Social Cohesion and the Labour Market: SocietalRegimes of Civic Attitudes and Labour Market Regimes

Isabelle Dimeglio • Jan Germen Janmaat • Philippe Mehaut

Accepted: 26 March 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The aim of this paper is to test the connections between the indicators used inthe literature on social cohesion, which usually reflect ‘general’ values or behaviours, and

indicators specific to a particular space, namely the labour market. A key question is the

stability of the social cohesion’s indicators when moving from a societal level to the labour

market. Based on data from the World Value Survey, and following a restrictive definition

of social cohesion, a comparison is done, for European countries. Examination of the

situation in the two spheres makes it possible to identify more or less homogeneous groups

of countries and also to point to instabilities. ‘Regimes’ of social cohesion begin to emerge.

As in most analyses, the Nordic countries (excluding Finland) have high scores in all the

dimensions. Conversely, most of the new EU member states from the former Eastern bloc

have low scores, particularly in the horizontal dimension of trust between individuals.

Keywords Social cohesion � Civic attitudes � European countries �Labour market regimes

1 Introduction

The notion of social cohesion has become a point of reference in some academic studies

and many policies, particularly at the European level. The standard indicators of develop-

ment, many of them economic in nature, (growth rate, unemployment rate, earnings, etc.),

I. Dimeglio (&) � P. MehautLEST, Aix Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, Francee-mail: isabelle.dimeglio@univ-amu.fr

I. DimeglioSMG (EA4670), Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France

J. G. JanmaatInstitute of Education (IOE), London, UK

123

Soc Indic ResDOI 10.1007/s11205-012-0032-x

have been supplemented or sometimes even replaced by indicators of ‘cohesion’ (partic-

ipation, trust, etc.) that are supposed to represent the quality of individuals’ relationship to

society and the quality of life in society. The notion’s rise to prominence is generally

interpreted as being linked to the loss, under pressure from markets and globalisation

(Alaluf 1999), of the coherence that characterised the societies of the past. Despite this

growing interest, there is no consensus as to the definition of social cohesion. Two schools

of thought can be identified. In the first, social cohesion is constructed/reconstructed on the

basis of the types of individual and group behaviours that make life in society possible:

mutual tolerance, trust and involvement in collective activities. Social capital (as defined

by Putnam et al. 1994; Putnam 1995) lies at the heart of this concept. The second places

greater emphasis on the linkages between social groups and institutions, which are seen

to vary across European regions; in this approach, the focus of analysis is not on

social cohesion as the product of ‘universal values and behaviours’ but rather on societal

regimes of social cohesion (Green and Janmaat 2011; Janmaat 2011). These regimes

represent regionally distinct configurations of institutions, ideologies and socio-economic

conditions.

In both cases, however, the values that are emphasised lie essentially within the

province of civil society (mutual trust, tolerance etc.). However, if social cohesion is to be

understood as a macro-level, multidimensional concept that makes ‘life in society’ pos-

sible, then surely the various social spheres should be analysed separately from each other,

with a particular distinction needing to be made between labour relations and more general

relations within society. Making this distinction is relevant because the proponents of the

regimes approach argue that labour market regulations and institutions are key to under-

pinning a wider sense of solidarity in some regimes but not in others (Esping-Andersen

1990; Green and Janmaat 2011). Countries might therefore differ in the degree to which

societal cohesion reflects labour market cohesion. This is the main question investigated in

this article. We seek to test the robustness of models and indicators of cohesion depending

on whether the perspective adopted is that of society as a whole or the labour market more

specifically. This question can be illustrated by taking the example of tolerance of for-

eigners: does a high level of tolerance in general stand up when put to the test in the labour

market under conditions unemployment? The approach of this article thus not only makes

it possible to assess whether cohesion in the labour market runs parallel to cohesion in

society, but also to explore whether the two forms of cohesion are related in different ways

in different regions. Evidence of the latter would support the notion of different regimes of

social cohesion characterizing different regions or groups of countries. Another reason to

investigate the labour market that it is a social sphere with multiple and deep-seated

divisions between various interest groups. These divisions may well disrupt the cohesion of

society at large particularly in times of crisis.

In the first part, we will describe how the notion of social cohesion has come to the

fore. We will then specify our conceptual and operational choices. In the next part, the

general and labour market indicators adopted on the basis of data drawn from the World

Value Survey will be outlined and the various forms of links between ‘social cohesion’

and the labour market described. The aim here is to test the connections between the

indicators used in the literature on social cohesion, which usually reflect ‘general’ values

or behaviours, and indicators specific to a particular space, namely the labour market. In

the final part, we present the main results of the typological analyses and discuss

whether or not there is a connection between the macro-social level and that of the

labour market.

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

2 Trust, Participation and Respect for Diversity: A ‘Minimalist’1

and Multidimensional Conceptualisation of Social Cohesion

The current infatuation with the concept of social cohesion cannot conceal the absence of

agreement as to its definition. Thus some commentators describe it as a ‘quasi-concept’

(Bernard 2000) while others emphasise its ‘ill-defined boundaries’ (Jenson 1998).

2.1 Social Cohesion: A Very Popular Concept

In many national and international organisations there has been a revival of interest in

social cohesion in response to the economic and social upheavals caused by increasing

globalisation. Indeed, it has become a major political issue. Saint Martin explains its

popularity by drawing on Polanyi’s argument (Polanyi, 1944) that ‘every period of major

change gives rise to its share of new concepts and new ideas, which reflect the changes in

structures and social reality it is undergoing’ (Saint Martin 1999, p 88). Maintaining the

social bond against a background of change is at the heart of these organisations’ concerns.

The Department of Canadian Heritage (1997) displayed an explicit interest in social

cohesion when it published its critical paper ‘Canadian identity, culture and values:

building a cohesive society’. In the year 2000, Berger-Schmitt noted that social cohesion

was one of the main objectives of the European Union; this was subsequently confirmed by

the European Commission (1996, 1997, 1998, 2000). More recently, the Council of Europe

published a methodological guide to the development of indicators of social cohesion

(Concerted development of social cohesion indicators, Council of Europe 2005). For these

international organisations, social cohesion is very often a critical concept that highlights

the social consequences or even ‘pathologies’ resulting from economic liberalism Glob-

alisation and structural adjustment policies give rise to economic, social and technological

disruptions. The response to the ensuing social problems is to be sought, it is argued, in the

restoration of social cohesion. This increasing use of the concept is not, however, based on

a consensual definition of what social cohesion is or is not.

2.2 Diversity of Conceptual Approaches

Some attempts have been made to outline the contours of and/or conceptualise this notion

(Jenson 1998; O’Connor 1998; Berger-Schmitt 2000; Jeannotte 2000; Kearns and Forrest

2001; Beauvais and Jenson 2002; Duhaime et al. 2004; Council of Europe 2005; Green

et al. 2006, 2011). For Maxwell (1996), ‘Social cohesion involves building shared values

and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and gen-

erally 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’ (quoted in Jenson

1998, p 3). Jenson (1998) investigates how social cohesion is perceived in four national

and international organisations, namely the Government of Canada’s Policy Research Sub-

Committee on Social Cohesion, the Commissariat Géneral au Plan (State Planning

Commission) in France, the Club of Rome and, finally, the OECD. She notes that only the

first two bodies offer an explicit definition of social cohesion, although they all stress the

importance of the notion. For the Government of Canada’s Policy Research Sub-Com-

mittee, social cohesion is ‘the ongoing process of developing a community of shared

values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust,

1 Chan et al. 2006.

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

hope and reciprocity among all Canadians’ (quoted in Jenson 1998, p 4). For the Com-

missariat Général au Plan, it is a set of social processes that help instil in individuals the

sense of belonging to the same community and the feeling that they are recognised as

members of that community. Drawing on these four documents, Jenson identifies five

separate dimensions of social cohesion, namely: belonging versus isolation (shared values,

feeling of identity); inclusion versus exclusion (equality of opportunity among citizens in

the economic sphere); participation versus non-participation (political participation); rec-

ognition versus rejection (respect for differences, tolerance of diversity); legitimacy versus

illegitimacy (legitimacy of institutions as mediators of particular interests). For its part,

The Council of Europe defines social cohesion as a society’s capacity to ensure the well-

being of all its members, to minimise disparities and to avoid polarisation. In 2006, Green

et al. (2006) identified trust between individuals, civic cooperation and social order as the

dimensions of social cohesion. Later, having realised that not all forms of social cohesion

could be adequately captured by these dimensions, they offered the following definition:

‘Social cohesion refers to the property by which whole societies, and the individuals within

them, are bound together through the action of specific attitudes, behaviours, rules and

institutions which rely on consensus rather than pure coercion’ (Green and Janmaat 2011,

p 18). By understanding social cohesion in this broad sense they could identify several

forms or regimes of social cohesion. Despite this fascination, researchers and politicians, in

the absence of any agreement on a common definition, at least agree that no such definition

exists. As Alaluf puts it: ‘However, the notion of social cohesion seems rarely to be defined

and this lack of clarity frequently substitutes for logical reasoning in debates’ (Alaluf 1999,

p 1).

2.3 A Vague, Non-Consensual Definition: Some Critical Thoughts

While most authors seem to be agreed on a number of dimensions, such as trust between

individuals or involvement in politics, many other dimensions, such as the sharing of

certain values, or more economic dimensions, such as poverty or even inequalities, are not

to be found in many definitions. The critical literature on social cohesion (Chan et al. 2006;

Green and Janmaat 2011) reveals some of the pitfalls to be avoided when attempting to

measure social cohesion. Green and Janmaat (2011) identify four major difficulties with

the way the notion is used: its use in a normative fashion, the mere aggregation of socially

desirable attributes, which does not necessarily lead to a coherent definition, the conflation

of constituent components with determinants of social cohesion, and, finally, the level of

analysis. Chan et al. (2006) also emphasise the importance of not confusing social cohesion

with social capital and point out the analytical limitations of a concept that is too broadly

defined.

2.3.1 A Normative Definition?

Defining social cohesion in a normative way creates problems of objectivity and leads to

social cohesion being regarded as necessarily ‘a good thing’, which may not be the case

under all circumstances (Green and Janmaat 2011). We share this point of view, par-

ticularly since the concept’s popularity, especially on the public stage, makes a rigorous

definition all the more desirable in order to prevent it from being hijacked for purely

political ends. After all, social cohesion does not have to be a normative concept

reflecting what analysts or researchers regard as ‘socially desirable’. Besides the biases

produced by a normative definition, such an approach may well fail to provide a basis for

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

analyses over time or for comparative analyses, which require a theoretically based

scientific definition.

2.3.2 A Multi-Level Concept?

The distinction between social capital and social cohesion has been cited several times in

order to highlight a common difficulty, that of the level of analysis. After all, is social

cohesion an individual, community, societal or international attribute? The chosen level of

analysis would seem to be a decisive factor in defining this concept. Social cohesion is

frequently approached through another notion equally lacking in a consensual definition,

namely social capital. For Berger-Schmitt (2000) social cohesion can be captured through

two objectives: the reduction in inequalities and social exclusion, on the one hand, and the

development of social capital (defined in terms of stronger social relations), on the other.

For Mc Cracken (1998), social capital constitutes the basic foundation for social cohesion.

For Bouchard et al. (2002), on the other hand, social capital is a sub-dimension of social

cohesion. Janmaat (2011), Green et al. (2006, 2011) and Chan et al. (2006) also emphasise

that social cohesion is a macro-level concept. After all, it is not difficult to imagine a very

divided society, in which various communities cultivate strong intra-community ties but do

not maintain links with other groups. Thus a high level of social capital will not necessarily

be reflected in a high level of social cohesion.

2.3.3 A Multidimensional, Pluralistic Concept? Models of Social Cohesion?

Social cohesion is a multidimensional concept. Everyone seems to agree on this point but

not on how many dimensions should be adopted, which dimensions they should be or the

linkages between them. Thus Chan et al. (2006) are opposed to definitions such as that

adopted by Jenson (1998), which they describe as pluralistic in the sense that it encom-

passes several dimensions and the question of which one to focus on will depend on the

problem being tackled. Adopting a similar argument, The Council of Europe stresses that

strategic interests should determine the choice of indicators. It does indeed seem unnec-

essary to focus on social cohesion if ultimately the aim is to select just one component

already regarded as an object of study in its own right, such as poverty, participation or

exclusion. Social cohesion has no value as an object of enquiry or policy-making unless the

approach adopted goes beyond the mere juxtaposition of questions which, although fun-

damental, have already been investigated in other contexts.

Even if we reject pluralistic concepts, we would not argue that there is just one way of

defining social cohesion because of the fact that the linkages between the various

dimensions differ depending on the country in question. Thus Green and Janmaat (2011)

and Janmaat (2011) note that different profiles of social cohesion exist. By way of

example, involvement in voluntary organisations and trust between individuals do not co-

vary in all countries (Green et al. 2006). Green and Janmaat (2011) specify and test for the

existence of four regimes of social cohesion in OECD countries: a ‘liberal’ regime char-

acterised by a high level of civic participation, tolerance and cultural pluralism, a ‘social

democratic’ regime that is egalitarian, trusting and pluralistic, a ‘conservative’ regime in

which social order and hierarchy are dominant and, finally, an ‘East Asian’ regime char-

acterised by equality, social order and social hierarchy. Such diversity makes empirical

operationalisation through the construction of a one-dimensional or composite indicator

difficult unless a normative concept based on an ordinal scale is adopted.

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

2.3.4 Confusion Between Causes, Contents and Consequences?

Several studies have attempted to classify the various conceptual approaches to social

cohesion on the basis of the dimensions taken into account and the importance attached to

each one. Thus Beauvais and Jenson (2002) make a distinction between those definitions

that emphasise social ties and associative activities from those based more on various

forms of solidarity. Bernard (1999) identifies three models of social cohesion on the basis

of the importance they attach to liberty, equality and solidarity. Jenson (1998) notes that

some studies place greater emphasis than others on shared values. Chan et al. (2006)

identify two theoretical traditions with regard to social cohesion. The first, which they

describe as ‘academic’, has its roots in sociology and social psychology and, in their view,

provides a good conceptualisation of social cohesion. The second has its roots in political

discourse and is divided, according to the authors, into ‘means-end’ approaches and plu-

ralistic approaches. They criticise these ‘political’ approaches for confusing the immediate

content of social cohesion, i.e. its constituent elements, with the conditions for its existence

and its effects. After all, defining cohesion in terms of its assumed causes, such as equality

or the existence of a welfare state, or even its effects, such as well-being (Green and

Janmaat 2011), runs the risk of diminishing the issues at stake in analysing the determi-

nants of social cohesion and the political decisions that may be made as a result.

Thus social cohesion emerges as a complex notion. The lack of consensus as to how to

define it, together with its increasing use, is what motivates us to pay it particular attention.

We regard social cohesion as a macro-social, multidimensional concept. With this in mind,

and in the light of Chan et al.’s definition, which, given the preceding remarks, seems to us

to be the most pertinent one yet put forward, we will specify our conceptual choices.

2.4 Chan et al.’s Approach

They propose a ‘minimalist’ definition close to the dictionary definition of social cohesion.

Individuals in society can be said to be ‘sticking’ to each other if three conditions are met

simultaneously:

(1) they can trust, help and cooperate with other members of society;

(2) they share a common identity or a sense of belonging to their society;

(3) the subjective feelings in (1) and (2) are manifested in objective behaviour.

‘Social cohesion is a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and the horizontal

interactions among members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that

includes trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to participate and help, as well as

their behavioural manifestations’ (Chan et al.2006, p. 290). They point out that the

members of society are not just individuals but also the various groups, organisations and

institutions that make up society. This being so, interactions within society take place at

two levels: vertical (relations between individuals, on the one hand, and institutions and the

state, on the other) and horizontal (relations between individuals and between different

groups within society).

In this conceptualisation, indicators of inclusion, equality of opportunities, tolerance or

of any particular set of shared values are excluded. The Table 1 below summarises the

various indicators they propose.

This approach has the value of emphasising the two dimensions (horizontal vs. vertical)

of social cohesion, which is what sets it apart from approaches based on social capital,

which focus more on individual attributes or communities. In this way, it provides a means

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

of linking the micro and macro levels (notably through institutions). Furthermore, by

excluding economic dimensions (such as the level of inequalities and poverty, for exam-

ple), it does not confuse the content of cohesion with its causes or effects. It includes only

the essential foundations of the ‘social cement’, namely trust, participation and solidarity,

without which it is difficult to imagine that cohesion would be possible at all. Nevertheless,

it excludes a number of ‘values’ (such as tolerance, for example) that lie at the heart of

many studies of social cohesion.

2.5 A Critique of this Approach: The Question of Tolerance and Diversity

In our view, over and above trust, participation and solidarity, social cohesion is not

really a meaningful concept unless the norms, values and aptitudes that fall under the

heading of tolerance and diversity are taken into account. We recognize that, by incor-

porating a dimension that seems, on the face of it, to be more normative, we are moving

away somewhat from Chan et al.’s approach. For them, as we have already noted, social

cohesion is unconnected with any particular ideology and even though it is likely that

there are correlations between the sharing of certain values and the level of social

cohesion, this is not sufficient reason to include them in the concept. We are partly in

agreement on this, since cultural diversity is not necessarily a guarantee of social dis-

order. Thus the existence of shared values or, in other words, a certain degree of social

homogeneity does not necessarily constitute a dimension of social cohesion. A cohesive

society does not necessarily imply the existence of shared values with regard to its

political system or gender equality, for example; this point needs to be made if cultural

and institutional differences between countries are to be taken into consideration in

comparative analyses.

Nevertheless, given that we are working here on the European countries, we believe that

the rejection of all values gives rise to omissions too important to countenance. To deny the

importance of tolerance and respect for diversity is tantamount to saying that there are

societies in which cohesion is not based on this dimension. However, since diversity is a

fundamental characteristic of a number of the countries under investigation, we would

argue that they cannot be cohesive if they fail to respect pluralism. This respect leads us to

take into account tolerance of diversity and a willingness to challenge discrimination.

Moreover, introducing tolerance of diversity as a component of social cohesion is one of

the ways in which the macro-level dimension of social cohesion can be taken into account,

Table 1 Measuring social cohesion (Chan et al. 2006)

Subjective component(people’s state of mind)

Objective component(behavioural manifestations)

Horizontal dimension(Cohesion within civilsociety)

General trust with fellow citizensWillingness to cooperate and help fellow

citizens, including those from ‘‘other’’social groups

Sense of belonging or identity

Social participation andvibrancy of civil society

Voluntarism and donationsPresence or absence of major

inter-group alliances orcleavages

Vertical dimension(State-citizen cohesion)

Trust in public figuresConfidence in political and other major social

institutions

Political participation (e.g.voting, political parties etc.)

Chan et al. 2006—Table 3—Measuring social cohesion: a two-by-two framework, p. 294

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

since respect for diversity guarantees there will be no major divisions between (ethnic,

religious, etc.) communities.

Incidentally, even Chan et al. suggest in their empirical testing of the concept that

people should be questioned about their attitudes towards cooperation with individuals

from different social strata, with homosexuals or with individuals with different political

beliefs. In our view, this proposal comes close to being an indicator of tolerance and

respect for diversity.

2.6 Social Cohesion: From Concept to Measurement

Thus social cohesion can be understood as a set of norms, values, aptitudes and behaviours

that are necessary for the existence within a society of solid and durable relations and

cooperation. A society will be described as cohesive if its members display a willingness to

cooperate that manifests itself in trust between individuals and in institutions, in civil and

political participation and in respect for diversity through tolerance. Thus we propose to

follow the example of Chan et al., at least partially, and adopt the components summarised

in the Table 2 below, some of which fall within the scope of the horizontal dimension,

others within that of the vertical dimension.

These dimensions can characterize society as a whole or a subset of the social structure.

We are concerned here particularly with the subset constituted by the labour market. The

aim of this article after all is to assess whether the cohesion in a specific social domain is

closely linked to the cohesion of the wider society. Examination of political approaches to

cohesion, such as those implemented within the European Union, would suggest that it is

when certain economic and social conditions are destabilised (the rise in unemployment,

increased competition between social groups and increases in inequalities, for example)

that cohesion is undermined, turning it into a new policy objective. Thus it could be

hypothesised that the fragility of social cohesion makes itself felt firstly in the labour

market. Conversely, however, it might be assumed that some values will withstand this

test. This is what we propose to test in the following sections.

Table 2 Measuring social cohesion: participation, trust and respect for diversity

Participation Participation in political lifePolitical participation reflects civic involvement, even if this involvement

is mainly the expression of individual’s or group’s interests.A conflictual society is not an anomic one

Participation in civil lifeSuch participation secures social ties through meetings and active involvement

Trust Trust between individualsTrust in others is an essential component of the social bondConfidence in institutionsConfidence in institutions guarantees respect for the social order emanating

from the ‘hierarchy’

Respect for diversity Tolerance of foreignersTolerance is a means of combating possible ethnic divisionsSensitivity towards discrimination and exclusionSensitivity toward discrimination reflects a willingness to accept ethnic

‘others’ as fellow citizens with the same rights and duties

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

3 ‘General’ Civic Values and Values in the Labour Market: What Meaningsand What Relations?

We propose first to conduct an empirical analysis in which pairs of indicators of cohesion

in society at large and in the labour market more specifically will be compared with each

other in order to test the correlation between them in the two spheres. Some of these

indicators represent constructs combining several items from the fourth wave (1999–2004)

of the World Values Survey (see Appendix 4 for an explanation on how they were con-

structed). Table 3, for instance, shows the items included in the indicators reflecting the

dimension of participation (both in society and in the labour market). Other indicators are

based on single items. The data shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 below represent national

aggregates of these indicators.

There may not always be a correlation between a pair of indicators. This can happen, for

instance, when there is more pressure to give socially desirable answers on one indicator by

comparison to the other. It may also reflect context effects.

In each of the three dimensions adopted in the preceding section, we will pair general

indicators with indicators which, it is hypothesised, have similar significance in the labour

market.

3.1 Participation in Community Life (Fig. 1)

The literature on cohesion typically measures the vitality of social ties on the basis of

participation in educational and recreational associations and involvement in political

parties. At the level of the labour market, we pair these criteria with involvement in trade

unions and membership of professional associations, which are sometimes ‘counterparts’

of trade union membership, even though they may also reflect a withdrawal into a pro-

fessional community.

The average scores are relatively low for most of the countries. Participation in vol-

untary organisations (including political parties) is positively correlated with participation

in trade unions and professional associations in the labour market: the correlation coeffi-

cient is 0.72, significant at the 1 % threshold. Those countries that have high levels of

participation in voluntary organisations also have high levels of participation in labour

market organisations, and vice versa. Sweden and Denmark contrast sharply with the new

EU member states. France has a low level of participation in labour market organisations,

whereas it occupies an intermediate position in terms of participation in voluntary

organisations. Relative to the various models typically used in international comparisons,

Table 3 Indicators of participation

MSpart (general civic participation) MTpart1 (participation specificto labour market institutions)

AssEdu—participation in education, arts,music or cultural activities

AssLU—belong to labour unions

AssSP—participation in sports or recreationalactivities

AssPa—belong to professionalassociations

Polpart—belong to political parties UnpLa—unpaid work for labour unions

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

the Netherlands is a quite particular case. Although it is often associated with the ‘Nordic’

model, it has a higher score than Sweden and Denmark for participation in voluntary

organisations, although this does not translate into a particularly high score for partici-

pation in labour market organisations. Similarly, Germany, which is often characterised as

having a neo-corporatist model because of the strength of the regulations based on

employer-union negotiations, does not stand out particularly when it comes to the level of

participation in labour market organisations.

3.2 Confidence in Institutions (Fig. 2)

Our chosen variables here are confidence in three institutions of civil society (parliament,

justice system and education system) and confidence in trade unions (we have tested that

this is not necessarily correlated with trade union membership) (Table 4).

The scatter of points is more fragmented, even though the correlation coefficient is

significant and positive (0.69). The Nordic countries (Finland, Denmark and Sweden),

Luxembourg and the Netherlands have high scores in both spheres. Conversely, the

countries with the least confidence in their institutions are the Czech Republic, Bulgaria

and Greece. France, Poland and Belgium have scores close to the average in both social

spheres. Portugal is among the countries with the highest level of confidence in labour

market institutions, whereas its score is below average for confidence in the justice and

education systems and in parliament. In Lithuania, confidence in social institutions is low,

although the country’s score for confidence in labour market institutions is above average.

The situation is reversed in Austria, where confidence in trade unions is much lower than

confidence in the other institutions.

Fig. 1 Participation in the two spheres

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

3.3 Trust Between Individuals and Tolerance of the Unemployed or Those in Receipt

of State Aid (Fig. 3)

Trust between individuals is an omnipresent theme in the literature on cohesion, as it is in

the economic literature, as a factor in efficiency. The recent polemic around the studies by

Algan and Cahuc (2007) provides evidence of this (Rodriguez and Wachsberger 2009).

Most studies use one of the key questions in the WVS on mutual trust. It is more difficult

here to find suitable counterpart variables. We suggest two, one expressing a form of

‘stigmatisation’ of the unemployed, the other a form of implicit disavowal of welfare. In

both cases, it can reasonably be hypothesised that affirmative responses express mistrust of

the unemployed and of welfare. Do trust in individuals and tolerance of the unemployed go

hand in hand? (Table 5).

The correlation coefficient is strongly positive (0.73). The Dutch have the best scores

for trust between individuals and also seem to be the most tolerant of people not working.

The situation in the other Northern European countries is similar. As before, the new

member states (Rumania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Latvia) and Portugal have the

lowest scores for trust between individuals; at the same time, they seem to be the least

tolerant of people not working. France is a particularly interesting case, since trust between

Fig. 2 Confidence in institutions in the two spheres

Table 4 Indicators of confidence in institutions

MSConI1 (general institutional confidence) MTConI (confidence in labour market institutions)

ConfParl—confidence: parliament Confsynd—confidence: labour union

Confjus—confidence: justice system

Confedu—confidence: education system

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

individuals is below average (18th place), whereas the country is in 8th place for the level

of tolerance of people not working.

3.4 Tolerance (Fig. 4)

Tolerance of foreigners is also one of the values commonly used in studies of social

cohesion. This is normally measured by questions about neighbours. Does such tolerance

withstand the test of the labour market? In principle, those who are comfortable about

having a person of a different race as their neighbour should also take the view that

employers do not have to give priority to job seekers who are native to the country in

question when recruiting (Table 6).

However, this hypothesis is not always verified in practice. The correlation coefficient

between these two variables, with a value of 0.53, is the lowest. Generally speaking, the

countries score more highly for tolerance of foreigners at the macro-social level than in the

labour market. The average score is 0.88 for acceptance of a person of a different race as a

neighbour, with a standard deviation of 0.06, and just 0.30 for favouring equality between

nationals and immigrants in the labour market, with a standard deviation of 0.2. Thus most

people in the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark declare themselves to be tolerant of

immigrants, whether as neighbours or as ‘competitors’ in the labour market, in contrast to

Fig. 3 Trusts in the two spheres

Table 5 Indicators of trust between individuals

MSConf (general social trust) MTConf (trust in the unemployed)

Conf—most peoplecan be trusted

Lazy—people who don’t work turn lazy

Monwork—humiliating to receive money without having to work for it

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

Bulgaria, Romania, Poland or Slovakia, whose scores for tolerance are below average for

the sample regardless of the social sphere investigated. Most of the countries score highly

for acceptance of an individual of a different race as a neighbour, while there is a tendency

to favour native people in the labour market. Thus France, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain,

Germany and Luxembourg have above-average scores for these two indicators but sig-

nificantly higher scores for tolerance at the macro-social level. Austria, Latvia, Lithuania,

Ireland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary have above-average scores at the

macro-social level and below-average scores for the labour market.2

4 What Regimes of Social Cohesion in the Wider Society and in the Labour Market?

In this final section, we are concerned more particularly with the consistencies and/or

dissonances in the two ‘arenas’. True, the preceding analysis showed that, overall, our

indicators for the two arenas are fairly well correlated. Nevertheless, this correlation is less

strong for tolerance.

In order to be able to draw some more specific conclusions, we carried out three

principal component analyses (PCAs) followed by three ascending hierarchical

Fig. 4 Tolerances in the two spheres

Table 6 Indicators of tolerance

MStol (general tolerance) MTtol (tolerance on the labour market)

Toletr—neighbours: peopleof a different race

PriorNat—jobs scarce: employers should give priorityto people born in the country over immigrants

2 We also tested the correlation between preference for people born in the country when jobs are scarce andthe preference for men. The correlation between these two variables is positive and significant: thosecountries that have a tendency to close their labour markets when jobs are scarce close them to immigrantsas well as to women, and vice versa.

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

classifications (AHCs) on the macro-social indicators, on the labour market indicators and

finally on all the indicators together (see Appendices 1, 2, 3 for the raw output of these

analyses; see Appendix 4 for further explanation of the methods). These analyses enable us

to identify clusters of countries and also to locate those countries that change cluster from

one stage to another. When carried out for the first time, this analysis of all the countries in

the sample brought to light a bloc of countries (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and

Finland), usually considered in the literature as belonging to the Nordic cohesion model

(Green and Janmaat, 2011). The very strong contribution made by three of them (Sweden,

Denmark and Holland) made investigation of the other countries more difficult. Conse-

quently, a second analysis was carried out without these three countries; this two-stage

analysis resulted in the identification of four clusters, one (A) from the first analysis, the

others (B, C and D) from the second without the three aforementioned countries. The

Table 7 summarises the results of these stages.

The first cluster (A) consists of the Nordic countries. This cluster is characterised by

above-average scores for all the macro-social indicators, and particularly for trust between

individuals and participation in voluntary and political organisations. The same is true for

values in the labour market, particularly for participation in labour market organisations as

well as for the openness of the labour market to immigrants (difference of 0.25 between the

two indicators of tolerance).

The second cluster is geographically more heterogeneous. It is made up principally of

the ‘small’ countries of ‘old’ Europe (Austria, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg), to

which are added Germany and Finland. Like the previous one, it is characterised by higher

than average scores for trust between individuals and confidence in institutions, as well as

Table 7 Results of PCA and AHC analyses

Cluster Macro-social Labour market ‘Transferees’ Macro-social ?labour market

A Denmark,Netherlands,Sweden, Finlanda

Denmark, Sweden,Netherlands

Denmark, Holland,Sweden

B Germany, Austria,Belgium, Finland,Ireland,Luxembourg

Belgium, Finland,Ireland,Luxembourg

Germany (d)b

Austria (d)Germany, Austria,

Belgium, Finland,Ireland,Luxembourg

C Estonia, France, UK,Greece, Italy, Spain,Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland,Portugal, Slovakia,Czech Republic,Slovenia

Germany, Spain,Estonia, France,UK, Portugal

Czech Republic (d),Greece (d), Italy (d),Hungary (d), Latvia(d), Lithuania (d),Poland (d), Slovakia(d), Germany (e),Slovenia (d)

Estonia, France,Spain, UK, Portugal

D Bulgaria, Romania Austria, Bulgaria,Hungary, Italy,Latvia, Lithuania,Poland, Portugal,Romania, Slovakia,Czech Republic,Slovenia, Greece

Austria (e), Italy (e),Greece (e), Latvia(e), Lithuania (e),Poland (e), Slovakia(e), Czech Republic(e), Slovenia (e)

Bulgaria, Hungary,Poland, Romania,Slovakia, Greece,Latvia, CzechRepublic, Slovenia,Italy, Lithuania

d departing from the cluster, e entering the clustera Finland was present in the first analysis but on the margins of this cluster and was subsequently includedin the second analysis

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

for participation in voluntary and political organisations. Like the first cluster, but to a

lesser extent, it can be said to manifest the two dimensions of cohesion (in Chan et al.’s

definition), both vertical and horizontal. When it comes to values in the labour market, only

the small countries remain in the cluster, with Germany and Austria departing. Confidence

in labour market institutions, participation in organisations and tolerance of those who do

not work characterise this cluster; the scores are lower than for the previous cluster, but

still higher than average. As far as tolerance of foreigners is concerned, the scores are a

little lower than in cluster A. Nevertheless, the difference in the tolerance indicator

between the macro-social value and that for the labour market is significantly greater

(0.56). Thus the overall coherence is less strong. It should be emphasised, however, that the

position of Germany and Austria with respect to values in the labour market alone does not

cause them to change cluster when all the indicators are taken into account.

The third cluster (C) is also heterogeneous and, above all, more unstable. As far as the

macro-social values are concerned, it comprises France, Greece, the UK, Italy, Spain and

Portugal, as well as virtually all the new member states except for Bulgaria and Romania.

Confidence in institutions and trust between individuals are considerably lower than in the

two preceding groups. The same is true of participation in voluntary and political organ-

isations, where the difference is even greater. Nevertheless, a number of countries are very

close to the centre of the cluster, which demonstrates the ‘average’ nature of most of the

indicators. Some countries, furthermore, are atypically positioned on axis 2. This applies to

Portugal and Latvia, which have high levels of tolerance towards foreigners compared with

the other countries in this cluster but a low level of trust between individuals, whereas

Greece and Italy stand out by virtue of a higher level of interpersonal trust. When it comes

to values in the labour market, the cluster breaks up completely. Thus, with the exception

of Estonia, all the new members states migrate to cluster D, together with the countries

from the South-East of the ‘old’ Europe (Greece and Italy). Along with Estonia, this leaves

France, the UK, Spain and Portugal, which are joined by Germany. Tolerance of those who

do not work remains high, close to the value for the previous group. Participation in

organisations is lower and significantly below the average. However, acceptance of for-

eigners remains at a fairly high level and is even slightly higher than in the previous group.

These characteristics are sufficiently strong for them to keep Estonia, France, the UK,

Spain and Portugal in the same group when combined with the macro-social values.

As far as the macro-social clusters are concerned, the final cluster (D) includes only

Romania and Bulgaria. It is characterised mainly by a low level of participation in vol-

untary and political organisations (even though the score for confidence in institutions is

average), and, above all, by the low score for tolerance of foreigners. However, when

values in the labour market are taken into account and/or when the analysis includes all the

variables, they are joined by many other countries. All the new member states (with the

exception of Estonia, as we have seen), as well as Greece and Italy, join this cluster both

when values in the labour market are taken into account and when the analysis includes all

the variables. As far as values in the labour market are concerned, they are characterised by

a low level of participation in trade unions (although this does not preclude a relatively

high level of confidence in those unions), low tolerance of those who do not work and a

strong bias in favour of nationals (it is here that the difference between the macro-social

value and the labour market value is greatest.

If we turn now to the question of the ‘transferees’, Germany, as have seen, is close to

cluster C as far as values in the labour market are concerned, particularly because of a

lower score or participation in trade unions, although this is not enough to change its

position in the overall analysis. Austria is close to cluster D for values in the labour market

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

because of lower scores for confidence in trade unions and, in particular, a strong bias in

favour of nationals in the labour market. This is the greatest difference among all the

countries in cluster B and approaches that in cluster D.

The most significant reclassifications involve Greece, Italy and many of the new

member states. While their profile for macro-social values are similar to those of the major

countries of the ‘old’ Europe, the inclusion of values in the labour market brings them

closer to Bulgaria and Romania, as if the macro-social values simply disintegrate when put

to the test in the labour market.

5 Conclusion

The main aim of this paper has been to use composite indicators encompassing several

dimensions of what are widely accepted as components of social cohesion in order to test

the extent to which what is observed at the macro-social level is also to be found in the

labour market.

Our results reveal a certain degree of consistency between indicators of social cohesion

specific to the labour market and other, more general indicators in at least two of the three

dimensions investigated (collective participation, trust between individuals). These par-

allels suggest that the two spheres are closely interlinked and that deficiencies of social

cohesion in one sphere are likely to spill over into the other.

However, a greater discrepancy can be observed in the case of tolerance and, to a lesser

extent, confidence in institutions. Thus the general tolerance displayed towards foreigners

does not stand up well when put to the test in the labour market, particularly in the new EU

member states and in certain Southern European countries: the declared preference for

nationals when jobs are scarce reveals the limits of a general declaration of tolerance that is

probably less binding. It is tempting to attribute this ethnocentrism regarding jobs to

exclusionary ethno-national identities which according to some scholars prevail in Eastern

Europe (e.g. Greenfeld and Chirot 1994; Kohn 1994; Kolstoe 2000). However, such

identities would not be able to explain the higher levels of general tolerance in thesecountries. It seems more likely that the exclusionary attitudes regarding the labour market

are related to the more restricted job opportunities and lower levels of pay in the new EU

member states. They may also reflect a pervasive sense of insecurity caused by the chaotic

transition from a centrally planned economy ensuring full employment to a liberal market

economy introducing inequality, competition and unemployment. The ethnocentric labour

market attitudes in Eastern Europe may thus well constitute a temporary phenomenon

likely to disappear when employment conditions improve in this region.

Examination of the situation in the two spheres makes it possible to identify more or

less homogeneous groups of countries and also to point to instabilities. ‘Regimes’ of social

cohesion begin to emerge. As in most analyses, the Nordic countries (excluding Finland)

have high scores in all the dimensions. Conversely, most of the new EU member states

from the former Eastern bloc have low scores, particularly in the horizontal dimensions (as

defined by Chan et al. 2006) of trust between individuals.

Using a different group of countries and more extensive data than ours (incorporating in

particular objective indicators such as the crime rate), Green and Janmaat (2011) also

tested the ‘regimes of cohesion’ hypothesis. In particular, they identify a democratic social

regime (to which Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands belong but from which, as in our

analysis, Finland is excluded) and a social market regime, comprising essentially the

Western European countries but from which the Southern European countries (Spain, Italy

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

and Portugal) diverge in certain respects. Working on a broader sample that includes the

new EU member states and, it should be remembered, using different indicators, our

analysis breaks up the group of countries belonging to the ‘social market regime’, notably

by bringing Germany and Austria together with Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Ireland.

The new member states constitute a fairly homogenous group whose results bring them

close to some of the Southern European countries, whose divergence from the ideal type of

the ‘social market regime’ is also highlighted by Green and Janmaat (2011). Finally, the

major difference in our results concerns the position of Ireland and Great Britain, which in

Green and Janmaat’s analysis clearly belong to the ‘liberal’ regime, together with Aus-

tralia, New Zealand and Canada. In our analysis, they join the Western European clusters.

Our analysis suggests two avenues for further investigation. Firstly, the battery of

indicators needs to be strengthened, particularly with regard to the labour market. The aim

here would be to include ‘objective’ indicators (such as trade union density, for example,

derived from administrative sources) and more ‘subjective’ indicators, drawn in this case

from other waves of the World Value Survey, even though this would entail loss of the

temporal homogeneity of working on a single wave. Secondly, following Green and

Janmaat, we need to introduce contextual socio-historic and economic indicators, such as,

for example, the unemployment rate, characteristics of the social protection and education

systems or the size of immigrant populations.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by French ANR for the research program ‘‘Edesco’’, theEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Research on Learning and Life Chances inKnowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES). Grant number RES-594-28-0001.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 PCA-ACH applied to all the data and countries

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

Appendix 2

See Fig. 6.

Appendix 3

See Fig. 7.

Fig. 6 PCA-ACH, applied to the macro-social data, excluding the Nordic countries

Fig. 7 PCA-ACH, applied to the labour market data, excluding the Nordic countries

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

Appendix 4

See Table 8.

Table 8 Methodology and the construction of synthetic indicators

The World Value Survey data

The World Value Survey data are drawn from a survey conducted first at European level (EuropeanValue Survey) and then carried out and repeated regularly at world level. The areas tackled are thefamily, work, social relations, religion, the environment, the economy and politics. Most of thequestions remain the same from one period to the next. The national samples are constructed on thebasis of the national population aged 18 and over and include 1,000 or more individuals

The data base is now made up of five waves: 1981-1984 with 20 countries/1989–1993 with 42 countries/1994–1998 with 52 countries/1999–2004 with 67 countries/2005–2008 with 54 countries. Informationon the socio-demographic characteristics of the individuals surveyed is available. In this article, wehave analysed data on EU member states with the exception of Malta, whose results displayed littleconsistency, and Northern Ireland. Our data are taken from the fourth wave of the WVS survey. Whena variable is not given for a particular country, it is assigned the average value for the sample as awhole. This is the case for Austria (MTconf) and Hungary (MStol)

Construction of the synthetic indicators

Following the initial conceptualisation, we adopted 5 dimensions in order to describe social cohesion.For each dimension and social sphere, we constructed a synthetic index made up of between 1 and 3variables taken from the WVS and selected by virtue of their relevance and the response rate for all theselected countries

When the synthetic indicator had several components, individuals’ responses to the variables were addedup. To that end, it was necessary first to recode the variables. We recoded each variable in such a waythat the individual’s response had a score of 1 if the response reflected a behaviour, a feeling or a valueregarded as cohesive according to our hypotheses, 0 to reflect neutrality and -1 in the case of a ‘non-cohesive’ attitude. For each synthetic indicator, therefore, an individual’s total score could vary from-3 to 3. For each country we calculated weighted averages. The weighting equated to the individual’sweight in the total population of the country. These averages were then standardised by means of fuzzyindicators, the aim being to bring all the indicators to a value between 0 and 1 in order to facilitatecomparison of the scores obtained for each variable for each country. Example: in order to be able tosay that the level of general tolerance in France is higher than the level of tolerance of foreigners

FZ xð Þ ¼ Xi�XminXmax�XminBy this means a synthetic index varying between 0 and 1 was obtained, 0 meaning that the country is not

very cohesive in the dimension in question and 1 that it is.

The principal components analysis (PCA) and the ascending hierarchical classification (AHC)

All analyses were performed using the software SPAD. The first three were based on all 25 countries andwere conducted, respectively, on all indicators, on those of the labour market and on the macro-socialones. The following three were conducted in the same fashion but this time on a sample of countriesexcluding the Nordic states. We used the software to conduct Principal Component Analysis (PCA)and Ascending Hierarchical Classification Analysis (AHC). We apply PCA on k social cohesionindicators of n countries, Xn;k: This method allows to determine how our data, i.e. the variation acrosscountries in social cohesion indicators, can be summarized by some synthetic indicators. Thesesynthetic indicators are called principal components and each one is a combination of the Xn;k socialcohesion indicators. So we obtain q principal components for the nYn;q. Subsequently, we apply AHCto these q principal components Yn;q

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

References

Alaluf, M. (1999). Évolutions démographiques et le rôle de la protection sociale : le concept de cohésionsociale. Séminaire cohésion sociale 16–17 septembre 1999, Centre de sociologie du travail, de l’emploiet de la formation (TEF), Université libre de Bruxelles, http://genderace.ulb.ac.be/docutef/spip.php?article146. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Algan, Y., & Cahuc, P. (2007). La société de défiance. Comment le modèle français s’autodétruit. Paris,CEPREMAP, editions rue d’Ulm.

Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2002). Social cohesion: Updating the state of the research. CPRN DiscussionPaper No. F|22. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa. http://www.cprn.org/documents/ACFdjfKq7.PDF. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000). Social cohesion as an aspect of the quality of societies: concept and measurement.Eureporting working Paper No. 14. Subproject European System of Social Indicators. Mannheim: Centrefor Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Social Indicators Department. http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper14.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Bernard, P. (1999). La cohésion sociale: Critique dialectique d’un quasi-concept. Lien Social et Politique,41, 47–59.

Bernard, P. (2000). Social cohesion: A dialectical critique of a quasi-concept. Paper SRA-491, Ottawa:Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate. Department of Canadian Heritage. http://www.omiss.ca/english/reference/pdf/pbernard.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Bouchard, L., Ray, J.-F., Lemyre, L., & Gilbert, A. (2002). Capital Social. CIRCEM et Institut de recherchepour la santé des populations.

Chan, J., To, H.-P, Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analyticalframework for empirical. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1.

Council of Europe (2005). Elaboration concertée des indicateurs de la cohésion sociale, guide méthod-ologique. Strasbourg. Editions du Conseil de l’Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/GUIDE_fr.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Table 8 continued

PCA is a data analysis method that is widely used in the social sciences. It makes the information onn individuals, who are questioned about k attributes (here 25 countries and 8 social cohesion variablesconcerning society at large and the labour market), easier to interpret. The principle underlying PCA isto summarize the information contained in the data by projecting the scatter of points into a lower-dimensional data space. PCA enables us to explore the links between the k social cohesion variables(according to the correlations between them) and the similarities between the n countries (according totheir Euclidean distances). It involves the calculation of synthetic variables, which are linearcombinations of the k initial variables, and the identification of groups of countries on the basis of thesesynthetic variables. These variables are known as ‘‘principal components’’ and the axes they determineare ‘‘the factorial axes’’ or ‘‘principal axes’’. Geometrically, the factorial axes are determinedsuccessively and orthogonally in such a way as to minimize the distance between the points and theirorthogonal projection on to the axis (least ordinary squares principle, minimum sums of the squares ofthe distances). Two axes constitute a space into which the observations are projected. The pointsindicated on the projection are either the individuals (countries) or the variables (indicators of socialcohesion). The coordinates of the variables equate to their contribution to the principal component, inother words to the factorial axis

Then, the ascending hierarchical classification method (AHC) was used to form groups of similarcountries on the basis of the social cohesion scores obtained in society at large and in the labourmarket. In order to simplify the description of the scatter plot, we carried out the AHC using Ward’salgorithm. This was applied to the country data resulting from the PCA (RECIP method). At eachstage, the algorithm brings together the two clusters with the smallest Euclidean distance betweenthem. Thus the ascending hierarchical classification maximizes inter-class variance and minimizesintra-class variance. The number of groups that was eventually chosen was based on the interpretabilityof the results after examining various cluster solutions. Subsequently, the PARTI/DECLA method(moving centers procedure) of SPAD was used for to consolidate the results of Ward’s method. Thismethod allowed us to establish the most representative country for each group (parangons)

I. Dimeglio et al.

123

http://genderace.ulb.ac.be/docutef/spip.php?article146http://genderace.ulb.ac.be/docutef/spip.php?article146http://www.cprn.org/documents/ACFdjfKq7.PDFhttp://www.cprn.org/documents/ACFdjfKq7.PDFhttp://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper14.pdfhttp://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper14.pdfhttp://www.omiss.ca/english/reference/pdf/pbernard.pdfhttp://www.omiss.ca/english/reference/pdf/pbernard.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/GUIDE_fr.pdfhttp://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/GUIDE_fr.pdf

Department of Canadian Heritage. (1997). Canadian identity, culture and values: building a cohesivesociety. Ottawa. The Social department of Canadian Heritage, Strategic Research and AnalysisDirectorate. http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/governance/eng/documents/canadian_identity_culture_values.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P.-J., Myers, H., & Frechette, P. (2004). Social cohesion and livingconditions in the Canadian artic: From theory to measurement. Social Indicators Research, 66(3),295–317.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.European Commission. (1996). First cohesion report—1996. Luxembourg. Office for Official Publication of

the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/repor_en.htm.European Commission. (1997). Agenda 2000 - For a stronger and wider union. Bulletin of the European

Union, Supplement 5/97. COM(97)2000. http://aei.pitt.edu/3137/1/3137.pdf. Accessed December 8,2011.

European Commission. (1998). Social action programme 1998–2000. COM(98)259, Brussels, http://aei.pitt.edu/5106/1/001478_1.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

European Commission. (2000). Building an inclusive Europe. COM(2000) 79 final, Brussels.Green, A., & Janmaat, J. G. (2011). Regimes of social cohesion: Societies and the crisis of globalization.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Green, A., Preston, J., & Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Education, equality and social cohesion: A comparative

analysis. New-York: Palgrave MacMillan.Greenfeld, L., & Chirot, D. (1994). Nationalism and aggression. Theory and society, 23(1), 79–103.Janmaat, J. G. (2011). Social cohesion as a real-life phenomenon: Assessing the explanatory power of the

universalist and particularist perspectives. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9604-9.Jeannotte, M. S. (2000). Social cohesion around the world: An international comparison of definitions and

issues. Paper SRA-309, Ottawa: Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of CanadianHeritage.

Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research, Paper SRA-321, Ottawa:Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Canadian Heritage. http://www.cprn.org/documents/15723_en.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban studies. doi:10.1080/00420980120087081.

Kohn, H. (1994). Western and eastern nationalism. In J. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith (Eds.), Nationalism(pp. 162–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kolstoe, P. (2000). Political construction sites: Nation-Building in Russia and the Post-Soviet States.Boulder, Colorado: Westview press.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Social dimensions of economic growth, eric john hanson memorial lecture series, 8,University of Alberta.

Mc Cracken, M. (1998). Social cohesion and macroeconomic performances. CSLS Conference on the Stateof Living Standards and the Quality of Life in Canada, Ottawa. http://www.csls.ca/events/oct98/mccr.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2011.

O’Connor, P. (1998). Mapping social cohesion. Document de recherche n�F/01, Ottawa: Réseaux canadiensde recherche en politiques publiques.

Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Putnam, R.-D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1),

65–78.Putnam, R.-D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic tradition in modern Italy.

Princeton University Press.Rodriguez, J., & Wachsberger, J.-M. (2009). Mesurer la confiance, dénoncer la défiance :deux économistes

au chevet du modèle social français, Revue française de Sociologie. doi:10.3917/rfs.501.0151.Saint Martin, D. (1999). Variations sur le thème de la cohésion sociale. Lien social et Politiques, 41, 87–93.

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market

123

http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/governance/eng/documents/canadian_identity_culture_values.pdfhttp://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/governance/eng/documents/canadian_identity_culture_values.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/repor_en.htmhttp://aei.pitt.edu/3137/1/3137.pdfhttp://aei.pitt.edu/5106/1/001478_1.pdfhttp://aei.pitt.edu/5106/1/001478_1.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9604-9http://www.cprn.org/documents/15723_en.pdfhttp://www.cprn.org/documents/15723_en.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087081http://www.csls.ca/events/oct98/mccr.pdfhttp://www.csls.ca/events/oct98/mccr.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rfs.501.0151

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market: Societal Regimes of Civic Attitudes and Labour Market RegimesAbstractIntroductionTrust, Participation and Respect for Diversity: A ‘Minimalist’ and Multidimensional Conceptualisation of Social CohesionSocial Cohesion: A Very Popular ConceptDiversity of Conceptual ApproachesA Vague, Non-Consensual Definition: Some Critical ThoughtsA Normative Definition?A Multi-Level Concept?A Multidimensional, Pluralistic Concept? Models of Social Cohesion?Confusion Between Causes, Contents and Consequences?

Chan et al.’s ApproachA Critique of this Approach: The Question of Tolerance and DiversitySocial Cohesion: From Concept to Measurement

‘General’ Civic Values and Values in the Labour Market: What Meanings and What Relations?Participation in Community Life (Fig. 1)Confidence in Institutions (Fig. 2)Trust Between Individuals and Tolerance of the Unemployed or Those in Receipt of State Aid (Fig. 3)Tolerance (Fig. 4)

What Regimes of Social Cohesion in the Wider Society and in the Labour Market?ConclusionAcknowledgmentsAppendicesAppendix 1Appendix 2Appendix 3Appendix 4

References