Executive Summary
Personal social nets are the web of family, friends, neighbors, congregations, and informal acquaintances who provide care, resources, counsel, and encouragement. They are among the most load-bearing structures in ordinary life, and among the least recognized. Their value is largely counterfactual. They work by preventing disasters that therefore never become visible: the eviction that did not happen because a sibling covered a month’s rent, the despair that did not deepen because a friend called at the right time, the career move that was possible because a parent’s spare room lowered the cost of failure.
Current public discourse about inherited advantage focuses on elite transmission, the so-called “nepo baby” phenomenon. Yet the more widespread form of advantage operates far below the elites. Modest familial and friendship support changes how people at every economic level experience risk, recover from setbacks, and make long-term decisions. In an era of scarcity and public austerity, much of the burden that formal institutions once carried, or never carried, falls onto these informal networks. That makes both their presence and their absence more consequential.
This paper examines the nature and functions of personal social nets, the range of people who provide them, the conditions of scarcity that raise their importance, and the effects of their felt absence. It gives particular attention to migrants who have left dense home networks behind. It also considers the biblical treatment of kinship, friendship, and the stranger. Scripture treats the provision of such nets as both a blessing to be recognized and a responsibility that communities of faith must extend to those who lack them.
I. Introduction: The Floor Beneath the Floor
Every society has formal safety nets: unemployment insurance, public housing, health systems, charitable institutions, and legal protections. Beneath these lies an older and more intimate layer of provision. When a person loses a job, the first recourse is rarely a government office. It is usually a phone call to a parent, a sibling, a spouse, or a trusted friend. When grief arrives, the first comfort is rarely a professional service. It is the presence of people who already know the grieving person’s history.
This informal layer functions as a floor beneath the formal floor. It catches people before they fall far enough to need public institutions. For many, it is the only floor that exists at all. Those who have such a floor often do not notice it, much as a person standing on solid ground does not think about foundations. Those who lack it tend to notice its absence acutely. They feel exposed in situations that others handle calmly, because they know there is nothing beneath them if a single step goes wrong.
The asymmetry between the unconscious security of the supported and the conscious exposure of the unsupported is the central concern of this paper.
II. The Nature of Personal Social Nets
Forms of Support
Research on social support has long distinguished several kinds of provision.¹ Four are especially significant:
- Emotional support: expressions of care, empathy, trust, and encouragement.
- Instrumental support: tangible aid such as money, housing, transportation, childcare, meals, and physical help.
- Informational support: advice, guidance, and knowledge of how systems work, from job markets to bureaucracies.
- Appraisal support: feedback that helps a person evaluate their own situation and choices accurately.
These forms rarely arrive separately. A parent who lets an adult child move home after a failed venture provides instrumental support (housing), emotional support (acceptance), informational support (counsel about next steps), and appraisal support (perspective on what the failure did and did not mean) in a single act of hospitality.
Structural Features
Personal nets differ in density, reach, and depth. Dense networks, in which members know one another, provide strong mutual accountability and coordinated care. Their informational range can be narrow, however. Networks with many “weak ties,” meaning acquaintances, former colleagues, and friends of friends, give access to opportunities beyond a person’s immediate circle.² The most resilient nets combine both: a strong inner core that can be relied on in crisis, and a wider outer ring that connects the person to information and opportunity.
Depth matters as well. A net measured only by its number of contacts can be misleading. What counts is how many people would actually respond in a genuine emergency, and how much capacity they have to help. A person with a hundred acquaintances and no one who would lend a car has a broad but shallow net.
The Load-Bearing Metaphor
Structural engineering offers a useful frame. A load-bearing wall is invisible in its function. It does its work by not failing, and its importance becomes evident only when it is removed. Personal social nets carry loads that would otherwise transfer to the individual: financial shocks, emotional crises, informational gaps, and the practical demands of illness, childbirth, aging, and bereavement. When the net holds, the load is spread across many people and no one is crushed. When it is absent, the whole load falls on one person.
III. Why the Blessing Goes Unrecognized
Several dynamics keep the value of personal support nets from being recognized, including by those who benefit most.
First, the benefits are largely counterfactual. Prevented disasters leave no trace. A person who never experienced homelessness because family would always take them in does not experience the absence of homelessness as an event. The net’s work consists of things that did not happen.
Second, support becomes baseline. People raised within functioning networks absorb them as the normal condition of life. What is normal is rarely experienced as a gift. This helps explain why those with strong networks sometimes attribute their resilience entirely to personal virtue, discipline, or talent, without accounting for the scaffolding that let those qualities develop and pay off.
Third, support operates through low-visibility channels. Much of it is small and informal: a meal brought during illness, a ride to an appointment, a reference to a hiring manager, a conversation that reframed a problem. None of these appears in economic statistics. Together, across a lifetime, they are enormous.
Fourth, the language of self-reliance obscures dependence. Cultural narratives that prize independence can make acknowledging reliance on others feel like a confession of weakness. Recognizing the net requires admitting that no one is fully self-made. That admission sits uneasily with ideals of personal autonomy.
IV. Beyond “Nepo Babies”: Modest Support and Ordinary Advantage
Recent attention to the children of celebrities and industry insiders has made elite inherited advantage visible and controversial. That attention is warranted, but it can obscure a broader truth. Inherited social advantage is not mainly an elite phenomenon. It runs through every economic stratum, often in quite modest forms.
Consider the difference between two young adults of the same income, education, and ability. One can move back into a parent’s home for six months between jobs. The other cannot. The first can take an unpaid internship, finish a certification, or search for work suited to their skills. The second must take the first available job, whatever its fit, because rent is due. Over a decade, these divergent starting points can compound into very different outcomes, though neither person belongs to any elite.
Similar modest advantages include:
- A relative willing to co-sign a lease or a small loan.
- Grandparents who provide free childcare, making full-time work possible.
- A family car lent during a repair emergency, keeping a job intact.
- A parent’s small gift toward a security deposit.
- An uncle who knows a trade and can teach it, or who knows someone hiring.
- A friend’s couch during a transition, preventing a slide into shelter systems.
Research on parental support of grown children shows that such aid flows widely across socioeconomic levels. Parents often direct help both to children who are succeeding and to children in need.³ Large-scale studies of social connection and economic mobility have also found that the character of a person’s network, including cross-class friendships, is strongly associated with upward mobility.⁴ The sociological literature on social capital has long held that relationships produce resources: access to information, trust, obligation, and norms that support achievement.⁵
The point is not that modest support is illegitimate. It is overwhelmingly good. The point is that it is real, and that its absence is a disadvantage even among people whom no one would call privileged.
V. Personal Nets in a World of Scarcity and Austerity
The Transfer of Burden
Where public provision contracts through austerity budgets, reduced social services, rising housing costs, or weakened employment protections, the burden of care shifts to households and informal networks. Studies of everyday life under austerity describe how families and friends absorb costs that institutions once shared. They provide housing, food, childcare, and emotional support under growing strain.⁶ Informal nets become a substitute for formal ones. They also become more stressed, because those providing help are often facing the same economic pressures.
Scarcity and Mental Bandwidth
Research on the psychology of scarcity finds that persistent shortage of money or time consumes cognitive capacity. People facing scarcity become focused on immediate needs at the expense of long-term planning.⁷ Personal nets act as a buffer against this narrowing. Someone who knows a parent or friend would cover an emergency can think about next year and not only next week. The net supplies more than resources. It supplies mental room, the freedom to plan, take reasonable risks, and invest in the future.
Networks Among the Poor
Ethnographic research among people in poverty shows both the importance and the fragility of informal support. Classic studies documented elaborate systems of exchange among kin and “fictive kin” in poor communities. Goods, childcare, and housing circulated through networks of reciprocal obligation that allowed members to survive conditions no single household could have weathered alone.⁸ Later research on urban eviction found that under extreme scarcity, some people rely on “disposable ties”: intense, short-lived relationships with recent acquaintances, formed to meet immediate needs and often ending in conflict.⁹ Such ties show the lengths people go to when durable nets are missing. They also show the costs of relying on relationships that lack history and trust.
The Paradox of Stressed Nets
Scarcity creates a paradox. The people who most need personal nets are often embedded in networks whose members have the least to give. When everyone in a network is one paycheck from crisis, a single member’s emergency can spread through the whole net, and aid given today leaves the giver exposed tomorrow. This is why modest net advantages matter so much. A single relative with stable employment and a spare room can act as an anchor for an entire extended family.
VI. The Range of Providers
Personal social nets draw on a wide range of relationships. Each tends to contribute differently.
Parents and grandparents are, for many, the core. They often provide the longest-term, least conditional support, including the kind of provision that assumes no repayment.
Siblings and extended kin offer lateral support: peers who share history and can often give both practical help and candid counsel.
Spouses form the most immediate unit of mutual provision, sharing income, labor, and emotional burdens daily.
Close friends provide chosen kinship. For many people, especially those estranged from or distant from family, friends form the primary net. Friendship support is often especially strong in emotional and appraisal support, because friends are chosen for compatibility and trust.
Congregations and religious communities have historically been among the most important sources of informal support, particularly for the poor, widows, the sick, and the stranger. They combine regular gathering, shared values, and an explicit obligation to care.
Neighbors provide proximity-based support: immediate help in emergencies, watchfulness, and small daily exchanges.
Colleagues, mentors, and professional acquaintances supply informational support and opportunity, the weak ties that connect people to jobs and resources outside their immediate circles.
Fictive kin are people who are not biologically related but are treated as family. They fill in where biological networks are thin, and are especially important in migrant and marginalized communities.
The most resilient individuals typically draw on several of these categories at once. Concentrating support in one relationship, whether a single parent or a single friend, makes the net vulnerable to that relationship’s failure.
VII. Mutuality: Nets Are Woven by Many Hands
The healthiest personal nets are not one-way systems of provision. They are webs of mutual obligation, in which each member is at different times both giver and receiver. Mutuality matters for several reasons.
First, reciprocity sustains the net. Relationships in which support flows only one way tend toward exhaustion on one side and dependence or shame on the other. Where people give as well as receive, the net stays renewed.
Second, the capacity to give is itself a form of dignity. People who have received much and never had the chance to give can experience their dependence as diminishment. Being allowed to contribute through hospitality, counsel, prayer, practical skill, or encouragement affirms a person’s standing as a full member of the community and not only a recipient of charity.
Third, mutuality allows nets to form among people of limited means. A network of equals who exchange small kindnesses and help can provide considerable security, even if no member is individually prosperous.
For people who have lost their original nets through migration, estrangement, bereavement, or relocation, recognizing their own capacity to give can be a first step toward rebuilding. Those who have generous instincts but feel unsupported are often closer to belonging in a functioning net than they realize. Nets are built through the exchange of care over time, and generosity is the thread they are woven from.
VIII. The Felt Absence: When the Net Is Missing
Health and Mortality
The absence of social connection has measurable consequences. A major meta-analysis of studies covering more than 300,000 participants found that people with stronger social relationships had a markedly higher likelihood of survival over the study periods. The authors judged the effect comparable to well-established risk factors such as smoking.¹⁰ Earlier longitudinal research reached similar conclusions, linking social isolation to higher mortality.¹¹ Researchers have proposed physiological pathways, including effects on cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune function.¹² The “buffering hypothesis” holds that social support protects people chiefly by softening the harmful effects of stressful events.¹³
Loneliness and Its Distortions
Loneliness, the subjective sense of being without adequate connection, has effects beyond the objective shortage of support. Chronic loneliness is associated with heightened vigilance to social threat, more pessimistic interpretation of others’ behavior, and a tendency toward self-protective withdrawal.¹⁴ The absence of a net can therefore become self-perpetuating. The lonely person grows more cautious about reaching out, which makes new ties harder to form.
This helps explain why the felt absence of a net matters as much as its actual absence. A person may have more potential support than they perceive. The perception of unsupportedness shapes their willingness to take risks, their emotional state, and their ability to ask for help.
Risk Aversion and Constrained Choice
People without nets must be more cautious. They cannot afford to fail, so they cannot afford to try things that might fail. This affects career decisions, relocation, education, entrepreneurship, and even relationships. Lacking a floor, they seek the most secure available position, even when a riskier path would better suit their gifts. The result is a hidden loss, both to the individual and to society, of talent that never had room to be exercised.
The Migrant’s Double Loss
Migrants face a particular form of net absence. Someone raised in a dense network of kin and friends, especially in cultures with strong norms of familial obligation, may leave behind a web of support that took a lifetime to build. They bring their skills, credentials, and character, but the net usually stays behind.
Research on migrant networks shows that new arrivals often rebuild support through co-ethnic communities, religious institutions, and workplace ties. The resulting networks may differ in kind from those they left: more instrumental, less intimate, and more uneven.¹⁵ Transnational families keep caring across borders through phone calls, visits, remittances, and emotional support at a distance.¹⁶ Such long-distance care is real and meaningful, but it cannot supply the physical presence, immediate help, and daily companionship of a local net.
Migrant professionals may face a further loss. In their home country, their families, colleagues, and reputations provided standing and recognition. In a new country, credentials may go unrecognized, professional networks must be rebuilt from nothing, and cultural knowledge that once came easily must be learned again. The resulting sense of exposure is not a character flaw or a sign of weakness. It is an accurate perception of a structural loss.
Shame and Silence
A further harm of net absence is the shame that often comes with it. In cultures that link personal worth to self-reliance, people without support may hide their need, fearing judgment. Those raised in cultures of strong mutual obligation may feel their current isolation as a painful break from what life is supposed to look like. Either way, the silence that shame produces makes it harder for potential supporters to recognize the need and respond.
IX. The Shadow Side: Costs and Hazards of Nets
A full account must acknowledge that personal nets are not unmixed blessings. Sociologists have identified “negative social capital,” the ways close networks can constrain as well as support.¹⁷ These include:
- Excessive obligation, in which successful members are drained by demands from the wider network.
- Control and conformity, in which support comes with expectations that limit personal freedom.
- Exclusion, in which the solidarity that binds insiders shuts out outsiders.
- Downward leveling, in which pressure within a network discourages individual advancement.
Nets can also carry harmful patterns across generations, such as addiction, abuse, and dysfunction, along with healthy ones. Some people have good reason to distance themselves from their families of origin, and for them, rebuilding a net through chosen relationships is an act of wisdom rather than loss.
These hazards do not undercut the central argument. Healthy nets are an enormous good, and their absence is a real hardship. The hazards do caution against idealizing any particular net, and they show why a net’s health matters as much as its existence.
X. A Biblical Perspective on Kinship, Friendship, and the Stranger
Scripture gives sustained attention to the social nets that sustain human life, and to God’s concern for those without them.
Family as Provision
Scripture presents family as a primary structure of provision. The apostle Paul writes that “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8). The law of the kinsman-redeemer (Leviticus 25:25; Ruth 4) gave relatives an explicit responsibility to restore family members who had fallen into poverty or lost their inheritance. The command to honor father and mother (Exodus 20:12) was understood to include material care for aging parents, as Christ’s rebuke of those who used religious technicalities to evade that duty makes clear (Mark 7:9–13).
Friendship as Covenant
Scripture also honors friendship as a bond sometimes stronger than kinship. “A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Proverbs 17:17). “There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18:24). The covenant between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1–4; 20) models a friendship of mutual loyalty, protection, and self-sacrifice. After Jonathan’s death, David extended that loyalty to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9).
The wisdom literature states the practical value of such bonds directly: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up” (Ecclesiastes 4:9–10). This passage is perhaps Scripture’s clearest statement of the net’s function. It lifts the fallen, and its absence leaves the fallen alone.
One proverb is especially relevant to those far from home: “Thine own friend, and thy father’s friend, forsake not; neither go into thy brother’s house in the day of thy calamity: for better is a neighbour that is near than a brother far off” (Proverbs 27:10). The text recognizes that distance limits what even faithful kin can provide, and that nearby friends and neighbors carry a necessary share of the load.
The Stranger, the Widow, and the Fatherless
Scripture repeatedly singles out those without natural nets as objects of special divine concern: the stranger (the foreigner or sojourner), the widow, and the fatherless. God “doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18–19). Israel was commanded that “the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (Leviticus 19:34). The gleaning laws (Leviticus 19:9–10; Deuteronomy 24:19–22) built provision for these groups into the agricultural economy itself.
These categories are defined by the absence of the ordinary nets. The widow has lost her husband’s provision, the fatherless have lost their parents’, and the stranger has left behind the kin network of their homeland. God’s law told the covenant community to become a net for those who had none.
Ruth: An Immigrant Rebuilds a Net
The book of Ruth is among Scripture’s most sustained reflections on these themes. Ruth, a Moabite widow, leaves her homeland to go with her mother-in-law Naomi to Bethlehem. There she is a foreigner without property, standing, or kin of her own. Her declaration, “whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (Ruth 1:16), is an act of chosen kinship.
What follows is a portrait of a net being rebuilt. Ruth works in the fields under the gleaning laws. Boaz notices her, protects her, and provides for her generously, because he has heard of her loyalty to Naomi (Ruth 2:11–12). Ruth is not only a recipient. Her faithful care for Naomi is what earns her the community’s regard. Through the kinsman-redeemer provision, she is fully incorporated into Israel and becomes an ancestor of David, and so of Jesus Christ (Ruth 4:13–22; Matthew 1:5).
The narrative affirms that a stranger’s generosity and faithfulness can become the foundation of a new net, and that the community has a duty to receive and protect such a person.
The Assembly as Family
The New Testament extends the family metaphor to the community of believers. Jesus Christ promised that those who left houses, brethren, parents, or lands for His sake would receive “an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers” (Mark 10:29–30). The early assembly in Jerusalem shared possessions so that “neither was there any among them that lacked” (Acts 4:34). Believers are instructed to “bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), and not to be “forgetful to entertain strangers” (Hebrews 13:2). The psalmist declares that “God setteth the solitary in families” (Psalm 68:6). One of the ways God does so is through His people.
Negative Examples
Scripture also shows nets failing. Job’s friends began well, sitting with him in silence for seven days (Job 2:11–13), but became accusers when they tried to explain his suffering (Job 16:2). Paul wrote that “at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me” (2 Timothy 4:16). These accounts warn that a net’s value depends on the faithfulness of its members, and that even the presence of people can fail to become real support.
XI. Implications and Recommendations
For those with strong nets: Gratitude begins with recognition. People sustained by family and friends should acknowledge that their resilience is not wholly self-generated. The fitting response to an unearned blessing is not guilt but stewardship: extending the net to include others who lack one.
For those who feel without a net: The perception of unsupportedness, while often accurate, may understate what is actually available or what can be built. Nets are rebuilt through small, repeated exchanges of care. The instinct to give, even from a position of need, is often the point where new bonds begin. Seeking out communities of shared faith and practice, and accepting small offers of help, can begin the process.
For congregations: Communities of faith carry a scriptural mandate to serve as nets for the stranger, the widow, the fatherless, and the isolated. Practical steps include deliberate hospitality to newcomers, especially migrants; mentoring relationships that pass on informational support; mutual-aid structures for emergencies; and attention to members whose nets have thinned through bereavement, divorce, relocation, or aging.
For institutions and policymakers: Informal nets cannot fully replace formal ones, and austerity policies that assume families will absorb every shortfall ignore the many people whose nets are thin or absent. Policy should recognize the unequal distribution of informal support and aim to give an adequate floor to those without one. Policies should also avoid undermining existing nets, for example through housing rules that penalize multigenerational living or benefit structures that discourage sharing within families.
For migrants and their host communities: The loss of home networks is a structural hardship that host communities should acknowledge and help address. Professional mentoring, credential recognition, community integration programs, and simple neighborliness can speed the rebuilding of nets that migration leaves behind.
XII. Conclusion
Personal social nets are among the most important and least visible structures in human life. They carry loads that would otherwise crush individuals. They give people room to plan, to take reasonable risks, and to recover from failure. Their benefits extend far below the elite strata where inherited advantage attracts public attention, and they shape the lives of ordinary people at every economic level. In an era of scarcity and austerity, their importance grows even as their capacity is strained.
The absence of such nets is keenly felt by migrants, the bereaved, the estranged, and the isolated. Its consequences are measurable in health, mental well-being, economic opportunity, and personal flourishing. Yet nets can be rebuilt. They are woven by many hands through the mutual exchange of care, and the generosity of those who feel unsupported is often the first thread.
Scripture presents the provision of such nets as both a blessing and a duty. God cares for those who stand alone, and He calls His people to become family to the stranger. The recognition of a hidden blessing should lead to its extension to others.
Notes
¹ The distinction among emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support derives from House (1981), whose typology remains widely used in social support research.
² Granovetter (1973) established that weak ties, meaning acquaintances outside a person’s close circle, are disproportionately important for access to new information and opportunities, especially in job searching.
³ Fingerman et al. (2009) found that parents give support both to grown children who are succeeding and to those facing difficulties. Their work shows how widely intergenerational assistance extends beyond elite families.
⁴ Chetty et al. (2022), analyzing data on billions of friendship links, found that “economic connectedness,” meaning friendships across class lines, was among the strongest predictors of upward income mobility in the communities studied.
⁵ The foundational treatments of social capital include Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Putnam (2000). Coleman in particular emphasized how family and community relationships contribute to the development of children’s capacities.
⁶ Hall (2019) documents in ethnographic detail how families and friends in the United Kingdom absorbed the everyday effects of austerity, and how intimate relationships were strained by the added burden.
⁷ Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) describe how scarcity creates a “bandwidth tax” that narrows attention to immediate needs and hampers long-term planning.
⁸ Stack (1974) documented extensive networks of exchange among kin and fictive kin in a low-income Black community in the American Midwest, showing how collective strategies made survival possible under severe economic constraint.
⁹ Desmond (2012) introduced the concept of “disposable ties” to describe short-term, intense relationships formed among the urban poor to meet immediate needs, often in the absence of durable kin support. See also Desmond (2016).
¹⁰ Holt-Lunstad et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 148 studies and found that stronger social relationships were associated with a roughly 50% increased likelihood of survival across the follow-up periods examined.
¹¹ Berkman and Syme (1979), studying residents of Alameda County, California, over nine years, found that those with fewer social ties had higher mortality rates. This was one of the earliest large-scale demonstrations of the health effects of social connection.
¹² Uchino (2006) reviews the physiological processes that may connect social support to health outcomes, including cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune function.
¹³ Cohen and Wills (1985) set out the buffering hypothesis, which holds that social support protects health chiefly by reducing the harmful effects of stress.
¹⁴ Cacioppo and Patrick (2008) describe how chronic loneliness heightens sensitivity to social threat and can produce self-reinforcing patterns of withdrawal.
¹⁵ Ryan et al. (2008) studied recent Polish migrants in London and found that migrants rebuilt support networks of varying types and quality, drawing on both co-ethnic ties and wider relationships.
¹⁶ Baldassar et al. (2007) examine how migrants and their families maintain caregiving relationships across international borders through visits, communication, financial support, and emotional care.
¹⁷ Portes (1998) identified four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion of outsiders, excessive claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedom, and downward leveling norms.
References
Baldassar, L., Baldock, C. V., & Wilding, R. (2007). Families caring across borders: Migration, ageing and transnational caregiving. Palgrave Macmillan.
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112674
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. W. W. Norton.
Chetty, R., Jackson, M. O., Kuchler, T., Stroebel, J., Hendren, N., Fluegge, R. B., Gong, S., Gonzalez, F., Grondin, A., Jacob, M., Johnston, D., Koenen, M., Laguna-Muggenburg, E., Mudekereza, F., Rutter, T., Thor, N., Townsend, W., Zhang, R., Bailey, M., … Wernerfelt, N. (2022). Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature, 608(7921), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Desmond, M. (2012). Disposable ties and the urban poor. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1295–1335. https://doi.org/10.1086/663574
Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. Crown.
Fingerman, K. L., Miller, L., Birditt, K., & Zarit, S. (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1220–1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665.x
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Hall, S. M. (2019). Everyday life in austerity: Family, friends and intimate relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), Article e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1769/2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1611)
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508091622
Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. Harper & Row.
Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-006-9056-5
