Individual knowledge and identity resources are displayed in social interactions and create and use social capital. The figure allows an understanding of how individually 'possessed' knowledge and identity resources are a crucial factor in the equation, but that the social interaction in which they are displayed also has characteristics which form the nature of social capital. It is the interactional skills that create and use the social capital, as the interactions are the only possible vehicle for these resources to be seen and used. Indicators or other measures must reflect a consideration of the links between social interactions and the broader social well being, because the quality of the processes will determine the sustainability of the outcomes. Hostile, infrequent and misunderstood interactions cannot produce social capital, and unhappy families and citizens produce hostile and perhaps less frequent, purposeful and positive interactions.
Negative interactions tend to destroy or rapidly deplete social capital.
To build social capital requires interactions of sufficient quality and quantity in which the social capital can be used and built. I think the author on Thai social capital you have in mind is Danny Unger. This seems to me a hopeless and purposeless agenda. My modest proposal is that we simply let those who popularized the term tell us what it means. I dispute assertions that we have an agenda here of trying to obtain universal agreement on what social capital is and does, even though I would agree that it is all too easy to let such debates become an end in themselves.