. Georgellis and P. Sanfey: 1998, ‘Job satisfaction, wage changes, and
quits: evidence for Germany’, Research in Labor Economics 15, pp. 95–122.
Coleman, J.S.: 1988, ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American
Journal of Sociology 94, pp. s95–s12.
 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE WORKPLACE 359

Creed, W.E.D. and R.E. Miles: 1996, ‘Trust in organizations: A conceptual

framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the
opportunity cost of controls’, in R. Kramer and T. Tyles (eds.), Trust and
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks), pp. 16–38.
De Graaf, N.D. and H.D. Flap: 1988, ‘ ‘With a little help from my friends’: Social
resources as an explanation of occupational status and income in West Germany,
The Netherlands, and the United States’, Social Forces 67(2), pp. 452–472.
Freeman, R.: 1978, ‘Job satisfaction as an economic variable’, American
Economic Association, Papers and Proceedings 68, pp. 135–141.
Fukuyama, F.: 1995, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity
(Free Press, New York).
Fukuyama, F.: 1999, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction
of Social Order (Free Press, New York).
Granovetter, M.S.: 1985, ‘Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology 91, pp. 481–510.
Hamermesh, D.S.: 2000, ‘The changing distribution of job satisfaction’, The
Journal of Human Resources 36, pp. 1–3.
Krahn, H.: 1992, Quality of Work in the General Service Sector (Statistics
Canada, General Survey Analysis Series 6, Ottawa).
Lin, N., K. Cook and R. Burt (eds.): 2001, ‘Preface’, Social Capital, Theory and
Research (Aldine de Gruyter, New York).
Lin, N.: 2001, Social Capital (Cambridge University Press, New York).
Lowe, G. and G. Schellenberg: 2001, What’s a Good Job? The Importance
of Employment Relationships (Canadian Policy Research Networks, Renouf
Publishing, Ottawa).
Putnam, R.: 1993a, ‘The prosperous community: Social capital and public life’,
The American Prospect 4(13), pp. 35–42.
Putnam, R.: 1993b, Making Democracy Work. Civil Traditions in Modern Italy
(Princeton University Press, Princeton).
Pyke, F., G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger: 1990, Industrial Districts and Inter-
firm Co-operation in Italy (ILO – International Labour Office, Geneva).
Requena, F.: 1991, Redes Sociales y Mercado de Trabajo (Centro de Investiga-
ciones Sociológicas-Siglo XXI, Madrid).
Requena, F.: 2000, ‘Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo: Posibilidades para
el seguimiento de la situación laboral’, Revista del Ministerio de Trabajo, Serie
Economía y Sociología 21, pp. 235–245.
Saxenian, A.L.: 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon
Valley and Route 128 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Seed, Ph. and G. Lloyd: 1997, Quality of Life (Jessica Kingsley Publishers,
London).
Setien, M.L.: 1993, Indicadores Sociales de Calidad de Vida. Un Sistema de
Medición Aplicado al País Vasco (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas-Siglo
XXI, Madrid).
360 FELIX REQUENA

Sirgy, M.J., D. Efraty, P. Siegel and D.J. Lee: 2001, ‘A new measure of Quality
of Work Life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories’, Social
Indicators Research 55(3), pp. 241–302.
Türksever, A.N.E. and G. Atalik: 2000, ‘Possibilities and limitations for the
measurement of the quality of life in urban areas’, Social Indicators Research
53, pp. 163–187.

Department of Sociology
Faculty of Political Sciences
University of Santiago
Campus Sur
15782 Santiago de Compostela
Spain
E-mail: frequena@arrakis.es