social cohesion in the time of crisis: an empirical research on eu … · 2016-06-09 · 10th...

10th Annual International Conference on Sociology 2-5 May 2016, Athens, Greece

Social cohesion in the time of crisis:

an empirical research on EU member States

Felice Addeo, Paolo Diana, Gianmaria Bottoni, Maria Esposito

Department of Political, Social and Communication Science

University of Salerno – Italy

contact details: [email protected]

“primarily a political concept, and one that is fundamental for putting into perspective the strategy that underpins any modern society that considers itself legitimate and sustainable […] to secure the long term well-being of all its members, including equitable access to available resources, respect for human dignity with due regard for diversity, personal and collective autonomy and responsible participation”

(CE 2005 23).

“building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing

shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community” (Maxwell 1996)

“a state of affairs in which a group of people (delineated by a geographical region, like a country) demonstrates an aptitude for

collaboration that produces a climate for change that, in the longer run, benefits all […] a country’s social cohesion –i.e., the inclusiveness of its

communities and its institutional room-for-maneuver – has a vitally important role in managing the effectiveness of that country’s policy

response to the vagaries of the global economy (Ritzen 2000)

The «success» of the Concept of Social Cohesion There are several reasons why Governments are interested in Social Cohesion:

• It is a fundamental condition for political stability;

• It produces wealth and promotes economic growth;

• High level of social cohesion reduces public spending;

• The notion of social cohesion has proven exceedingly helpful in organizing a re-framing and modernization of social policy thinking;

• Social Cohesion could be useful to evaluate the outcomes of public policies.

Over the last 25 years, the concept of Social Cohesion has drawn increasing attention from academics and policy-makers.

This is due to the fact that Social Cohesion addresses some fundamental questions to political and social science:

How society can exist and reproduce its existence

What makes people group together and form cohesive social structure

These questions bring us back to the beginning of Sociology

The «success» of the Concept of Social Cohesion

Durkheim was on of the first sociologist to talk about social order.

As we know, Durkheim (1893) identifies two types of solidarity mechanical and organic

Durkheim’s times, like ours, went through deep transformation and structural changes, that marked the transition from traditional to modern world. It is not a coincidence that social cohesion issues are raised every time a society faces deep social, economic and political changes. Each time these events occur, preserving social order and social arrangements become items on agenda.

The origins of Social Cohesion

Jenson (1998) found two other ways to address the questions: liberalism and democracy theories

• Liberalism looks for social order as an unintended but real benefit of market and other individual transactions. The values promoted are individual choice, including the freedom to choose from as many viable options as possible. The mutual respect of individual rights, guaranteed by law and respect for law, as well as the actions of persons pursuing their own interests, economic or other, in parallel are expected to generate a well-functioning society. Without going into further details, we might summaries the core of the liberal position as being that a well-functioning society is generated as a by-product of private behaviors. Individual behavior, especially in markets and voluntary associations, drives social order.

• Democracy theories conceive social order as the result of an active government, capable of redistributing income, in a well-functioning, productive economy and in democratic public institutions dedicated to overseeing the whole. In the social policy thinking of post-1945 Western Europe and Canada, social order reposed on a guaranteed basic dose of economic equality and equity. This redistribution could come from social policy to be sure, via programs to ensure opportunity (such as public schooling) and to cover the ordinary risks of life in an industrial society (insurance and pensions for unemployment, old age, child rearing, sickness, and so on). But the other major mechanism for organizing an equitable and even egalitarian distribution was a full-employment economy, in which people earned enough to support themselves and their families. From this perspective, citizenship went far beyond nationality. It was also the expression of ties of social solidarity, located in citizens’ rights to fundamental liberties, via civil rights, to democratic participation, via political rights, and to social and economic rights (Kymlicka and Norman 1995,285-86). From this perspective, public institutions had a central role to play, one that was exclusively theirs. It was through law and democratically arrived at collective choices that conflict among different group and individual interests must be resolved. Private mechanisms of decision making were never eliminated, but neither could they substitute for democratic government when it came to making collective choices and achieving collective goals.


According to Jenson (1998), there are three main theoretical traditions about social order

Social Cohesion Theories: Social order results from interdependence, shared loyalties and solidarities.

(examples: Durkheimian and Parsonian social theory)

Classical Liberalism: Social order results from private behavior in private institutions such as markets.

- Tocquevillian Liberalism: Social order results from private behavior in private institutions such as markets, families and social networks.

(examples: Tocquevillian social and political theory, Putnamian social capital)

Democracy Theories: Social order – and change – results from active democratic government guaranteeing a basic measure of economic equality and equity

(examples: social democracy, Christian democracy, positive liberalism)

Source: Jenson 1998, 12


Social Cohesion: definitional and empirical problems

• Academic and Institutional literature on Social Cohesion is vast though not systematic and coherent

• As many scholars highlight (Berger-schmitt e Noll, 2000; Berger-schmitt, 2002; Noll, 2002; Jenson, 1998; Jeannotte, 2003; Bernard, 1999; Beauvais e Jenson, 2002), the scientific debate on social cohesion is characterized by vagueness and confusion both from a conceptual (different theoretical definitions) and an empirical point of view (different operational definitions);

• The definition of Social cohesion’s concept is influenced by the context in which it is developed: institutional, academia, think tanks agencies. Thus, to different policies or goals, different definitions are created.

• Jenkins (1998, 37) : “social cohesion is an ambiguous concept because it can be used by those seeking to accomplish a variety of things. It is sometimes deployed in rightwing and populist politics by those who long for the good old days when life seemed easier, safer, and less threatening. But social cohesion can also be used by those who fear the consequences of excessively marketised visions of the future. There is no question that those within Canada and much of the international policy community who evoke social cohesion do so because they fear the results of structural adjustments that ignore social and political needs. They are decidedly facing the future, not the past”.

• So, how to research Social Cohesion?

• First of all, a definition of Social Cohesion is needed; to this purpose, one must start from a systematic literature review, both institutional and academic.

Social Cohesion: definitional and empirical problems

A systematic literature review shows two approaches to Social Cohesion:

• Institutional: • European Union: Social Cohesion to fight inequality and social exclusion; • OECD: Social Cohesion is restricted to material well-being; it is an antidote to global market

instability; • Council of Europe: Social Cohesion means equitable access to resources, long term well-being,

respect for diversity, social commitment; • World Bank: Social Cohesion is an attitude to cooperation that promotes a climate of social change.

• Academic:

• Jenson: Social Cohesion is defined through five dimensions: Belonging, Participation, Inclusion, Recognition, Legitimacy;

• Bernard: he adds a new dimension to Jenson’s proposal: Equality. Social cohesion is a “quasi concept”, useful to Political analysis as it is sufficiently vague and flexible to be used to different purposes, and, at the same time, it could be empirically measured;

• Berger-Schmitt: operationalize the social cohesion across two main dimensions: 1) Reduction of Disparities, Inequalities and Social Exclusion 2) Strengthening Social Capital

Social Cohesion: between academia and institution

Social Cohesion: institutional approach OECD: has the narrowest definition of social cohesion, focusing almost exclusively on the economic and material aspects of the concept, which is consistent with the Organization's economic mandate. CE: has the most detailed and extensive policy description of democratic cohesion, focusing on the cohesive role of pluralist democracy, active citizenship, access to information, a safe and tolerant society and a strong human rights regime situated within a sound legal framework. The EU: has characterized its approach to social cohesion as being consistent with “the European model of society”, founded on a notion of solidarity which is embodied in “universal systems of social protection, regulation to correct market failure and systems of social dialogue”.

The common point is the “secure access to material well-being”: this is typical of the European vision of Social Cohesion, while Canadian approaches rely more on participation, sense of belonging, sharing a value system. “None of the organizations is exclusively focused on one element of social cohesion to the exclusion of others. However, the implicit definition of social cohesion used by the OECD emphasizes the right to material well-being, that of the Council of Europe gives prominence to the strengthening of democratic citizenship, and that of the European Union the promotion of solidarity” (Jeanotte 2000, 10)

Source: Jeannotte, 2000

OECD: has identified the longest list of positive factors, beginning with the capacity of OECD democracies to find the appropriate balance between “dynamism and security” thereby avoiding “both stagnation and social fragmentation”. The OECD also seems to be the most optimistic of the three organizations about the capacity of society to adapt and renew itself in the face of internal and external pressures. CE: views the extensive cooperative activity that has taken place in Europe since the end of World War II as a positive factor in promoting social cohesion, citing legal instruments, publications, training activities, technical assistance and mediation as playing key roles in solving societal problems and in forging European solidarity. The Council also considers the formation of new pan-European networks of voluntary and non-profit associations in response to trans border European issues a positive development for the democratic process. EU: The European Union’s list of factors promoting social cohesion is quite brief and is anchored by the European model of solidarity. The principal feature of this model, as has been mentioned above, is the commitment to combat poverty and to correct large income inequalities through taxes and social transfers

Factors promoting Social Cohesion: institutional approach


All three organizations view unemployment, poverty, income inequality, social exclusion and exclusion from the Information Society as threats to social cohesion. Both the European Union and the Council of Europe also consider the “rights deficit” as a negative pressure threatening the cohesion of their societies. In general, the consensus on economic and social threats appears to be stronger than on political and cultural ones. The OECD’s extensive research on unemployment, poverty and income inequality appears to have been spurred by concerns about lagging productivity and labour market performance, but it has highlighted a “divergence of interests between gainers and losers” with the result that “an increasing number of families may perceive that they will receive less out of the state than they contribute to it. CE: the Council has the most detailed analysis of the origins and dimensions of social exclusion. It uses the idea of the “welfare triangle” to describe the dimensions of social exclusion. In the Council’s view, “American dominance of advanced modes of cultural expression and communication ... may be having a negative impact on European values, economy and employment, as well as on cultural and linguistic diversity EU: For the European Union, problems of unemployment, poverty, income inequality, regional deprivation and urban distress are closely linked to social exclusion, which is viewed as a major threat to social cohesion.

Threats to Social Cohesion: institutional approach


World Bank: starting from Maxwell’s definition (1996): “building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community” (1996), Ritzen states that also political and macroeconomic dimensions should be considered: “In its economic dimension, exclusion is first and foremost linked to poverty. Although in some instances it may be the cause, in general it is understood to be largely the result of poverty. The unemployed are typically excluded from mainstream economic activity and are, therefore, denied access to property and credit. In most of the developing world, especially Africa, long-term unemployment has rendered many people unemployable. The second dimension is social: unemployment does more than deprive one of an income, in most societies unemployment greatly reduces one’s status in society. Exclusion takes on a political (third) character when certain categories of the population (women, ethnic, racial and religious groups, especially minorities) are deprived of access to their rights. A fourth dimension is identified as “non-sustainable modes of development”. This is explained as development that compromises the survival of future generations, and which excludes them from the benefits of feasible, durable development” (Ritzen 2000, 10-11). Then, Ritzen concludes that: “social cohesion is a state of affairs in which a group of people (delineated by a geographical region, like a country) demonstrates an aptitude for collaboration that produces a climate for change that, in the longer run, benefits all” (2008).

Another definition of Social Cohesion: institutional approach

Social Cohesion: academic approach One of the most influential study on Social Cohesion is the one made by Jane Jenson (1998) for the Canadian Policy Research Networks. Jenson states that Social Cohesion is the language of those who miss the old days: “in these discussions, the focus is often on “deterioration.” In a general way, the concept of social cohesion assumes there are certain societal level conditions and processes that characterize a well-functioning society and that at this time these conditions may no longer be satisfied […] it is important to acknowledge where conversations about social cohesion originate. They take place among those who sense an absence of some sort. It is the vocabulary of those who judge that things are not going well” (Jenson 1998, 3). By analyzing 4 official documents on Social Cohesion (coming from French government, Canadian government, OECD, Club of Rome), Jenson developed a framework in which the degree of social cohesion in a society can be characterized by where it ranks on the continuum represented by each of the five dimensions:

Belonging/Isolation: sharing common values and identity; Inclusion/Exclusion: equality of opportunity in a market society; Partecipation/Non-involvement: active citizenship – involvement into democratic and political life; Recognition/Rejection: recognition of differences; Legitimacy/Illegitimacy: legitimation of the institutions by citizens.

Belonging Isolation

Inclusion Exclusion

Partecipation Non-involvement

Recognition Rejection

Legitimacy Illegitimacy

Five dimensions of Social Cohesion

Social Cohesion: academic approach Paul Bernard, a colleague of Jenson’s at the University of Montreal, later suggested that another dimension – equality versus inequality – be added to her framework to make it more complete (Bernard, 1999). Bernard also pointed out that the resulting six dimensions could then be paired, since they represent either conditions promoting social cohesion (as manifested by formal state policies and programs) or substantive societal outcomes of these policies and programs.

Berger-Schmitt (2002) distinguish between two principal dimensions of social cohesion: (1) The first dimension can be shortly denoted as the inequality dimension. It covers all aspects of the distribution of welfare in a society: issues of equal opportunities among different population groups, the extent of disparities and social cleavages, and the amount of social exclusion and discrimination; (2) The second dimension can be shortly denoted as the social capital dimension. It embraces all aspects which are generally considered as constituting the social capital of a society: social ties that bind, in terms of social contacts, shared values and norms, trust in other people and in societal institutions, feelings of solidarity, a sense of belonging to the same community and a common identity

Character of the

Relation

Spheres of activity

Substantial Formal

Economic (1) Equality / Inequality (2) Insertion / Exclusion

Political (3) Participation / Passivity (4) Legitimacy/ Illegitimacy

Sociocultural (6) Belonging / Isolation (5) Recognition / Rejection

Social Cohesion: dependent or independent variable? The conceptual confusion is mirrored in empirical research: there is no agreement over the role of Social Cohesion in Statistical Analysis. Some scholars say Social Cohesion is an independent variable, i.e. something that causes good societal outcomes. Other authors state it is a dependent variable, so it is the effect of the actions of social and economic policies (in this case, Social Cohesion could be considered as a goal to be pursued).

Dependent variable Independent variable

Social Cohesion: dependent or independent variable? There is no unanimous position on whether social cohesion is a cause or a consequence of other aspects of social, economic and political life: studies has proven that there is a correlation between Social Cohesion and other variables, but Correlation is not Causation. So the statistical relationship has been considered as symmetric. Bernard’s argument is that social cohesion can be both an independent variable or a dependent variable. In other words, social cohesion can cause good societal outcomes, but those outcomes can also influence social cohesion (or in this case, policies that promote social cohesion). This is not a real problem, Social Cohesion is a flexible quasi-concept useful both for analytical purposes and policy making.

The European Union has formulated an interactive model that serves to organize policy work

“Such thinking breaks dramatically with the notion that social cohesion is either an independent or a dependent variable. The principal idea is that social policy is a productive factor. Social expenditures, whether on health or education, are investments in human resources, with positive economic effects. The Commission argues that there is a positive correlation between the scale of such expenditures and the level of productivity in any country. Social transfers covering pensions and social security not only contribute to equalizing and re-distributing incomes across the life course and across social groups, but they also support better quality in employment, with consequent economic benefits” (Beauvais and Jenson 2002, 21).

Social Cohesion: an empirical research Research Questions

Develop a reliable operational definition of Social Cohesion;

Create a Social Cohesion Index easily reproducible by other researchers;

Study the relationship between Social Cohesion and other relevant concepts (macroeconomic performances; quality of institutions; subjective well-being)

Research Method

Quantitative Research with the use of raw secondary data sources

Unit of Analysis

28 member states of the European Union

Data Collection

Data (more than 120 indicators) were collected using official sources, such as Eurostat, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences -

Social Indicators Monitor (Simon), Eurobarometer, European Value Survey.

Data Analysis

Univariate and Bivariate statistics to perform descriptive analysis

Factor Analysis to create indexes

ANOVA and Multiple Regression to study relationships among variables

Social Cohesion: a Concept Map Right after the literature review, in the effort of translating the theoretical frame into something that could be examined empirically (operationalization), it is very useful to recap what has been read, and to organize the research concepts and ideas, using a concept map. Concept map is general research scheme and it could be seen as a way of representing relations among research concepts/dimensions. Specifically, it is a taxonomic diagram where each concept is connected to another and linked back to the original idea. Concept maps are a way to develop logical thinking and enhance meaningful learning in the sciences. Operationally, it is useful to identify measurable concepts (Marradi, 2007). A similar procedure of concept mapping is widely used in education as an informal process whereby an individual draws a picture of all the ideas related to some general theme or question, showing how these are related (Novak, Gowin, 1997; Novak, 1998; Jackson, Trochim, 2002) Using a concept map (in qualitative, quantitative or mixed method research) will help: Clarify theoretical framework Build data collection technique Interpret and Analyze Data

Social Cohesion: a Concept Map Starting from academic and institutional literature review and adding our insights, we have created a new operational definition of Social Cohesion in six dimensions:

Social Cohesion: main dimensions

Structural conditions: it refers mainly to Labor Market structure. As many sources pointed out, Unemployment is one of the main threat to Social Cohesion Inequality: this is a fundamental dimension: it is difficult to have a cohesive society if people experience inequalities. Moreover, strict social ties may cause the exclusion of those who are not thought to be a part of the community. It is the “Can social cohesion be a threat to social cohesion?” Paradox. We found 4 kind of inequalities: Gender, Income, Generation, Nationality Participation: this dimension refers to social commitment, active citizenship and participation in the political life of a Country. Belonging: “a socially cohesive society is one in which the members share common values which enable them to identify common aims and objectives, and share a common set of moral principles and codes of behavior through which to conduct their relations with one another” (Kearns and Forrest 2000) Exclusion: a society cannot be cohesive if it produces exclusion from those institutions that allow people to participate and to be active citizen. These institutions are Economic (Labor Market), and Social (Welfare system, Communities, and so on). Trust: there could not be cohesion if people do not trust each other. High level of trust could create a virtuous circle that will promote the economic growth of a society.

Data Collection The Unit of Analysis are Countries, thus the data could not be collected directly (i.e. you cannot “interview” a Country). Secondary data analysis approach was then chosen (“secondary” does not mean of less importance; it means that data were collected by other researchers or institution). Data were collected using official sources, such as Eurostat, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences - Social Indicators Monitor (Simon)*, Eurobarometer, European Value Survey. Using secondary data has PROS and CONS.

PROS Time and resource saver Official sources are - generally- reliable = Ecological data usually guarantee more robust statistics Stimulate researcher creativity = You can combine data from different variables to create a new variable

CONS You can rely only on what you found, this may cause problems regarding: Validity of the indicators = indicators found may be not valid (i.e. they do not represent well the concept we want to analyze) Availability of the data = sometimes, you cannot find the indicators you want or you cannot find data for a Country Data could be not updated (i.e., they are old) * This database was funded by the EU FP7 project e-Frame - European Framework for Measuring Progress

Objective Conditions: Work

Employment_rate_2011

Employment_rate_m_2011

Employment_rate_f_2011

Employment_rate_15 to 24_2011

Employment_rate_55 to 64_2011

Unemployement rate_2011

Unemployement rate_m_2011

Unemplyement rate_f_2011

Unemplyement rate F/M

Unemployoment rate_less than 25_2011

Unemployement rate_25 to 74_2011

Unemplyement rate (aged from 25 to 74 anni)/ (aged less 25)

Long-term unemployment_% su unemployment_15-64_2011

Long-term unemployment_% su unemployment_15-64_M_2011

Long-term unemployment_% su unemployment_15-64_F_2011



Long-term unemployment Adult/young

Long-term unemployment in % of active population_2011

Long-term unemployment in % of active population_M_2011

Long-term unemployment in % of active population_F_2011

People living in households with very low work intensity (% population aged 0 to 59 years)_2010

Objective Conditions: Income

Final consumption expenditure of households_euro per inhabitant_2010

GDP per capita_2010

Median equivalised net income_2010

Median equivalised net income_M_2010

Median equivalised net income_F_2010

Mean equivalised net income_2010

Difference between Mean Income and Median Income

Objective Conditions: Health

Life expectancy_2010

Healthy life years in absolute value at birth_2010

Healthy life years in absolute value at birth_M_2010

Healthy life years in absolute value at birth_F_2010

Infant mortality rate_2010

Standardised death rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) all causes of death_2009

Objective Conditions: Crime

Standardised death rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) assault_2009

Number of homicide recorded by the police_2009

Number of homicides/pop_2009*100000

Number of crimes recorded by the police_total_2009

Number of crimes /pop_2009*100

Objective Conditions: Housing

Share of total population having neither a bath, nor a shower in their dwelling_2010

Overcrowding rate_%_2010

Average number of rooms per person_2010

Inequality: Gender, Income, Nationality, Generation

Poverty Gap_2010

Gini coefficient_2010

Inequality of income distribution_S80-S20 income quintile share ratio_2010

Gender difference_At risk of poverty rate (cut-off point 60% of median equivalised income

after social transfers)_Absolute difference between males and females_65 years or over

_2010

Gender difference_At risk of poverty rate (cut-off point 60% of median equivalised income

after social transfers)_Absolute difference between males and females_less than 65 years

_2010

Gender difference_At risk of poverty rate NORMALIZZATO 0_100(cut-off point 60% of

median equivalised income after social transfers)_Absolute difference between males and

females_less than 65 years _2010

Ratio of Employment Rates of Women and Men_2010

Ratio of Women and Men Employed in an Influential Occupational Position_2010

Gender pay gap in unadjusted form in %_2007

Female students per 100 males in tertiary education_2009

Persons with low educational attainment %_2010

Persons with low educational attainment % males_2010

Persons with low educational attainment % females_2010

Persons with low educational attainment rate F/M

Early leavers from education and training Percentage of the population aged 18-24 with at

most lower secondary education and not in further education or training_2010

Early leavers from education and training males Percentage of the population aged 18-24

with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training_2010

Early leavers from education and training females Percentage of the population aged 18-24

with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training_2010

Early leavers from education and training rate F/M

Ratio of Employment Rates of Nationals and Non-Nationals_2010

Strong Disapproval of Labour Immigration_2008

Approval of Gender Equality of Employment Opportunities_2008

Low reading literacy performance of pupils_Share of 15-year-old pupils who are at level 1 or

below of the PISA combined reading literacy scale_2009

Quality of Institutions

E-government on-line availability_%_2010

E-government usage by individuals_%_2010

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D % GDP_2010

Expenditure on social protection % gdp_2009

Expenditure on social protection euro per inhabitant_2009

Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, for all levels of education

combined_2009

New infringement cases number_2010

List of indicators

List of indicators Participation

Voter turnout in EU parliamentary elections_2009

Average turnout (1990-2010)

Level of Internet access (%)_2011

Social and Economic Esclusion

Material deprivation rate % population_lack of at least 3 items or more_2010

Material deprivation rate % population_lack of at least 3 items or more_M_2010

Material deprivation rate % population_lack of at least 3 items or more_F_2010

Material deprivation rate F/M

Material deprivation rate % population_lack of at least 3 items or more_less than 18 years_2010

Material deprivation rate % population_lack of at least 3 items or more_65 years or over_2010

Material deprivation rate adult/young rate

Severely materially deprived people %_4 items or more_2010

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion % population_2010

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion % population_M_2010

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion % population_F_2010

people at risk of poverty or social exclusion male/female rate

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion % population_From 16 to 24 years_2010

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion % population_65 years or over _2010

people at risk of poverty or social exclusion adult/young rate

People at-risk-of-poverty after social transfers %_At risk of poverty rate (cut-off point 60% of median

equalized income after social transfers)_2010


equivalised income after social transfers)_M_2010


equivalised income after social transfers)_F_2010

Self-reported unmet needs for medical examination_First quintile of equivalised income_reason too

expensive_2010

suicide per 100000 inhabitants_2009

Death due to alcoholic abuse_ standardised death rate per 100000 inhabitants_2009

Annual consumption of pure ethanol in spirits, wine, beer and other alcoholic drinks consumed (litre) per

capita (aged 15 years and over)_2005

Suicide death rate_Total crude death rate per 100 000 persons_From 15 to 19 years_2009

Household characteristics single person with dependent children_%_2005

Household characteristics single person_%_2005

Belonging, Subjective Satisfaction

Attachment to Country_2007

Attachment to Europe_2007

Attachment to the European Union_2007

Attachment to Town/ Village_2007

Expectations of rising Crime_2009

Feeling Left out of Society_2009

General Fear of Crime_2006

Happiness_2008

Satisfaction with Neighbourhood_2006

Satisfaction with Way of Life_2009

Subjective Poverty Risk_2006

Trust

Interpersonal Trust_2008

Trust in Educational System_2008

Trust in Institutions_2008

Trust in Justice_2008

Trust in Police_2008

Trust in System of Health Care_2008

Trust in Institutions_educations system-justice-police-health care

Level of citizens' confidence in EU institutions_%_council of the european union_2009

Level of citizens' confidence in EU institutions_%_European Commission_2009

Level of citizens' confidence in EU institutions_%_European Parliament_2009

Level of citizens' confidence in EU institutions % European Parliament-European Commission- Council of the EU

Social Cohesion: operational definition We used factor analysis to address research questions. Four indexes have been created: • Social Cohesion • Objective Well-being • Quality of Institutions • Subjective Satisfaction Social Cohesion index is by made up by the following indicators: • Trust in Institutions • Material deprivation • Social exclusion’s feeling • Interpersonal trust • Long-term unemployment • Income inequality • Young Literacy • Gender Equality • Men/Women in Influential Job Position • Turnout at the polls

Our Operational Definition of Social Cohesion

This set of indicators is the result of a factor analysis applied to the data

Social Cohesion: Data Analysis

17.226.827

35.344.344.645.2

46.848.849.250.5

52.253.354.3154.3454.4955.3

58.860.1

65.2165.2566.2

68.872.3

78.883.183.2

87.4

BulgariaLithuaniaRomania

LatviaSlovakiaHungary

PolandItaly

GreecePortugal

United KingdomIrelandEstonia

Czech RepublicSpain

FranceMedia

GermanySloveniaBelgium

MaltaAustriaCyprus

LuxembourgNetherlands

FinlandSweden

Denmark

Component Matrix Factor Loadings

Component 1

-Trust in Institutions_educations system-justice-police-health care -.873

-Severely materially deprived people %_4 items or more_2010 .855

-Feeling_left_out_of_society_0_100 .828

-Interpersonal Trust_2008 -.702

-Long-term unemployment_% su unemployment_15-64_2011 .694

-Inequality of income distribution_S80-S20 income quintile share ratio_2010 .628

-Low reading literacy performance of pupils_- Share of 15-year-old pupils who are at level 1 or

below of the PISA combined reading literacy scale_2009 .621

-Approval of Gender Equality of Employment Opportunities_2008 -.604

-Ratio of Women and Men Employed in an Influential Occupational Position_2010 .567

-Average turnout at the polls (1990-2010) -.543

Factor loadings are correlation coefficients between

variables and the factors they represent.

Factor loadings help in the semantic interpretation of the

factors as they allow to discriminate what variables

contribute more to the formation of the factor.

Variables with high factor loadings are representative of the factor, while low loadings suggest that they are not. Italy = low interpersonal trust and low institutional trust; high income

inequality; high long term unemployment rate; high level of social exclusion.

Objective Well-being Componente1

Overcrowding rate_%_2010 -.941

Median equivalised net income_2010 .933

Standardised death rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) all causes of death_2009 -.932

Final consumption expenditure of households_euro per inhabitant_2010 .932

life expectancy_2010 .912

Average number of rooms per person_2010 .886

GDP per capita_2010 .834

Share of total population having neither a bath, nor a shower in their dwelling_2010 -.769

Infant mortality rate_2010 -.721

employment_rate_2011 .558

Romania

Bulgaria

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech Republic

Slovenia

Greece

media

Portugal

Malta

Italy

Spain

United Kingdom

Cyprus

Belgium

France

Germany

Austria

Ireland

Finland

Sweden

Netherlands

Denmark

Luxembourg

Objective Well-being in Europe

Quality of Institutions Componente 1

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D % GDP_2010 .889

Expenditure on social protection euro per inhabitant_2009 .874

E-government usage by individuals_%_2010 .862

Expenditure on social protection % gdp_2009 .838

Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, for all levels of education combined_2009 .708

Quality of Institutions in Europe

Romania

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Poland

Latvia

Czech Republic

Lithuania

Malta

Greece

Hungary

Cyprus

Italy

Spain

Estonia

Portugal

Media

Slovenia

Ireland

United Kingdom

Germany

Belgium

France

Austria

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

Subjective Satisfaction

Componente

1

Satisfaction with Neighbourhood_2006 .936

Satisfaction with Way of Life_2009 .928

Happiness_2008 .898

General Fear of Crime_2006 -.837

Subjective Poverty Risk_2006 -.784

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Latvia

Hungary

Romania

Greece

Italy

Slovakia

Estonia

Poland

Portugal

Media

Germany

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Spain

Austria

United Kingdom

France

Slovenia

Ireland

Malta

Belgium

Sweden

Luxembourg

Finland

Denmark

Netherlands

Subjective Satisfaction in Europe

Social Cohesion: relationships among the 4 indexes

Social Cohesion index is highly correlated with the other three indexes

Social Cohesion

Objective Well-being Pearson Correlation R Square

0.834 0.69

Quality of Institutions 0.854 0.72

Subjective Satisfaction 0.908 0.82

Correlation Matrix among the 4 variables

Correlation coefficient indicates if and how much two quantitative variables are associated. It ranges from -1 to 1, with 0 meaning no association, -1 means a perfect negative linear relationship: as one variable increases in its values, the other variable decreases in its value, +1 means a perfect positive linear relationship: as one variable increases in its values, the other variable also increases. R-squared indicates how close the data are to the fitted regression line; it ranges from 0 to 1. It could be also interpreted as the % of variance of a dependent variable that is explained by the independent(s) variable(s)

However, please remember that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!

Social Cohesion and Objective Well-being Diagramma a dispersione dell’indice di coesione sociale e dell’indice di benessere oggettivo

Box Plot del grado di coesione sociale e dell’ indice di benessere oggettivo

A scatter plot is used to represent the relationship between two

quantitative variables, especially when analyzing a regression model

A box is used to represent the relationship between two variables with a

precise condition: the dependent must be quantitative, while the

independent must be a nominal or an ordinal variable

Social Cohesion and Quality of Institutions

Box Plot del grado di coesione sociale e dell’ indice di qualità delle istituzioni

Diagramma a dispersione dell’indice di coesione sociale e dell’indice di qualità delle istituzioni

Social Cohesion and Subjective Satisfaction

Diagramma a dispersione dell’indice di coesione sociale e dell’indice di soddisfazione soggettiva

Box Plot del grado di coesione sociale e dell’ indice di soddisfazione soggettiva

Conclusions

Our analysis shows symmetric and bidirectional

statistical relationships among the 4 dimensions; so we

think that these results could be best represented by a

circular model rather than a linear one.

This model is relevant to policy making: this bi-

directionality allows the creation of virtuous circles

among the different domain of society, improving the

general performances of a Country.

There is a strict circular tie among the 4 dimensions:

they influence each other and so they strengthen

mutually.

Being able to “measure” this dimension could help

policy makers to evaluate the outcomes of their actions.

Going beyond our research goals

Here is an example of how it is possible to create new variables, and

then new “concepts”, using the data gathered for other research

purposes.

We combined the four indexes together using factor analysis in order

to create another variable.

This index sums up for each Country the statistics on Social Cohesion

Objective Well-being, Quality of Institutions and Subjective

Satisfaction.

The higher the value, the better the conditions should be.

We labeled this index “General Country Quality”.

These results are in line with many other results in Literature:

“for the majority of the indicators, the Nordic countries, Luxembourg

and the Netherlands prove to be the countries with the best

situation” (Berger-Schmitt 2002, 724).

0

.13

.20

.22

.30

.34

.37

.44

.47

.48

.49

.52

.56

.61

.62

.62

.64

.65

.67

.68

.69

.74

.75

.88

.88

.93

.93

1

Bulgaria

Romania

Lithuania

Latvia

Hungary

Slovakia

Poland

Greece

Estonia

Czech Republic

Italy

Portugal

Media

Spain

Malta

Slovenia

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Germany

Ireland

France

Austria

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

General Country Quality Index

Thanks for your attention!

social cohesion in the time of crisis: an empirical research on eu … · 2016-06-09 · 10th...

Documents