lecture 1 - teemunsivu.files.wordpress.com. cont. east. south. ehess -june 2014 -...
Post on 17-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Lecture 1
https://teemunsivu.wordpress.com/work-in-progress/
Nordic regime and social bonds
Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Teemu KemppainenUniversity of Helsinki
Seminaire : L'économie morale des liens sociaux. Sociologie comparée de l'attachement.
École des hautes études en sciences sociales20.11.2015
Outline
• Understanding welfare state: a brief history
• Nordic welfare regime: basics
• Three empirical sketches related to the framework of the seminar
• Reference details can be obtained by request: teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
Roots and ideas
• Bismarck and the Social Question: social policy for national integration and social order
• Late 19th century social liberalism: the state intervention and decommodification
• Solidarisme & dette sociale (L. Bourgeois 1896)« l’individu naît en société et ne s’épanouit qu’à travers des ressources intellectuelles et matérielles que celle-ci met à sa disposition. Interdépendants et solidaires, les hommes sont porteurs d’une dette les uns envers les autres, ainsi qu’envers les générations qui les ont précédés et envers celles qui leur succèderont. » (Delalande 2008, http://www.laviedesidees.fr/)
• Nordic social democratic reformism: equality and consensus– Folkhemmet, oikos, moral economy: obligation to work
See Kemppainen 2012: ”Well-being in socio-political context”, for references. In web: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/37306/Tutkimuksia123.pdf
Criticism from both sides
• Marxist critique docile labour
• Liberalist critique too much social(ism) and state
See Kemppainen 2012: ”Well-being in socio-political context”, for references. In web: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/37306/Tutkimuksia123.pdf
Explanations
• ”The logic of industrialism”:
• “The economic growth and its demographic and bureaucratic outcomes are the root cause of the general emergence of the welfare state” (Wilensky 1975)
• Class struggle and politics– Marxist
– Power resources (Esping-Andersen, Korpi, Palme): ”Politics matters”
The Three worlds...
• Before and after 1990...the Three Worlds by Esping-Andersen– classification refers to ideologies (”politics
matters”): liberalist, conservative, social-democratic
– Roots in the tripartite categorisation of Titmuss (1955)
• From linearity to categories
different types of welfare states
...or Four...or Five...
• More categories were added later
• Europe:
– ”Latin rim” / Mediterranean (Ferrera 1996)
– Transitional regime / regimes... (e.g. Fridberg & Kangas 2008;
Whelan and Maître 2008)
• The trade-off in category-building
worldatlas.com
Nordic welfare regime• Social-democratic value basis
– the interventionist state; reformism, redistribution, equality of life chances citizenship and moral bond?
– Finland: divided left, egalitarian peasant culture (”herraviha”) & conservative-corporatist in 3W...
• High decommodification– universal, comperehensive and generous benefits worry of free-
riding & border control
• Individual independence– women are encouraged to participate in the labour markets– youth leave their childhood homes early
• Depends on full employment– Work as a founding value. What happens in the post-industrial era?
Permanent austerity coupled with popular support?
(e.g. Esping-Andersen 1990; P. Pierson 2001; Arts & Gelissen 2002)
Social Bonds in the Nordic Regime
Three empirical sketches related to the approach of the seminar
* le lien de filiation* le lien de participation élective
* le lien organique
A) Le lien de filiation
The 18-24 year old who live with their parents (2005)
Nikander, Timo (2009): Nuoret muuttavat omilleen yhä nuorempina. Hyvinvointikatsaus 1/2009. (The Life on Women and Men in Europe 2008)
The 18-24 year old who live with their parents (2005)
Nikander, Timo (2009): Nuoret muuttavat omilleen yhä nuorempina. Hyvinvointikatsaus 1/2009. (The Life on Women and Men in Europe 2008)
Nordic
NL DE FR UK
Southern & post-soc.
Finnish 15-30 year old who live with their parents (1985-2007)
Nikander, Timo (2009): Nuoret muuttavat omilleen yhä nuorempina. Hyvinvointikatsaus 1/2009. (Family Statistics -- Statistics Finland)
A) Le lien de filiation: indicators of protection
• ESS 2004 ... WIP• Do you have any children, of any age, who do not currently
live in your household? Please include any step, adopted, foster or partner’s children. [If yes...]
• How much financial support you currently provide to your child(ren) or grandchildren who live apart from you?
• How much support in everyday housework or care do you provide for your grown up children or grandchildren who live apart from you?
• How much financial support do you currently receive from your grown up children or grandchildren who live apart from you?
• How much support with your everyday housework or care do you currently receive from your grown up children or grandchildren who live apart from you?
A) Le lien de filiation: indicators of protection 2
• For all four items: if any --> 1, no --> 0
• Sum for each respondent
• Means by country
• Post-stratification weighs used
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NL Netherlands
CH Switzerland
DK Denmark
ES Spain
GB United Kingdom
BE Belgium
FR France
IE Ireland
NO Norway
SE Sweden
TR Turkey
GR Greece
LU Luxembourg
FI Finland
DE Germany
PL Poland
IS Iceland
SI Slovenia
HU Hungary
EE Estonia
AT Austria
PT Portugal
SK Slovakia
CZ Czech Republic
UA Ukraine
Support (filiation) and % of those who have child(ren) not living in household
T.K. (ESS 2004)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NL Netherlands
CH Switzerland
DK Denmark
ES Spain
GB United Kingdom
BE Belgium
FR France
IE Ireland
NO Norway
SE Sweden
TR Turkey
GR Greece
LU Luxembourg
FI Finland
DE Germany
PL Poland
IS Iceland
SI Slovenia
HU Hungary
EE Estonia
AT Austria
PT Portugal
SK Slovakia
CZ Czech Republic
UA Ukraine
Support (filiation) and % of those who have child(ren) not living in household
T.K. (ESS 2004)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NL Netherlands
CH Switzerland
DK Denmark
ES Spain
GB United Kingdom
BE Belgium
FR France
IE Ireland
NO Norway
SE Sweden
TR Turkey
GR Greece
LU Luxembourg
FI Finland
DE Germany
PL Poland
IS Iceland
SI Slovenia
HU Hungary
EE Estonia
AT Austria
PT Portugal
SK Slovakia
CZ Czech Republic
UA Ukraine
Support (filiation) and % of those who have child(ren) not living in household
T.K. (ESS 2004)
Nordic welfare regime• Social-democratic value basis
– the interventionist state; reformism, redistribution, equality of life chances citizenship and moral bond?
• High decommodification– universal, comperehensive and generous benefits worry of free-
riding & border control
• Individual independence– women are encouraged to participate in the labour markets– youth leave their childhood homes early
• Depends on full employment– what happens in the post-industrial era? Permanent austerity coupled
with popular support?
(e.g. Esping-Andersen 1990; P. Pierson 2001; Arts & Gelissen 2002 – reference details can be obtained from the author by request)
B) Le lien elective
• During the last 12 months, have you worked in another (=non-political) organisation or association? (ESS 2004)
– a narrow measure of “civil society”– see e.g. Trägårdh (2010): Rethinking the Nordic welfare state through a
neo-Hegelian theory of state and civil society (Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 227–239)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
SI Slovenia
HU Hungary
UA Ukraine
PT Portugal
EE Estonia
TR Turkey
GR Greece
PL Poland
CZ Czech Republic
GB United Kingdom
SK Slovakia
IE Ireland
CH Switzerland
BE Belgium
FR France
ES Spain
NL Netherlands
DE Germany
DK Denmark
AT Austria
NO Norway
LU Luxembourg
SE Sweden
FI Finland
IS Iceland
Worked in a non-political organisation or association last 12 months (%, ESS 2004)
State and Society: a Nordic View
• The role of elective bond in the Nordic regime?
– No crowding out of the civil society by the state
– Universalism + elective integration
• “the distinction between state and society is so vague that in Finnish (as in Swedish and Norwegian) the term ‘society’ is often used as a synonym for the ‘state’.” (Alapuro 2005)
– “kansalaisyhteiskunta” (civil society) is a technical and empty word in Finnish
C) Le lien organique: unemployment and recognition
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
25
C) Le lien organique: unemployment and recognition
• ”[R]ecognition […] is a vital human need” - Charles Taylor (in Anderson 1995)
• Honneth’s recognition: social esteem reflects the productivity and usefulness of ones contribution
• Stigma, ”blemish of the character”, unemployment as a sign (Goffman)
• Unemployment as humiliation, as a matter of respect, failure (Kortteinen & Tuomikoski 1998) – also in the Nordic regime...work as a value.
• Organic social bond & feeling of being useful, meaningfulness; Do I count for somebody, do I haveworth? (Durkheim; Paugam)
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
26
A contemporary Finnish example of the Goffmannian stigma
”Work is...it’s always meant for me livelihood and esteem…I
feel I’m not really esteemed when I’m unemployed…I think it’s
somehow in the air…the idea that...you don’t respect
someone who’s not working, that he’s not as good as others,
one who hasn’t succeeded in getting a job…there has to be
something wrong with him.”
(Client of unemployment counseling, Outi Välimaa’s PHD Thesis, 2011).
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
27
Low recognition”the moral experience of everyday life”
• European Social Survey 2006 (ESS 3, Kemppainen 2012)
• E37. “Please tell me to what extent you feel that people treat you with respect?”
• E38. “Please tell me to what extent you feel that people treat you unfairly?”
• E39. “Please tell me to what extent you feel that you get the recognition you deserve for what you do?”
• The scale for all these items is: 0 Not at all - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 A great deal
• Sum variable, dichotomised to capture the experiences of low recognition (24 % of the respondents)
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
28
Low recognition (ESS3)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Total Poorly educated Sick Poor Unemployed Aged Unsafe Lonely Immigrants
Cont.
Cont.
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
29
Low recognition (ESS3)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Total Poorly educated Sick Poor Unemployed Aged Unsafe Lonely Immigrants
Anglo-Sax. Cont.
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
30
Low recognition (ESS3)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Total Poorly educated Sick Poor Unemployed Aged Unsafe Lonely Immigrants
Anglo-Sax. Cont. South.
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
31
Integrated poverty? (Paugam)
Low recognition (ESS3)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Total Poorly educated Sick Poor Unemployed Aged Unsafe Lonely Immigrants
Anglo-Sax. Cont. East. South.
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
32Nordic?
Nordic welfare regime• Social-democratic value basis
– the interventionist state; reformism, redistribution, equality of life chances citizenship and moral bond?
• High decommodification– universal, comperehensive and generous benefits worry of free-
riding & border control
• Individual independence– women are encouraged to participate in the labour markets– youth leave their childhood homes early implications for social
bonds?
• Depends on full employment– what happens in the post-industrial era? Permanent austerity
coupled with popular support?
(e.g. Esping-Andersen 1990; P. Pierson 2001; Arts & Gelissen 2002 – reference details can be obtained from the author by request)
Low recognition (ESS3)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Total Poorly educated Sick Poor Unemployed Aged Unsafe Lonely Immigrants
Anglo-Sax. Cont. East. Nordic South.
EHESS - June 2014 -teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
34
2006: era of economic booming...cf. Paugam & Selz on the conjunctures of representations
Social Bonds in the Nordic Regime: Summary of the lecture 1
• Family bonds: not that essential in terms of protection
• Elective bonds: active associational life is not prevented by extensive state intervention
• Organic bonds: work as a founding value
– provides recognition
– but unemployment and poverty are somewhat less stigmatising than in many other countries
Lecture 2
Regulation and integration in the late modern Nordic Suburbia
Preliminary empirical explorations
Teemu KemppainenUniversity of Helsinki
Seminaire : L'économie morale des liens sociaux. Sociologie comparée de l'attachement.
École des hautes études en sciences sociales20.11.2015
Outline• Suburban housing estate: the concept• Ecological explorations: neighbourhood data– Objective sosio-economic variables
• income• education• tenure
– Subjective: the experience of ”the social”• normative consensus• expectations of regulation• social order• integration/interaction• emotional attachment
• Reference details can be obtained by request: teemu.t.kemppainen(at)helsinki.fi
Suburban housing estate (1/2)
• An interdisciplinary project• 3 PHD candidates
• 2012-2015, Academy of Finland
• banlieue, cité (Finnish: lähiö)
• definition from urban geography: the built environment• established point of view in the Finnish literature
• cf. policy/socio-economic definition
Suburban housing estate (2/2)
• Residential area
• Built in the 60s and 70s
• Dominated by multi-storey housing
• Located outside central areas
• See Stjernberg, M. (2013). Concrete suburbia. A socio-economic analysis suburban housing estates in Finland. In: Suburbs – Transformation and Development. Papers from the NSBB-Conference 17–19 September 2013 in Denmark (pp. 182–199). Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University.
Finland
worldatlas.com (left); Helsingin karttapalvelu (right)
Kulosaari (Helsinki)
Wikipedia
Kontula (1970) (Helsinki)
http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/a1395118398256
Kontula (Helsinki)
Wikimedia Commons
Pihlajamäki (1965) (Helsinki)
helsinki200.fi, von Bonin, Helsingin kaupunginmuseo
Pihlajamäki (Helsinki)
Sato.fi
Jyrkkälä (Turku)
Wiki.tut.fi
Late modern condition in the nordic concrete suburbia
• Late urbanisation estates
• Low unemployment until late 1980’s
• Recession of the early 1990s and transition into a more post-industrial era– with higher and long-term unemployment
– socio-spatial segregation...estates
• Ethnic-cultural segregation & estates
• Poor reputation
• Physical condition & large-scale renovation
• Implications for well-being and social order?
Work in progress
• “Social Disorder in Finnish Suburban Housing Estates”
– “a Multilevel Study on Collective Efficacy Combining Survey and Register Data”
• T.K.
• Timo Kauppinen (THL – National Institute for Health and
Welfare)
• Reijo Sund (Univ. Helsinki)
Approach
• How the experience of the social is related to the objective features of the context?
– le social vécu & le social objectif
– survey & register data
Data & methods
• A stratified cluster sample of estate residents
– n: around 8,000
• Merged to contextual data on estates
– n of estates: 71
• Ecological analyses (n=71)
• Preliminary
– no weighting applied
– bivariate analyses
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
Huge variation: objective features
Min Max Mean SD CV
Population 403 11951 1875.24 1988.79 1.06
Tertiary educ. / 18 + pop. 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.62
Low income consumers / all cons., max.
10,555 EUR/y (income before taxes )0.20 0.61 0.38 0.08
0.23
Middle income 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.03 0.12
High income ... min. 36,467 EUR/y 0.17 0.61 0.35 0.09 0.26
Unemployed / all 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.42
Rental apartments / all 0.17 1.00 0.48 0.19 0.40
PREFARE Data: Data from Registers (Ruututietokanta 2009, n=71)
...Finnish housing estates are not a homogeneous group of neighbourhoods.
The experience of ”the social”: five indicators
• Social cohesion / normative consensus
• Informal social control / expectations of regulation
• Perceived social order / peacefulness
• Neighbourhood integration / interaction
• Emotional attachment
Social cohesion / normative consensus(Sampson et al. 1997: Collective Efficacy)
• People around here are willing to help their neighbours
• This is a close-knit(*) neighborhood
• People in this neighborhood can be trusted
• People in this neighborhood generally don't get along(**) with each other
• People in this neighborhood share the same values
(*) très uni
(**) get along with = bien s'entendre avec
Informal social control / expectations of regulation
• We adopt Sampson et al’s measure with some modifications:
• How likely do you think it is that people in your neighbourhood would interfere in the following situations?
• Youth were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner
• Someone spray-painting graffiti or vandalising a local building
• Youth were showing disrespect to an adult
• A fight broke out in front of their house
• Drunken disorder
• Disturbing noise at night in a local apartment
Theoretical excursion: collective efficacy
• Chicago tradition of urban sociology
• Structural neighbourhood disadvantage and problems of order
– Social disorganisation i.e. poor normativeregulation
• Latest formulation by R. Sampson et al. as ”collective efficacy”
– Capacity to realise collective goals, e.g. safe and orderly neighbourhood
– Informal social control & social cohesion
Perceived social order / peacefulness• Have you observed the following problems in
your neighbourhood?
• Uncleanliness
• Public drunkenness
• Vandalism
• Neighbours causing disorder
• Drug use or trade
• Threatening behavior
• Thefts
• Poorly managed buildings or yards
Neighbourhood interaction / integration
• How often...
• You talk with your neighbours
• You visit somebody in your neighbourhood
• You give help to or receive help from your neighbours
• You co-operate with your neighbours concerning the local matters
• You meet your neighbours in associational occasions
Emotional attachment to the neighbourhood
• I’m proud of my neighbourhood
• I don’t like to the tell others where I live
• If I’d have to move elsewhere, I’d miss my neigbourhood
• I like my neighbourhood
Technical briefing
• Factor scores at the individual level
– for each indicator separately...maybe should do it for all the items together?
• Means of the factors scores at the neighbourhood level contextual variables
Approach
• How the experience of the social is related to the objective features of the context?
• Selected graphs and correlations
First: normative consensus
• People around here are willing to help their neighbours
• This is a close-knit neighborhood
• People in this neighborhood can be trusted
• People in this neighborhood generally don't get along with each other
• People in this neighborhood share the same values
Normative consensus (Y) by the share of low income residents (X)
Correlation: -0.401
Normative consensus (Y) by the share of rental apartments (X)
Correlation: -0.639
Ecological SES variables often correlate highly ... one latent variable?
Yes, in this ecological dataset (n=71) there seems to be one dominant empirical dimensions which captures most of the socio-economic variation (income, education, unemployment, tenure).
Normative consensus (Y) by the SES of the neighbourhood (X)
Correlation: 0.445
The expectations of regulation
• How likely do you think it is that people in your neighbourhood would interfere in the following situations? (5 point scale)
• Youth were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner
• Someone spray-painting graffiti or vandalising a local building
• Youth were showing disrespect to an adult• A fight broke out in front of their house• Drunken disorder• Disturbing noise at night in a local apartment
Expected regulation (Y) by the SES of the neighbourhood (X)
Correlation: 0.345
Perceived social order / peacefulness• Have you observed the following problems in
your neighbourhood? (4 point scale)
- uncleanliness
- public drunkenness
- vandalism
- neighbours causing disorder
- drug use or trade
- threatening behavior
- thefts
- poorly managed buildings or yards
Social disorder (Y) by the SES of the neighbourhood (X)
Correlation: -0.474
Neighbourhood integration / interaction
• How often...
• You talk with your neighbours
• You visit somebody in your neighbourhood
• You give help to or receive help from your neighbours
• You co-operate with your neighbours concerning the local matters
• You meet your neighbours in associational occasions
Integration (Y) by the SES of the neighbourhood (X)
Correlation: n.s.
Emotional attachment
• I’m proud of my neighbourhood
• I don’t like to the tell others where I live
• If I’d have to move elsewhere, I’d miss my neigbourhood
• I like my neighbourhood
Emotional attachment (Y) by the SES of the neighbourhood (X)
Correlation: 0.639
Neighbourhood SES and ”the social”: summary of bivariate explorations
SES of the estate
• strongly predicts emotional attachment
• quite strongly predicts
– normative consensus
– expected regulation (C.E.)
– perceived social order / peacefulness
• is not associated to the interaction dimension
Summary: neighbourhood matters• Socio-economic nature of the housing estate
matters in terms of various indicators of the experience of social life (regulation, order, emotions)
• This in the context where socio-economic differences have been rather small
• ...but widening, in social and spatial terms
– segregation
Vulnerable positions
• Poorly educated – “Less than lower secondary education” in question F6 (“What is the highest level of education you have achieved?”)
• Poor – “Finding it difficult on present income” or “Finding it very difficult on present income” in question F33 (“Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s income nowadays?”)
• Sick – “Yes a lot” or “Yes to some extent” in question C16 (“Are you hampered in your daily activities in any way by any longstanding illness, or disability, infirmity or mental health problem? If yes, is that a lot or to some extent?”)
• Unemployed – “Unemployed and actively looking for a job” or “Unemployed, wanting a job but not actively looking for a job” in item F8c2 (“Main activity, last 7 days”)
• Aged – 65 years or more in item F3 1b (age) Well-being in socio-political context: European welfare regimes in comparison 51
• Unsafe – “Unsafe” or “Very unsafe” in question C6 (“How safe do you – or would you – feel walking alone in this area after dark?”)
• Lonely – “No” in question C3 (“Do you have anyone with whom you can discuss intimate and personal matters?”)
• Immigrants – “No” in question C28 (“Were you born in [country]?”)
top related