Social Cohesion: Measurement Based on the Data from European

Value Study

Paul Dickes, Marie Valentova, Monique BorsenbergerCEPS/Instead, Luxembourg

General outlines of the paper• Aims:

– To test empirically validity of the Bernard’s definition of social cohesion.

– To construct a measurement/s of social cohesion using micro-level data.

• Data: – European Value Study (EVS) 1999, representative sample of the

Luxembourgish population, N=1211 individuals aged 18 years and older.

– EVS contains a great number of subjective and objective items that measure attitudes toward and behaviour regarding social relations, participation, and trust at many levels of social reality as well as in many spheres of everyday life, which more or less correspond to dimensions of social cohesion covered by the Bernard’s theory.

• Methodology: – Multidimensional scaling, Confirmatory factor analysis.

Theoretical framework: Bernard’s integrated conceptual scheme of social cohesion

Sphere Nature of relations

Formal / attitudinal Substantial / behavioural

Economic Case AInsertion/exclusion

Case D: Equality/inequality

Political Case B:Legitimacy/illegitimacy

Case E:Participation/passivity

Socio-cultural Case C:Acceptance/rejection

Case F:Affiliation/isolation

Operationalization: 18 indicators of social cohesion based on the EVS data

Sphere Relations

Formal/ attitudinal Substantial/behavioural

Economic IN01 income insertion

Political

IN02 Confidence in national distributive systems IN03 Confidence in national organizations IN04 Confidence in authority institutionsIN05 Political adherenceIN06 Intended voting participation

IN11 Participation in legal political activities IN12 Participation in illegal political activities IN13 Political interest

Socio- cultural

IN07 Proximal solidarityIN08 Vulnerable people solidarityIN09 Family solidarityIN10 Intention of solidarity

IN14 Involvement in social activities/associationsIN15 Involvement in political activities/ associationsIN16 Involvement in cultural activities/associationsIN17 Involvement in youth and leisure activities/associationsIN18 Intensity of social relations

MDS: Multidimensional representation of the 18 social cohesion indicators

FORMAL

SUBSTANTIAL

Social participation

Political participation

Trust

Solidarity

Insertion

Model 1: six oblique latent factorsIN07

IN08

IN09

IN02

IN03

IN04

IN05

IN06

IN13

IN11

IN12

IN14

IN15

IN16

IN17

IN18

IN10

solidarity

trust

politicalinterest

politicalparticipation

involvmentorganisations

socialrelationship

.48

.30

.71

.54

.75

.30

.43

.82

.68

.78

.57

.66

.53

.38

.90

.57

.48

.68

.79

.32

.66

.72

.47

.84

.47

.84

.68

.59

.56

.66

.58

.72

.40

IN01

.48

.17

.91

.28

.24

-.19

.50

Model 2: Hierarchical representation with two correlated second-order factors

IN07

IN08

IN09

IN02

IN03

IN04

IN05

IN06

IN13

IN11

IN12

IN14

IN15

IN16

IN17

IN18

IN10

solidarity

trust

politicalinterest

politicalparticipation

involvmentorganisations

socialrelationship

.49

.29

.72

.54

.75

.31

.40

.67

.68

.78

.57

.56

.53

.39

.90

.56

.60

.69

.78

.32

.66

.72

.49

.84

.47

.84

.71

.58

.56

.65

.66

.63

.40

IN01

.48

.17

.91

.28

.23

-.21

.50

r=0.34

FORMAL

SUBSTANTIAL

.87

.32

.40

.16

.24

.98

.45

Model 3: Hierarchical representation with two orthogonal second-order factors

IN07

IN08

IN09

IN02

IN03

IN04

IN05

IN06

IN13

IN11

IN12

IN14

IN15

IN16

IN17

IN18

IN10

solidarity

trust

politicalinterest

politicalparticipation

involvmentorganisations

socialrelationship

.49

.29

.72

.54

.75

.32

.40

.67

.68

.79

.57

.60

.52

.40

.89

.57

.56

.69

.78

.32

.66

.72

.49

.84

.46

.82

.71

.58

.57

.66

.63

.66

.40

IN01

.48

.17

.92

.26

.23

-.21

.50

FORMAL

SUBSTANTIAL

.88

.32

.45

.33

.28

.65

.68

Model 4: Hierarchical representation with one second-order factor

IN07

IN08

IN09

IN02

IN03

IN04

IN05

IN06

IN13

IN11

IN12

IN14

IN15

IN16

IN17

IN18

IN10

solidarity

trust

politicalinterest

politicalparticipation

involvmentorganisations

socialrelationship

.50

.27

.73

.53

.74

.33

.40

.66

.68

.80

.56

.72

.53

.38

.90

.57

.37

.68

.79

.32

.66

.71

.49

.85

.45

.82

.68

.59

.57

.66

.58

.72

.39

IN01

.49

.16

.91

.27

.24

-.19

.51

COHESION

.61

;30

;64

.59

.15

.31

Concluding remarks• Conclusions:

– The results of multidimensional scaling reveal that Bernard’s conceptualisation of social cohesion can be confirmed.

– Using confirmatory factor analysis, we estimated four distinctive adequate models: These four models allow us to calculate different factor scores of social cohesion, which can be used to answer different research questions and compare different population subgroups.

• Comments:

– The indicators do not cover perfectly all dimensions of Bernard’s integral theoretical scheme. Due to the data restrictions, we used only one indicator to cover formal economic sphere and none for the substantial dimension of economic sphere.

– All these above proposed measurements of social cohesion are issued from the data of one country collected at one point in time. It is necessary that in the future the above described measurement sof social cohesion could be replicated on the 2008 EVS data set and thus cross-validated across time and across countries.