Putnam's work is important, but it is part of a much larger revolution in social science that is emphasizing social structure, relations, and the associational life.



Putnam's thesis that associational life is getting poorer, albeit true in certain spheres e.g. the welfare dependents that you mention (Great Society atomized them, 1995 reform reversed the trend), runs against the weight of the evidence. The Internet and software has been a powerful technology promoting associations. The evolution in manufacturing from hierarchical management to Japanese-inspired team approaches was a shift toward greater association.



In fact, association rises monotonically with time as technology advances, just as wealth tends to become more equal. And just as liberals have always been complaining that wealth was getting more unequal and we need government action to redistribute it, so too some on the left will claim, against the evidence, that relations are getting poorer and we need to do something through government to remedy it.



As you argue, the best thing we could do is replace gov't bureaucracies by tax credits that give gov't funding without displacing private, voluntary relationships. Education and welfare are the two places this shift is sorely needed. Bush is pushing both gently, with school choice and his faith-based initiative.

I read an article\profile\interview by him in The Atlantic a couple of years ago.



His thesis didn't convince me since he seemed to have ignored the rise of other types of associations and the analysis itself seemed pretty lightweight.