You can count on me to find the "out there" articles.

In Social capital, class gender and race conflict, and population health: an essay review of Bowling Alone’s implications for social epidemiology (2002), Carles Muntaner and John Lynch, to quote their title, evaluate Bowling Alone and its implications for social epidemiology. Specifically, Muntaner and Lynch provide arguments about how Social Capital, as a framework for social epidemiology, is limited by the omission of discussion on class, race and gender relations, and political variables, and Muntaner and Lynch link earlier social science with modern social science (261).

In the article, Muntaner and Lynch analyze Bowling Alone, in particular Putnam’s examples of Social Capital and his causes for the decline in Social Capital. Muntaner and Lynch also analyze Putnam’s reasoning as to how his causes for the decline in Social Capital are valid (261). Finally, Muntaner and Lynch proceed to explain why they disagree with what has been stated in Bowling Alone. They go about doing this by citing random studies that claim to disprove Putnam's claims, specifically finding “stable levels of voluntary associations and voluntary association participation and stable levels of trust” (262).
Muntaner and Lynch proceed to explain the believed link between Social Capital and health, and then use Bowling Alone to back up their claims (262). Afterwords, Muntaner and Lynch conduct a survey of past and present surveys to determine if such a conclusion is indeed accurate, paying particular attention to the claim that “the Florida police’s strategy of high incarceration prevents...creating social capital because [it]...disrupts attempts at maintaining stable community networks.” Muntaner and Lynch also explain the theory and philosophy undermining Social Capital and Health, such as “the precedence of property rights over any kind of social outcome including relief from poverty and disease” (263). This is done with several tables and discussions on health and Social Capital (264). Finally, Muntaner and Lynch proceed to explain that they believe Social Capital is the origin of modern economic hardship; specifically, how Social Capital relies on low levels of economic inequality, which tends to be very difficult to achieve in a free market (266).

MFW: