Objective: This study aims to critically analyze the dialectical relationship between empathy and social capital in public policy-making, and to identify theoretical gaps, dominant assumptions, and discursive silences within the existing literature.

Methodology: Adopting a critical review approach, a systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. After screening 445 initial sources and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 authoritative sources were selected for final analysis. Data were analyzed using a critical appraisal form and three-stage coding (descriptive, analytical, and critical).

Findings: The critical analysis reveals that the dominant discourse in the literature suffers from three fundamental shortcomings: (1) the prevalence of an instrumental and individualistic approach to empathy, reducing it to a personal skill for improving interactions; (2) linear and overly optimistic causal narratives that ignore the dark side of empathy (including in-group bias, emotional burnout, and the reproduction of inequality); and (3) a complete absence of framing social capital—particularly its linking dimension (vertical relationships between citizens and power institutions)—within the analyses. Furthermore, the technical-algorithmic discourse reduces empathy to the optimization of emotion prediction, detaching it from its ethical and institutional context.

Conclusion: Instead of analyzing the dialectical relationship between empathy and social capital, the existing literature reduces empathy to an individual skill for improving interpersonal interactions and neglects the transformative potential of institutional empathy. This research emphasizes the necessity of moving from instrumental empathy to radical empathy.