members of the society that have interacted over time and created norms that have led to cooperation openness and compromise between members (Putnam, 1993 ). I use social capital theory of Putnam (2000) in the terms of explaining the forms of social capital. According to Putnam (2000:19), physical capital refers physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of the individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness arise from them” The strong interaction between people leads to build communities and it knit the social fabric. when social connection and the social wellbeing happens in their primary group it can mention as social bonding (Isham et …show more content…
Honesty between two people can depend on the personal experiences, but if more people have the same experiences with the same person or a group of people or ethnicity it can be generalized as well as it can be a community norm as well. Putnam has explained social trust depends on strong personal relationships, frequent as well as nested in the wider network. He called it as thick trust (Putnam, 2000, p. 136). CBOs are helping to start to thin relationships and develop it into thick relationships. It depends on the personal willingness. Putnam mentions the thinner trust can start or build in small meetings at coffee shops, shared social networks. If a person meets someone in a context which leads to thin trust. It can increase if a person knows the mutual friends. Moreover, ethnocentrism can lead for people to build trust. 3.6.5 Connection between trust and prejudices Social trust is strongly associated with many other forms of civic engagement and social capital (Putnam, 2000, p. 136). If the people in the society, trust each other, willing to do volunteering, contribute more to charity and participate more in CBOs activities, it shows high social trust and social cohesion (Putnam, 2000, p. 137). Putnam mentioned naturally there is a big trust for the people who “have” than “have-nots”. (Putnam, 2000, p. 138). Norwegian society’s haves are the people who are Norwegians and have-nots are the “refugees”. It is natural to have less trust on “have-nots”, as they do not have the economic