Bowling Alone, Bowling Together: Is Social Capital Priced in Bank Loans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate whether the societal-level social capital enjoyed by firms affects the cost of their bank loans. Employing a measure of societal-level social capital for U.S. counties, we find that firms with higher societal-level social capital are associated with lower loan spreads. To further identify causality, we explore two events: Using a sample of firms that relocate their headquarters for tax reasons, we find that firms that move to lower (higher) social capital counties experience a higher (lower) cost of bank loans following relocations. The second event was the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. After the disaster, social capital in affected counties—mainly in the State of New York, the State of Virginia, and adjacent counties—increased through social capital building efforts. We show that firms headquartered in the affected counties experience significantly lower loan spreads than other firms after the attack. Our findings contribute to the understanding of how societal-level social capital promotes economic development through its impact on financing costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".