Download Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a

Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for
Empirical Research
Author(s): Joseph Chan, Ho-Pong To and Elaine Chan
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Social Indicators Research, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jan., 2006), pp. 273-302
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27522534 .
Accessed: 13/12/2012 02:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Indicators Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
Social Indicators Research
(2006) 75: 273-302
DOI
1205-005-2118-1
10.1007/sl
2006
Springer
JOSEPH CHAN, HO-PONG TO and ELAINE CHAN
RECONSIDERING SOCIAL COHESION: DEVELOPING
A DEFINITION AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
(Accepted 8 February 2005)
ABSTRACT.
is a
cohesion
its growing
currency
Despite
term
in need
and
of a clearer
provides
literature:
a critical
review
of
in many
cases,
definitions
between
the content
a refined
propose
our definition
how
itates
KEY
empirical
WORDS:
and
the ways
the causes
that we
too
or effects
hope
is clearer
into
be
could
on
measurement,
definition,
and
social
circles,
policy
definition.
This
article
rigorous
in the
cohesion
has been
conceptualized
a common
with
confusion
loosely made,
us to
This motivates
of social cohesion.
operationalized
social
cohesion.
definition
work
social
are
in academic
more
and more
a measurement
operationalization,
We
rigorous.
scheme
social
will
show
that
facil
cohesion
INTRODUCTION
both the academics
and the policymakers,
Among
is a term that enjoys
ever-increasing
popularity.
eral government,
set up in 1996
for example,
Network",
cohesion
Council
which
has
since
research groups
of Europe
and
for more
attention
then
become
in the world.
the European
to the issue
one
Across
"social
The
cohesion"
Canadian
a "Social
of most
fed
Cohesion
active
the Atlantic,
social
both
Union
the
have
EU)
(hereafter
in setting public
of cohesion
The EU Cohesion
in fact, is now one of the major
Funds,
policy.
items featured
in the Union
annual budget
2000). At an
(Jeannotte,
called
even
is also coined by inter
level, the idea of social cohesion
higher
national
like the OECD
and the World
Bank, both of
organizations
come to realize the importance
which
have recently
of socio-cultural
factors
"Social
word
in economic
cohesion",
of the day.
and
development
like "globalization",
et al.,
(Ritzen
growth
has become
another
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2000).
buzz
274
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
re
its ubiquity
in the literature,
social cohesion
however,
Despite
a largely
term (Jenson,
mains
ill-defined
1998; Jeannotte,
2000; Os
one
exact
content
varies
to
whose
author
from
another.
berg, 2003),
some understand
to solidarity
it as equivalent
and trust, others
a
to
term so that it
inflate
the
of
the
displayed
tendency
meaning
social capital
such as inclusion,
and poverty.
notions
incorporates
more
inclined
Some
linked
have
the term
theoretically
sociologists
Whilst
have
with
such
ideas
as social
and
system
integration
(Gough
theoretical
confusion
has led to
integration
and Olofsson,
1999). This apparent
Bernard's
critique
(2000) that social
cohesion
is nothing more
than a
or
of convenience"
that is "flexible
"concept
"quasi-concept"
enough
to allow
the meanderings
of political
and necessities
action from day
to day" (Bernard,
there is some truth in Bernard's
2000: 2-3). While
we believe
on
with
that the vagueness
the current
critique,
analyses
can be much
as
a
social cohesion
this
article
testifies.
With
improved,
more
a
and clearer definition,
"social cohesion"
will become
rigorous
more
in academic
and policy
research.
concept
as follows. We will
start by reviewing
is structured
the background
which
social
cohesion
evolves
in the
against
and useful
meaningful
This
article
briefly
academic
our focus will be on the policy
and policy discourse. While
we
discourse
in sociology
that
the
academic
side,
suggest
(especially
to the analysis.
and social psychology)
has considerable
contribution
After
a brief
provide
a critical
inadequately
This paves
introduce
on
discussion
review
for a good
social
cohesion
we will
definition,
has been
(quite
in the policy
literature.
the criteria
on
how
and
defined
inappropriately)
the way for the core section of this article, where we will
our own definition
of the term and contrast
it with
the
as well as other concepts
definitions
existing
will
then close
the discussion
with a possible
in a society.
the level of social cohesion
are, broadly
speaking,
in the literature.
The first
disciplines,
particular.
influential,
sociology
The second
has
been
and
one,
social
scheme
capital. We
for measuring
ON SOCIAL COHESION
TWO DISCOURSES
There
like
two traditions
one
is from
(more
to analyze
the academic
tangentially)
more
undoubtedly
developed
by
social
recent
policymakers
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
social
cohesion
social
science
in
psychology
but increasingly
and
the more
RECONSIDERING
policy-oriented
our
although
in
our
can
Pahl
be
will
emphasis
context
look
traditions
to
operational
a certain
of modern
To
sociology.
in contemporary
sociology,
is that social
of
questions
edited book
contains
integration,
detailed
mediate
these
conflicts.
and Olofsson
book, Gough
to "link
the themes
of
(Gough
analysis
reference
In the
it clear
made
the
in terms of the
disintegration.
con
"normative
of
movements)
in
arrangements
to their edited
introduction
their major
social
and
social
of
(1999). One key feature
analyzed
and
stability
that
cohesion"
one
this
extent,
recent examples
some
Berger's
analyses
flicts"
ethnic conflicts
and secessionist
(for example,
as well as the possible
modern
institutional
societies,
that may
definition.1
tra
is often
cohesion
social
relevant
Cohesion
being Berger (1998) and Gough and Olofsson
of these works
in turn,
is more
that
the intellectual
(1991) suggests,
origin of "social
traced at least to the time of Emile Durkheim,
fathers
founding
dition has survived
broader
two
for
the latter,
an
develop
on Social
Discourse
at these
be on
will
present
The Academic
As
We
analysts.
275
SOCIAL COHESION
is
purpose
exclusion"
integration
with
their
and Olofsson,
1999: 1). A major
characteristic
with
little
is that it is largely done at a systemic
level,
explicit
In fact,
to empirical
the first sub
individual
level data.
chapter of the book
the meta-theoretical
debate
stantive
(Mortensen,
in sociology
to mapping
1999) is devoted
versus
on "structure-centered
to explanation.
approaches
with
abstract
and
relatively
systemic
Preoccupation
questions
that
these
however
works,
they are on
analysis
implies
important
own
as
to how social
their
have provided
few hints
relatively
weights,
actor-centered"
cohesion
can
example,
talks
what
be
defined
about
and
"limits
social
for
book,
Berger's
operationalized.
to social cohesion"
without
defining
and Olo
is. A large part of Gough's
cohesion
explicitly
as they suggested
fsson's book,
in the introduction,
social exclusion,
social
topics as "embeddedness",
rather
system
One
than on
social
cohesion
focuses
on
integration
per se.
such
and
integration,
to this trend is Lockwood
(1999), who has
major
exception
an
definition
of
social
that
has received
cohesion
provided
explicit
to Lockwood,
considerable
in the literature.
attention
According
social cohesion
refers to a state of strong primary
networks
(like
kinship
and
local
voluntary
organizations)
at
communal
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
level.
276
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
"Social
with
cohesion",
at
order
"civic
(institutional
integration"
two levels of social
represents
level),
or conflictual
the "orderly
relationships
and
in Gough
1992, quoted
(Lockwood,
together
the macro-societal
concern
which
integration,
actors
between
[in society]"
this Lockwood
1999:
Olofsson,
5). From
measures
has
some possible
of a society
suggested
cohesion
social
(and civic
integration)
to note that
it is instructive
At
this
1999:
69-92).
point,
(Lockwood,
uses it, represents
one end of two
as Lockwood
"social
cohesion",
is "social
extremes.
of social cohesion
The opposite
dissolution".
of
is civic
of civic integration
the opposite
Similarly,
is an important
and
framework
Lockwood's
corruption.
one.
In
insightful
some
of social
of his
indicators
such as general
cohesion,
fact,
to
trust
and
those
one's
altruism
in,
beyond
(like
willingness
help,
will also be adopted
into our own definition
later
network)
primary
on (Lockwood,
is primarily
1999: 69). His focus, however,
negative,
or on
the
measures
such
so-called
of
social
cohesion
social
items as the absence
This
disorganization.
framework
may
indeed
social
against
potential
other hand, will be more
the positive
reports both
This
pathologies.
(or social
legitimate
as a useful
disorders.
Our
neutral
and
and
negative
signs
associated
a soci
are
psychologists
on
is
the concept
and Hoyle
is Bollen
good case in point
(2001).
are
two perspectives
to cohesion:
that there
objective
The former
refers to some objective
of the
attribute
and
each member's
group.2 Perceived
member's
perception
on (1) the
depends
this
involves
self-reported
on
cohesion,
of his own
individuals'
some
closeness
composite
to other
measures
based
members
in the
is a function
of each
hand,
in
the
in turn,
group. This,
standing
sense of belonging
to the group and
the other
of "morale"
(2) their feelings
(that is, the emotional
sense
ciated with membership
in the group.
The
fundamental
with
itself. A
suggest
They
and perceived.
group as a whole,
on
mechanism"
on the
framework,
a balance
sheet that
ety's level of cohesion.
some works
to sociologists,
In addition
by social
also worth
Here
their major
contribution
noticing.
of "cohesion"
includes
riots and family
and his
approach,
"early warning
proposed
tries to give
set of
in his
which
dissolution),
of crime, urban
or presence
is a perfectly
serve
is evident
to the existence
on
the motivation
implications
and Hoyle's
Bollen's
analysis
asso
response)
of belonging
is
of the group, while
"morale"
has direct
of the group members.
Admittedly,
of cohesion
is a general
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
one
and
their
is not
277
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
level cohesion.
towards
societal
specifically
Yet
their framework,
the perceived
is of much
especially
perspective,
we
to
will
relevance
the analysis
of social cohesion.3
As
argue later in
are indeed constituent
of the
this paper,
items like sense of belonging
definition
steered
of social cohesion.
concept
To summarize,
literature has provided
considerable
the academic
a
on
social
cohesion,
satisfactory
insights
although
conceptualizing
this is a
and operational
definition
is still in waiting.
To a large extent,
in different
disci
of diverging
research
interests
by scholars
are ultimately
in the systemic
interested
plines. Most
sociologists
of
and
have
social
and
integration
stability,
consequently
question
to defining
attention
social cohesion
per se. Social
paid only passing
result
on the other hand, have provided
some useful
frame
psychologists,
modifications
works
for measuring
Yet appropriate
group cohesion.
are needed
can be adopted
to analyze
before
these
frameworks
at societal
cohesion
The Policy
level.
on Social
Discourse
Cohesion
more
to social cohesion
recent, "tradition"
second, doubtlessly
from policymakers
The pressure
for
and social policy analysts.
means
to deal with
of mea
that they have
the problem
solution
surement more
In
to
define
and op
fact, explicit
attempts
directly.
The
comes
erationalize
initiated
notably
in detail
social
cohesion
in
the
literature
and the policy-oriented
by the policymakers
in Canada
and Europe.4 We will examine
have
largely
been
most
analysts,
these frameworks
this juncture, we should first look at how "social
a key
issue on the policy
emerges
focusing
agenda,
on the cases of Canada,
the EU and a couple
of other
later on. At
as
cohesion"
particularly
regimes.
When
the Canadian
federal
"social
cohe
introduced
government
a
was
new
in
the
the
idea
1990s,
agenda
largely
to promote multiculturalism.
In an
catchword
for its long-time
policy
annual
the
of
Canadian
for
report by
Department
example,
Heritage,
on respect
it was stated that "a cohesive
and inclusive
society depends
sion"
onto
its official
for all ethnic
izens
time
in civic
passes,
overarching
and the fullest possible
of all cit
groups
participation
life" (Department
of Cultural
2001: 7). As
Heritage,
an
social
cohesion
has gradually
become
however,
areas.
notion
that
links up different
is
This
policy
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
of a series
in the outcome
reflected
(held in 2001-2002)
social cohesion
society
players.
a wide
should
encompass
cohesion
distribution,
and education
for all",
To
between
it was
There
civil
various
of "structural
to political
systems
the government
the
increasing
the Union
However,
more
much
social
cohesion
in
than
an
or
ethnic
a
In fact,
to
is devoted
exclusion
from
a key
that
force
the EU,
where
issue; it is also
part of the Union's
regional
large
brought
as
such problems
the Information
political
Council's
Of
and
cohesion
initiative
unemployment,
one
to explicitly
step further
The Council
in particular,
stresses,
as a key
with democratic
politics
cohesion
the political
element.
incorporate
the growing
disenchantment
public
in Europe.
threat to social cohesion
and
social
and
poverty
Another
2000).
Society
(Jeannotte,
the world
the Council
of Europe
has
in this part of
the idea of social
regime
care
("Inclusion
- like the Structural Funds and the EMPLOYMENT
policy
-
income
and diversity
of
since the formation
mobility
population
a range
of new
social problems.
has brought
about
as in the case of Canada,
"social
cohesion"
has become
in nature.
economic
of
discussion
from
and
social
to health
and civic participation
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/comsocohe.pdf).
some
is also
"multiculturalism"
extent,
motivates
that
suggested
range of elements,
access
universal
housing,
employment,
on
conversations"
the promotion
of
Consequently,
a prominent
becomes
theme
in the
civic
participation
cohesion
policies.
interest
policymakers'
social
course,
to the social or political
Bank
such as the World
in social
cohesion
is not
confined
realm.
international
Many
organizations,
are also interested
in the
the OECD,
a
benefits
economic
brought
by
high level of social cohesion
possible
et al. (2000) suggest
in society.
In aWorld
Bank policy paper, Ritzen
that the level of social cohesion
determines
the "room for maneuver"
and
in turn affect
which
the economic
institutions,
a
concern
the
with
of
social cohesion
Hence,
country.
performance
here grows
the importance
from
of
recognition
largely
policymakers'
to economic
of social factors
development.
in designing
better
are all unique
in certain
respects,
examples
they
idea
should
about
the background
social
against which
cohesion
emerge on the policy agenda. A series of structural
changes
severe chal
in the name of "globalization"
have posed
usually
state model
welfare
in many
advanced
(post)
lenge to the traditional
While
the above
give us
some
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RECONSIDERING
countries:
industrial
with
disenchantment
public
279
SOCIAL COHESION
as a result
of
democratic
economic
persistent
unemployment
crease
in population
and diversity,
mobility
in the age of information
exclusion
technology
to name but a few (Jeannotte,
2000; Jeannotte
politics,
restructuring,
new
forms
and
in
of
and network
society,
et al., 2002). Politi
come to recognize
cians and policymakers
worldwide
have gradually
a new form of
that these new forms of social cleavages
necessitate
in general
which
entails
three elements:
governance,
(1) promoting
trust or "solidarity"
with
other
traditional
welfare
and
alongside
that the process
of participation
policies;
(2) a recognition
as much
as the outcome
to
and (3) a more
holistic
approach
and coordination.
It is then discovered
that the
policy design
economic
matters
public
term "social
to capture
these new features
of gov
sets the backdrop
countries
quite well. This
against which
to
like Canada,
the EU and the Council
and regimes
of Europe
began
or
two.
the idea of social cohesion
the last decade
promote
during
cohesion"
seems
ernance
the academic
with
Compared
approach,
social cohesion
is largely problem-driven:
new social
to the many
largely a reaction
the nature
common
pertaining
or effects
on
As
we will
see,
for
some
cleavages.
account
of
social
and
share
cohesion.
It is also
the policy
one common
discourses
instructive
have
the
to note
socioeconomic
to say
research
the
very
lack
that
such
and better
qualities
a definition
policies.
Therefore,
a workable
in this paper is to propose
is hoped
that our formulation
theoretical
It will
of a society.
is a prerequisite
will
although
definition
also
that, while
different
of
they
inadequacy:
facilitate
definition
that would
operational
empirical
on the possible
correlation
between
the level of social
other
of
is
those
in the policy-oriented
literature, particularly
problems
causes
to the confusion
between
the constituents
and the
the academic
do
can apparently
this discussion
of
the policy
discourse
the talk of "cohesion"
focuses,
a clear and
investigations
and
cohesion
not be exaggerated
concrete
for more
our primary
interest
for policy analysis,
it
contribute
to
the more
in sociology.
debates
KEY CRITERIA
It will much
facilitate
some general
principles
FOR A GOOD DEFINITION
the foregoing
for evaluating
if we can first lay down
analysis
the many different definitions
of
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
that
by policy-oriented
proposed
analysts.5 We believe
a good definition
in the
of social cohesion,
just like any other concepts
in
should be judged in terms of two criteria: (1) minimal
social sciences,
cohesion
social
of these criteria
is
usage. Neither
or
of
science
school
social
thought
particular
are
some
in
basic
embodied
instead
very
they
principles
methodology;
we
as
will
below.
all
social
science
research,
explain
virtually
to ordinary
scope and (2) close
with
associated
any
in Scope
Minimal
A
definition
It
concept.
"conditions"
tells us
the term has
where
cepts
reasons
and
From
the
essential
been
often
We
values.
defined
with
becomes
it excludes,
synonymous
value. Meanwhile,
longer carries analytical
in two ways.
facilitates
research
empirical
testing of correlations
states of affairs
that
by clearly
are merely
that excludes
con
are a number
there
however,
is to be preferred.
definition
the informative
of
view,
point
cohesion
narrow
to other
references
that
believe,
why a minimalist
an analytical
on how much
depends
concept
When
social
constitutes
of the term, not
the
components
or "values"
that may promote
it. As we
with the way
contradicts
approach
apparently
been
in
the
literature,
usually
conceptualised
the
has
cohesion
social
what
about,
only
or "factors"
see, this minimalist
will
and
be about,
should
nature
not how much
of
a
of
it includes.
a good society,
a narrow
definition
with
it allows
First,
its constitutive
separating
or effects.
its conditions
it no
also
empirical
from
parts
a
Second,
also facilitates
values
definition
culture-specific
cross-cultural
also
This
the
strategy
comparison.
helps us to deal with
often by those sceptical
of any rigorous definitions
in social
critique
science
that "social
cohesion"
often
invokes different
connotations
and
interpretations
tive and normative
view
that
ends
or
minority
Close
It
social
goods,
cultures
to Ordinary
is instructive
social
science
across
side,
cohesion
like
and
countries
a minimalist
is just one
tolerance,
so on.
and
over
definition
good
pluralism,
time. On
the prescrip
makes
and can conflict
openness
to
the
possible
with other
change
or
Usage
to note
constructs,
that
social
unlike
other
esoteric
cohesion,
a figurative
term that most
is very much
lay
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RECONSIDERING
will
people
unless
least
is some
there
cohesion
at
have
not
should
a rough
analysis
This
Therefore,
a good
definition
of social
This
from its ordinary meaning.
reason,
justified
be too distant
of
conception
and deliberations.
one
ernment,
on
social
Social
cohesion
a community
within
opportunity
as
is defined
the recent
dis
a rigorous
yet
facilitate
policy
overlooked
"the
in the
litera
process
ongoing
shared challenges
of
and
values,
based on a sense of trust, hope and
from Jenson,
1998: 4;
(quoted
shared
Canada,
all Canadians"
among
reciprocity
that
its policy paper by the Policy Research
of the Canadian
Federal
Cohesion
gov
of
developing
equal
sometimes
is, unfortunately,
in one of
example,
Sub-committee
recalls
policy-oriented:
will much
cohesion
social
point
ture. For
it means.
idea of what
when
is particularly
point
important
cussion
of social cohesion
is much
intuitive
281
SOCIAL COHESION
definition
it is
aside,
as
a
at
matches
"process"
defining
our
term.
In
all with
intuitive
the
of
understanding
daily usage,
or com
"cohesion"
refers to the level of cohesiveness
of a group
emphasis
doubtful
added).
whether
Other
with
problems
social cohesion
this
The
clearly a state of affairs, not a process.
a
that
there
elicit
counter-intuitive
implication
or "maximal"
level of social cohesion.
it is therefore
munity;
word
would
"process"
exists some "end-state"
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE POLICY LITERATURE
out earlier
in this paper,
pointed
rather than the academic
course,
one,
As
social
number
cohesion
have
in the policy
dis
to define
attempts
a
to reviewing
proceed
or conceptions6
in this pol
of social cohesion
two
in
mind
the
evaluative
criteria
bearing
been made.
of definitions
it is largely
that explicit
We
will
now
literature,
icy-oriented
one can
in the previous
section. Roughly
developed
speaking,
two approaches
here. They are (1) the means-end
approach
the pluralistic
As we will show, these two approaches
approach.
from similar methodological
problems.
The Means-End
This
identify
and (2)
suffer
Approach
considers
approach
in terms of
cohesion
cohesive
the means
as an end9 but defines
social
can
which
end
be
this
through
society
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
282
In some
achieved.
these "means" may
take the form of
formulations,
some policy
or
in others,
take the form of factors
goals;
they may
to be favorable
that are thought
to (or at least positively
conditions
correlated
social cohesion.
with)
in turn, and show how
these
social
conceptualizing
In a proposal
We
will
they
examine
are
examples
all unsatisfactory
of both
of
ways
of
cohesion.
to measure
social
cohesion,
Berger-Schmitt
(2000)
out
two analytically
that social
cohesion
involves
distinct
points
"societal
of disparities,
goal dimensions":
(a) reduction
inequalities,
and social exclusion
and (b) strengthening
of social relations,
inter
actions
and
aspects
which
In particular,
the second
are generally
also considered
society"
societal
(Berger-Schmitt,
goal dimensions
tem of Social
Indicators,
scheme for social cohesion
reproduced
It should
in Table
not
"embraces
all
as the social capital of a
The
then illustrates his two
author
4).
with various
items from the European
Sys
which
he thinks can form a measurement
2000:
2000:
(Berger-Schmitt,
8). Part
of his
list is
I.
be
too
to notice
difficult
a means-end
adopted
dimension
ties.
that Berger-Schmitt
has
social cohesion.
in conceptualizing
approach
the two "societal
he is effectively
goal dimensions",
specifying
- more
terms
the
in
of
the
conditions
social capital
concept
defining
with
and
less inequality
exclusion
that he thinks will pro
combined
mote
the building
of social cohesion.
However
these condi
plausible
By
tions
or factors
social
cohesion
seem
to be, it is still problematic
to define social
a good definition
in this way. As we argued
cohesion
should
above,
one that includes only the essential
be a narrow
constituents
of what
may
In other
is about.
TABLE
Social
cohesion
as
two
goals
relationship
between
I
-
societal
the
words,
possible
indicators
(from
Berger-Schmitt,
2000: 8)
First
societal
of disparities
goal
and
dimension:
social
reduction
exclusion
Second
strengthening
societal
of
goal
social
dimension:
capital
of
a
society
Regional
disparities
Equal
opportunities
strata
different
social
Social
exclusion
(between
gender,
so on)
and groups
Availability of social relations
Social and political activities
engagement
Quality of societal institutions
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and
social
cohesion
to be
have
could
be assumed;
they
confirm
empirically
empirically.
a society more
it is
in poverty
cohesive,
always makes
to incorporate
of
into the definition
this "condition"
incorrect
social
and "conditions"
for "constituents"
cohesion,
entities.
distinct
This point
redistribution
While
analogy.
cannot
such factors
tested
that reduction
still
as poverty
if one
Even
and
283
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
be
may
one way to achieve
is certainly
to define the latter in terms of
of assets
it would
be counter-intuitive
equality,
the former.
after
Redistribution,
on Social
ple, has
Canada.
More
devised
a means
is only
per se.
all,
it does not constitute
equality;
equality
This means-end
also underlies
approach
in the social cohesion
schemes
proposed
Council
more
illustrated
some
the CCSD
to achieve
other measurement
The
literature.
thereafter
CCSD),
of social
indicators
have
(2000,
Development
a set of "possible
indicators"
favorable
specifically,
of socially cohesive
"elements
for inclusive
social
cohesion".
summary
of
sets of data:
measurement
the CCSD
are conceptually
an
clearly with
Canadian
for exam
in
cohesion
included
and
activity"
facilitate
To
two
"conditions
a
analysis,
is provided
below
scheme
(Table II).
in the case
As
the content
of
of Berger-Schmitt,
the CCSD
scheme has blended
or factors
with
the
conditions
cohesion
(Set 2)
social
TABLE
CCSD
indicators
social
of
cohesion:
Social Development,
2000)
Set 1:Conditions
favorable
for
inclusive
Economic
social
cohesion
conditions
of
(distribution
poverty,
income,
education,
housing
II
summary
cohesive
Willingness
in people,
to cooperate
(e.g. trust
confidence
in institutions,
of belonging,
diversity
Participation
social
political
and
personal
economic
security,
networks,
quality
environment
respect
for
etc.)
(including
group
support
activities,
networks,
participation,
Quality of life (population
health,
Council
activity
voluntarism,
etc.)
the Canadian
(from
Set 2: Elements of socially
sense
employment,
mobility)
Life chances (in health
care,
a
family
security,
communication
of natural
etc.)
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
literary
etc.)
on
284
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
it (Set 1), whose
has rendered
the
incorporation
we
indicators
As
have
these
stressed,
misleading.
should
instead be posed as possible
correlations
subject
that may
promote
scheme
of
whole
"conditions"
to empirical
said this, however,
Set 2 ("elements
of
testing. Having
some
own.
In
cohesive
also
contains
of
its
socially
activity")
problem
it has included
substantial
values
like "respect
for diver
particular,
a constituent
sity"
of
conception
cohesion
of social
cohesion.
cohesion.
social
we
As
is an unnecessarily
will
elaborate
below,
This
broad
social
and mu
requires
only people's
participation,
cooperation
or
tual help; as such it does not presuppose
values
like tolerance
or
versa.
one
can
for
vice
To
this
respect
diversity,
appreciate
point,
a highly
consider
homogeneous
a religion
that
in which people
society
stresses
self-sacrifice
are coalesced
for "ultimate
instance,
case
In
in
to
the
afterworld.
this
it
be
would
happiness"
plausible
or
not
that
social
cohesion
would
be
toleration
argue
promoted
by
more
for
indeed
cohesion
would
be
respect
pluralism;
likely with
by,
for
further
which
homogenization,
of dissidents.
could
imply
intolerance
and
the
purging
Similar
can be found
in a recent proposal
by Duhaime
problems
et al. (2004),
to measure
in an attempt
the level of social cohesion
in
the Canadian
Artie.
the
asserted
that
authors
Durkheim,
Following
social
cohesion
is founded
The
mechanical
on
two components:
organic
solidarity
to formal
refers to "access
solidarity.
while
the latter refers
and governmental
conditions"
to family
and community-based,
face-to-face
relations"
nomic
et al., 2004: 301).
To operationalize
these two types of solidarity,
have
listed six sets of indices. They are, respectively:
and other
to "access
(Duhaime
et al.
Duhaime
trust and
this includes
capital:
in volunteer
and participation
of social
(1) Presence
civic
institutions,
and
eco
former
in
confidence
organizations
related
activities;
this refers to the people's
pop
(2) Demographic
stability:
mobility,
reasons
as
as
rate
well
ulation
of
community
subjective
growth
in the community;
for moving/staying
(3) Social
inclusion:
emotional,
Economic
(4)
this
social
refers
to access
and material
inclusion:
this
refers
to
informal
support;
to employment
come;
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
networks
activity
and
of
in
RECONSIDERING
285
SOCIAL COHESION
satisfaction
(5) Community
quality of life: this includes
and
feeling of safety in the community;
and personal
(6) Individual quality of life.
et al.
Duhaime
of
their
pation
scheme.
have
a
provided
As a matter
undoubtedly
social cohesion.
for measuring
framework
detailed
very
of fact, some
to political
those pertaining
indicators,
partici
especially
can also be found
and voluntarism,
in our measurement
are several weaknesses
There
with
the framework
by Duh
some
et al., however.
To begin with,
the relationship
between
of the indices and the two types of "solidarity"
is unclear:
this ap
to
sets
the
of
indices
under
and
(6). Pre
plies particularly
(2), (5)
are
and quality
life
of
factors
sumably,
demographic
stability
aime
access
to networks
and institutional
affecting
not
If social
selves do
constitute
solidarity.
as access
understood
to social
networks
they
were
institutional
and
et al. have
Duhaime
support;
cohesion
sets
(3) and
them
to be
as
support,
should
(4)
maintained,
only
(1),
in their scheme. Most
of
there is a
however,
appear
all,
important
access
to
of
with
fundamental
social
cohesion
problem
equating
or support.
et al.
to the CCSD
network
Duhaime
Similar
indicators,
a
measure
to
has provided
another
of
means-end
example
approach
cohesion.
social
Most
are not
constituents
factors
that may
of their
of
cohesion
"when
social
discourse.
cohesion;
they are,
to the level of social
(2)-(6),
content
between
and
plausible
in a
cohesion
conditions
in the
nature
the policy-oriented
of the social
In Jenson's
is
social cohesion
(1998) own words,
sense an absence
of some sort" and
those who
"among
a set of problems
are evoked"
1998: 3, 5). As a result,
(Jenson,
cohesion
is equated
with
ideas like inclusion,
participation,
of poverty,
and conditions
to name
The Pluralistic
a few.
ignored.
The
delineation
between
is even more
tendency
to which we will now turn.
This
approach,
Approach
In the face of the theoretical
up
but
is often
in the pluralistic
pronounced
given
under
invoked
reduction
content
those
especially
at most,
contribute
society.
In a way,
the confusion
means-end
reflects
approach
often
indices,
social
the ambition
of
some
confusion,
arriving
at
a
authors
single
have
definition
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
altogether
of social
286
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
its name
As
cohesion.
lies in its acceptance
sion. This
"pluralism"
claim that
ontological
cohesion;
sponse
typical
social
the essence
need
of the pluralistic
approach
in defining
social cohe
possibilities
not be a philosophical
one, that is, the
there
can never
suggests,
of multiple
be a single definition
of social
a modus
in re
vivendi
is often
this
instead,
"pluralism"
a
to the pressing
need for policy
analysis. More
specifically,
assumes
to the pluralistic
it
that
is
the
adherent
approach
the content
of the term "social
issues of the day that shape
cohesion".
We
start with
will
most
widely
on
discourse
the
documents
on
the Club
of Rome,
in which
social
Jenson's
(1998)
social
on
accounts
cited
one
analysis,
cohesion
of the earliest
in the recent
and
round
of
or
term.
official
Jenson
France,
that there exists a variety of ways
is understood.
At one point of her survey she
reviewed
Having
from Canada,
cohesion
social
cohesion
quasi-official
the OECD
and
observes
that:
concludes
lesson
"[A]
is no single
to take
from
of
way
dressed and who
limited
this very
even
overview
it. Meanings
defining
of...
social
depend
on
cohesion
the
problem
is that
being
there
ad
is speaking." (Jenson, 1998: 17)
eliminate
the possibility
of a
explicitly
of the term in future. However,
instead of providing
single definition
a single definition
as it is
of term, she has "unpacked"
social cohesion
Notice
that
Jenson
does
not
in the
commonly
conceptualized
sions (Jenson,
1998: 15-17):
v.
(1) Belonging
shared values
(2)
v.
Inclusion
a sense
and
exclusion.
refers
of
This
citizens
among
opportunity
This
isolation.
literature
into five different
or absence
to the existence
(Jenson,
identity
dimension
looks
in economic
dimen
of
1998:
at
realm,
15).
the equality
of
that is, the mar
ket (Jenson, 1998: 15).
(3) Participation
political
v.
non-involvement.
participation
at both
This
the central
focuses
and
the
on
local
people's
levels of
1998: 16).
(Jenson,
v.
concerns
the respect for
(4) Recognition
rejection. This dimension
or tolerance
difference
for diversity
in society
1998: 16).
(Jenson,
v.
to
refers
This
the
maintenance
of
(5) Legitimacy
illegitimacy.
of major
and social institutions
the state in
legitimacy
political
- as
mediators
individuals
of
different
interests
among
particular
1998: 16-17).
(Jenson,
government
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RECONSIDERING
At
-
two of these dimensions
least
inclusion
not the constituents
strictly
speaking
it.We already
tions that may promote
of
and
recognition
but
cohesion,
social
saw earlier why
social cohesion.
for diversity,
does not imply
refers
inclusion
Jenson's
hand,
formulation)
(in
in society. To be sure, "equality
of opportunity"
respect
a wise move.
even
of all, as we
or
recognition,
On the other
to equal opportunity
such an
has become
"constituents"
and
above,
notions.
Second, we can
a
condi
is
necessary
opportunity
argued
distinct
two conceptually
sure that equal
for
argue
social
condi
that
First
are
"conditions"
not
- are
to incorporate
it is tempting
this idea into
Yet there are two reasons why this is
cohesion.
social value
important
the definition
of social
not
287
SOCIAL COHESION
to quote
it is not difficult
from
building:
of
cohesive
and
stable
instances
history
highly
in which
would
alien
societies
be an utterly
"equal
opportunity"
not
in
but
in
for
also
instance,
notion,
Consider,
only
theory
practice.
status and life chances
the social
of men
in medieval
and women
tion
for
cohesion
numerous
human
cases
in both
imperial China;
even
social
inequality
though
and
Europe
gender
there
cohesion
for understanding
per se.
the
literature
but
substantial
not
in all, Jenson has
of time. All
long periods
retical justification
for these five dimensions.
work
existed
over
was maintained
the
provided
It is at most
not
theo
a frame
of
the concept
social
cohesion
once again
is illustrated
approach
and Jenson
who
examine
(2002),
of social cohesion:7
conceptions
This
pluralistic
by Beauvais
view
possible
social
(a)
cohesion
as common
(b)
social
cohesion
as social
(c)
social
cohesion
as
(d)
parities;
social cohesion
as social
(e)
social
as place
cohesion
In a sense,
Jenson's
like
social
have
not
they
social
these five
(1998)
order
own
and
attempted
think
is more
explicitly
state
disputes,
as "behind
that
values
order
and
and
a civic
social
and
solidarity
networks
and
attachment
five
re
different
culture;
control;
reduction
social
and
in a recent
in wealth
capital;
dis
and
identity.
are even
conceptions
in scope than
broader
have
ideas
they
incorporated
Most
the authors
significantly,
formulation,
social control.
since
in their
to identify any conception
that
In fact,
the others.
they
to settle the definitional
intention
exercise
appropriate
it is not their
all of
these
than
definitional
choices
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
are
important,
288
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
often
theoretical
debates
about what
generates
long running,
and Jenson,
innovation
and so on" (Beauvis
2002: 4). In
well-being,
how social cohesion
is to be defined
to a large
other words,
depends
or policymaker
extent on the substantial
the researcher
is
problem(s)
and
on.
focusing
and
Beauvis
tendency
social cohesion
have
is largely
issues of
social
pressing
we
represent,
observed
from
Jenson
that we
a "catchword"
the day:
disenchantment
the culmination
of a
think,
the beginning
of this article:
for incorporating
the most
discrimi
poverty,
unemployment,
with politics,
exclusion,
any
together with
a
sees
that
While
the
fit.
problems
policymaker
pluralistic
approach
as a modus
the pragmatic
vivendi may
have
effect of encouraging
more
in the name
coordination
and
of "social
policy
integration
nation,
cohesion",
why bother
not
it does
facilitate
about
social
at all:
and analysis
if it is simply another word
one
exclusion
and so on? Unless
policy
cohesion
research
talking
for the familiar problems
of poverty,
can demonstrate
the concept
of "social
cohesion"
content
of its own,
its introduction
analytical
course
is basically
redundant.
to the lack of space the survey here
Due
we
However,
common
or
problems
Sometimes
certain
key
more
our
that
believe
are
in scope
is lost. Our next
is free from
the two evaluative
BEYOND
unique
the policy
dis
is inevitably
selective.
some
revealed
already
In other
so broad
the concept
that
definition
into
analysis
in the social cohesion
literature.
inadequacies
are missing
even
from the definition;
elements
content
the distinction
between
the
and the
often,
however,
causes or effects
is overlooked.
nitions
has
contains
of these defi
words, many
of the analytical
value with
a refined
to formulate
is therefore
that much
task
these defects
as stated
criteria
THE CRITIQUE:
and,
above.
at the same
SOCIAL COHESION
time, meets
REDEFINED
to arrive at a rigorous
way
yet intuitive
definition
of social cohesion
is to start from the daily meaning
of the
or "cohesion".
to
word
"cohere"
the
Concise
Oxford
According
We
believe
that
the best
means
"cohere"
Dictionary,
same word
The
is explained
Current
English
as
"(of
"hold
parts
firmly
in the Oxford
or
a whole)
together,
American
stick
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
form
a whole".
of
Dictionary
remain
together,
RECONSIDERING
The
united".
Cobuild
Collins
289
SOCIAL COHESION
Language
Dictionary,
English
in which
is a state or situation
on
the
all the
hand,
says that "cohesion
a
or
so
united
whole".
fit
well
that
form
ideas
parts
they
together
in our
three lexicographic
These
definitions
that "cohesion",
suggest
a
to
to
state
in
"stick"
refers
which
usage,
components
ordinary
or meaningful
to form an effective
"social
whole.
Hence,
gether
other
cohesion"
should
as a state
be understood
of affairs
concerning
or "stick"
to each other.
in a society
"cohere"
people
a
or "sticking
is ultimately
this cohesiveness
together"
state of mind,
in
which will be manifested
of individuals'
well
how
also
Moreover,
reflection
in particular,
behavior;
to each other
only
"sticking"
met:
simultaneously
certain
(1)
they can
(2)
society;
they share
and
trust, help
a common
in a
people
if the
with
identity
their
or a sense
to be
said
three
criteria
are
fellow
members
of
following
cooperate
are
society
of belonging
to their
society;
(3) the subjective feelings in (1) and (2) are manifested
in objective
behaviour.
The
rationale
are
cooperation
siveness". As
for criterion
(1) should
all
from
implications
one may
is a quasi-tautology,
this
say
to conceive
in which we
of a situation
a matter
immediate
of fact,
since
be obvious:
trust, help and
a state of "cohe
it is virtually
impossible
are "sticking"
even though
say people
together
they refuse to trust,
or
with
each
need further
other.
Criterion
cooperate
help
(2) may
to say that satisfaction
be tempted
of (1)
for one may
elaboration,
we
some level of social cohesion.
constitute
However,
already
that both
contend
To see why "iden
(1) and (2) are indispensable.
or
a
sense
of
is
recall
that
"social cohesion"
essential,
tity"
belonging
is about
the overall
level of cohesiveness
of a society. This
implies
should
that our
focus
is on people's
specific. By "spatially-specific"
state of cohesiveness
within
nity,
which
"Repeated
cohesion
interactions
repeated
we mean
that we
a particular
is (as explained
society
that are spatially
at the
looking
are
commu
or political
to the modern
state.
below)
equivalent
on
the other
that
social
interactions",
hand, means
over a period
is about
the state of cohesiveness
of time.
or short-term
one-off
Therefore,
not constitute
social cohesion,
acts of trust, help or cooperation
such behaviour
may
simply
since
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
do
be
290
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
some manifestation
the
spontaneously
case
another
helping
of emergency).
indeed
a terrorist
during
attack
While
and cooperation
helping
in this case, the absence
of some
take place
that one cannot
identity means
sion" to this group
for example,
victims
unacquainted
Consider,
humanity.
of mutually
a group
each other
in which
scenario
iour do
of "universal"
apply
of victims.
(or any
behav
sense
of
the concept
of "social
cohe
us
criterion
reminds
that
(3)
Finally,
or psychological
about
only
feelings
people's
or
acts
it
is
also
about
certain
behaviour
of belonging,
conditions;
and help. Both
the subjective
and the objective
trust, cooperation
are
a
For
components
indispensable.
example,
high level of willing
social
is not
cohesion
ness
to cooperate
and help would
be
amount
also witnessed
substantial
by
pation.
define
With
the above
social
cohesion
Social
Some
not
to
limited
organizations
justifies our
trust, a sense of belonging
as well as their behavioural
"Members
between
refers
large, while
individuals
the "vertical"
the
are
of society"
various
groups,
This
up a society.
and the "horizontal"
to the relationship
between
the state
on
the latter focuses
the interactions
in society.
and
The
groups
group
run along many
different
lines, though class, gender,
received more
have apparently
attention
than
religion
can
boundaries
and
ethnicity
in the
the others
literature.
cohesion
group
become
level
concept
of
suggests
that
much
may
data.8 The
clearer
social
social
stipulates
we mean
that
social
is a
cohesion
societal
that our primary
focus
is on the
a
as
even
in
whole,
society
though
practice
in terms of individual
still be measured
and
By "societal"
of cohesiveness
of
social
in this
is, nevertheless,
nothing
divisions
from the analysis.
possible
There
other
that precludes
definition
also
attribute.
state
are in order.
of terms
the former
at
society
different
among
Our
and help,
also
individuals;
they include
as institutions
as well
that make
and
definition
to participate
distinction
interactions:
to
propose
both the vertical and
concerning
of society as characterized
members
among
and norms that includes
annotations
therefore
of affairs
interactions
by a set of attitudes
and the willingness
manifestations.
we will
in mind,
analysis
as follows.
is a state
cohesion
the horizontal
rather meaningless
unless
it is
of social and political
partici
of this "holistic"
significance
emphasis
we contrast
when
cohesion
with
social
capital
cohesion
below.
"Attribute",
is a state of affairs,
on
the
not
a process;
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
other
will
the
hand,
hence
RECONSIDERING
is no
there
state
of
such
social
as an "ideal"
theoretically,
or "maximal"
are necessary
here. To be
of analysis
talk about
the level of "cohesion"
of any
sure, one can legitimately
or
to
communities
groups
groups,
cities, neighbourhoods,
religious
name but a few. As we have seen, considerable
amount
of work has
A
few more
thing, even
cohesion.9
291
SOCIAL COHESION
words
on the unit
at this level. This
is also an active
by social psychologists
in urban
field of research
studies
Kearns
and
(see, for example,
we
In
the
contend
that
context,
Forrest,
however,
present
2000).
as a societal
"social
should
attribute,
cohesion",
sovereign
adopt
been
done
state
as
its unit
of analysis.
are
There
reasons
several
for
this. First
as we understand
in
foremost,
it, is comprehensive
"society",
a political
and operates
within
that
the
Given
community.
the encroachment
of various
is still
state, despite
forces,
globalizing
we
the most
in
it
institution
believe
important
political
today's world,
and
nature
is the most
analysis.
the state.
other
Two
to locate
appropriate
related observations
Like
it or not, most
have
either
social
"social
been
initiated
at
cohesion
could
this
level
of
illustrate
cohesion
this centrality
of
like many
policies",
or
implemented
by govern
or membership
states. Meanwhile,
"citizenship",
to a sovereign
the most)
state, is still one of the most
(and probably
sources
of identity
for any individuals
in contemporary
important
ments
policies,
of sovereign
world.10
discussed
its key elements
and unit of analysis,
it would
Having
now be useful
to bring our definition
the two evaluative
vis-?-vis
criteria discussed
above. To begin with, our definition
is close to the
as a state of affairs, not
is understood
usage: social cohesion
ordinary
a process.
More
definition,
or effects,
"equal
values"
social
one
of
excluded.11
contains
the former
ponents:
tion and helping
have
tried
to maintain
a minimalist
not causes
constituents,
only the essential
cohesion.
items
like
Therefore,
"inclusion",
or any particular
set of "shared
"tolerance"
social
opportunity",
have been
cohesion
we
importantly,
that includes
refers
Recall
also
that
our
conception
of
com
the objective
and the subjective
to people's
actual participation,
coopera
while
the latter refers to the norms
and
both
behaviour,
to
and the willingness
subjective
feelings of trust, a sense of belonging
are
a
Both
and they will become
components
help.
indispensable,
our scheme
useful
in formulating
for measuring
social cohe
guide
sion. More
generally,
our definition
of social
cohesion
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
has highlighted
292
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
that are
three points
by other analysts.
the following
even denied,
Social
As
is Conceptually
Cohesion
sometimes
Different
confused,
from
Social
or
neglected,
Capital
a matter
researchers
broader
term: various
is also a nebulous
of fact, "social
capital"
some definitions
defined
it differently,
with
much
than the others.12 For our purpose,
it suffices to look at the
have
as "features
who
defines
social capital
of so
by Putnam,
norms
and trust, that facilitate
cial organization,
such as networks,
for mutual
coordination
and cooperation
benefits"
1993:
(Putnam,
definition
two differences
these terms. Analytically,
between
36). This suggests
on
the
individual
and group
social capital
focuses
levels,
primarily
like the networks
maintained
and the personal
by each individual
on the other hand,
that flow from them. Social cohesion,
benefits
is
more
holistic
and
is concerned
with
the general
condition
of
mainly
of social capital
need not imply a
In a highly
soci
ethnically
segregated
amounts
society. Logically,
high
level of social cohesion.
high
of net
may maintain
large amounts
same ethnic group
even though
there
much
social
ties at all.13 However
social
individuals
ety, for example,
with members
of the
works
may
be
no
inter-ethnic
there may
be within
capital
considered
cohesive.
any Particular
such
groups,
not Necessarily
Does
Cohesion
Social
ethnic
Require,
a society
or Imply,
cannot
Tolerance
be
or
Values
in terms of par
defined
social cohesion
or respect for diversity,
these items do not
at all enter into our definition
of the term. Social
cohesion
per se
or with conservatism,
or
with
bears no logical relationship
liberalism,
one
In
well
with
of ideology
whatsoever.
any systems
may
fact,
While
many
values
ticular
envisage
that
have
analysts
like tolerance
social
cohesion
more
society may depend
tradition".
Of course,
this
will
with
cohesion
correlate
socioeconomic
case
that
cohesion
and
liberal
in modern
cultural
values
in an
on values
are
capitalist
is not
eighteenth-century
like "hierarchy"
and
to deny
the possibility
set of values
particular
settings.
indeed
For
example,
agricultural
for
"respect
that social
under
different
itmay well be the
to social
conducive
particularly
societies.
This, however,
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
is an entirely
and
question
of the term.
empirical
definition
Social
is One
Cohesion
It may
indeed
therefore
not
should
with
as
to how much
Recognition
normative
who
defend
this point
is crucial,
or under
of when
analysis
off
have
(sometimes
values
like
cating
Ritzen
social
cohesion
an apparent
to argue for
resolve
often
cohesion
of
to trade
justified
will also
social
painfully)
intolerance
such as
goods,
culture
and other
or
values
other
on
and creativity.
Depending
diversity,
pluralism
different
socioeconomic
societies
factors,
may
ences
in the very
included
be
Values
Social
of the Many
in conflict
be
293
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
have
different
prefer
like to maintain.
they would
a
as it is the first step towards
what
with
other
"dilemma"
it is morally
conditions
or goods.14
values
It
faced
social
cohesion
on
the other
or national
researchers,
by many
the one hand, and to
that they are not advo
on
purity
(see,
for
example,
et al., 2000).
FROM DEFINITION
TO OPERATIONALIZATION:
FRAMEWORK
A 2X2
we may now proceed
to operationalizing
us with a more
the term. This will provide
sys
tematic
and theoretically
and
framework
for
grounded
measuring
the state of social cohesion
To be
in different
societies.
comparing
With
the definition
of social
in mind,
cohesion
similar
sure,
of
many
cohesion,
have been made
in the
attempts
to
these tend
conflate
the content with
as we
have
seen
in the examples
literature.
the causes
of Berger-Schmitt
However,
of social
and
the
CCSD.15
How
should
a measurement
our definition
from
social
cohesion
scheme
of the term? As
of social
discussed
cohesion
be derived
our definition
above,
"dimensions"
of
two
actually
comprises
(horizontal
versus
two
and
vertical)
"components"
(objective
subjective).
on the relationship
To
the horizontal
focuses
dimension
reiterate,
different
individuals
and
within
while
the
among
groups
society,
versus
looks at the relationship
between
the state and its
civil
two
for
the
As
the subjective
(or
society).
components,
to
sense
as well as the
refers
items like trust and the
of belonging,
vertical
dimension
citizens
one
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
294
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
to cooperate
and help. The objective
one, on the other
willingness
to the actual
refers
and participation
hand,
cooperation
among
our
members
Taken
of society.16
together,
suggests a two-by
analysis
two framework
for measuring
the level of social cohesion
in a society,
as summarized
in Table
the initial
Despite
our
between
there
and
the
the CCSD.
we
exist
two crucial
differences
ones
developed
by Berger-Schmitt,
the reader may be aware,
these two
a
criterion
of
minimalist
definition.
As
from our
directly
not
have
included
socioeconomic
any
seen as favorable
to social cohesion:
follow
features
First,
scheme
et al. and
Duhaime
III.
resemblance
commonly
come distribution,
hence
items
and
are
that
factors
like
in
life are
of
poverty
unemployment,
quality
to exclude particular
values or
Second, we are also conscious
our
like
measurement
from
scheme.
tolerance,
ideologies,
this two-by-two
framework
is only a first step to
Undeniably,
more
In practice,
social cohesion.
wards measuring
specific proxies
to measure
have to be introduced
each of the items in the four cells of
absent.
Table
III. We
have
some
listed
sample
TABLE
Measuring
social
proxies
component
state of mind)
Subjective
(People's
that can be
III
a two-by-two
cohesion:
or questions
framework
component
manifesta
Objective
(Behavioural
tions)
Horizontal
dimension
(Cohesion within
civil society)
trust with
General
fellow
Social
citizens
to
Willingness
and
cooperate
fellow
vibrancy
participation
of civil
and
Voluntarism
help
and
society
donations
citizens,
including those from
"other"
social
groups
Sense of belonging
or identity
Vertical
dimension
(State-citizen
Trust in public figures
Presence
Political participation
voting,
parties
Confidence
and
other
in political
major
absence
major
inter-group
or cleavages
alliances
(e.g.
cohesion)
or
social
institutions
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
etc.)
political
of
used
under
have
been
the
each
in Tables
the four cells
developed
level of social cohesion
or proxies
questions
in an empirical
study on
We will briefly discuss
These
in Hong
Kong.17
in turn.
tables
these
of
IV-VII.
by the authors
and used
295
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
to
IV gives a set of sample questions
that could be used
that
cohe
the "subjective"
side of horizontal
cohesion,
is,
individual
includes
civil society.
This
cohesion
sion within
among
Table
measure
as cohesion
as well
citizens
are
groups. There
1 tries to measure
the overall
level
different
among
social
subsets here. Question
three major
trust among
of general
trust, that is, mutual
used by
from
similar questions
adopted
willingness
and
with
cooperate
trust with
General
1.
2.
To
not
"Do
B.
"People
C.
"People
do
Question
you
people
and
extent
"I would
people's
3 deserves
cohesion"
"horizontal-subjective
the following
statements?
agree with
so easily
in this country"
are always
out to take advantage
in this country
are not
to be easily
in country
trusted"
trust
to cooperate
do you
Willingness
To what
the
others.
citizens
fellow
extent
what
A.
A.
for
questions/indicators
the World
IV
TABLE
Sample
is
question
Value
Survey
org/statistics/index.html).
2 and 3) aims at measuring
(http://www.worldvaluessurvey.
The second
subset (questions
to help
This
citizens.
like
to
agree
spare
help,
with
those
from other
including
the following
statements?
of my
part
of you"
leisure
to do
time
social
voluntary
groups
work/help
others"
B.
3.
"I am willing
Would
you
be
to pay more
less willing
tax
if that
to cooperate
could
with
improve
your
social
colleagues
welfare"
if he/she
has
the
following background?
a
A.
He/she
is from
B.
He/she
is from
C.
He/she
D.
His/her
E.
He/she
political
is a new
F.
He/she
lives
lower
social
a higher
is a homosexual
on
view
social
Overall
5.
scale)?1
To what
A.
B.
speaking,
stratum
is much
different
immigrant
the government
welfare
Sense
4.
stratum
how
strong
than
than
yours
yours
than
yours
system
or identity
of belonging
sense of belonging
is your
extent
to this
do you agree with
the following
statements?
a member
of being
of this country"
proud
its many
is still our home"
defects
this country
"Despite
"I feel
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
country
(1-10
296
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
TABLE V
Sample
for
questions/indicators
a member
you
trade
groups,
often
do
you
the
of
unions,
usually
groups,
community
societies,
professional
in their
participate
-
members?
Mere
event
Regular
How
often
work,
How
9.
do
financial
hours
many
year?
How
much
you
your
help
and
problems
of (organized)
and
Or
how
in the above organization(s)?
chief
organizers?
donations
on matters
neighbors/friends
emotional
problems?
work
voluntary
or
If so,
activities?
helpers?
Voluntarism
8.
pressure
political
parties,
etc.?
clubs
churches,
Could you describe your depth of participation
7.
cohesion"
"horizontal-objective
and vibrancy of civil society
Social participation
Are
6.
the
you
have
like
household
over
done
the
last
made
over
the
or absence
or cleavages
of major
Presence
alliances
inter-group
If you are a chief organizer
of the above
could
you
organization(s),
us if there are any other
in society
that your
groups
organization(s)
A.
with?
cooperate
regularly
(please
specify)
please
will
tell
10.
donation
(to
charities
social
have
you
groups)
last year?
11.
B.
be unwilling
to collaborate
with?
(please
specify)
as it tries to detect whether
to help
such willingness
special attention,
or cooperate
is systematically
undermined
divi
social
by any major
are aware of, such questions
on "group"
sions. As far as the authors
in similar surveys and we believe
level have seldom been posed
this is
a major
To
literature.18
divisions"
third
examples.
subset
(questions
"major
some possible
The
in the
weakness
social
may
vary
across
4 and
be
sure, what
societies.
5) measures
constitute
list here
We
citizens'
sense
and identity with
the country. Again
these questions
belonging
been adopted
from the World
Value
Survey.
three subsets of questions,
focuses
Table V, which
contains
manifestation
objective
cohesion.
horizontal
The
the vibrancy
of civil
7) measures
We are careful
of social participation.
6 and
(questions
people's
degree
only the scope
The
of
second
voluntarism
and
but
frequency
subset of questions
Both
and donation.
neighbors)
example,
helping
taken into account.
the depth
looks
(8-10)
also
only
first
have
on
the
subset
that is,
society,
not
to measure
of participation.
at people's
acts
and
self-initiated
organized
have
voluntarism
and donations
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of
of
(for
been
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
297
TABLE VI
Sample
On
a
1-10
how
scale,
and
personalities
or confidence
trust
much
-
institutions?
civil
legislators,
mass
media
cohesion"
in public figures and major political and social institutions
Trust/confidence
12.
the "vertical-subjective
for
questions/indicators
the
servants,
The
chief
do
the
system,
judicial
you
have
with
the
executive,
police,
the following
officials,
principal
the ombudsman,
etc.
etc.
TABLE VII
Sample
for
questions/indicators
the
cohesion"
"vertical-objective
cell
Political participation
13.
How
often
do
express
you
towards
opinions
current
affairs
the mass
through
media?
14.
How
often
did
often
did
you
in signing
participate
petitions,
demonstrations
strikes,
etc.?
15.
How
vote
you
in legislative
council
and
local
council
elections?
at
third subset
the authors'
11) again
represents
(question
to
to
measurement
in
level
data
of
the
social
group
tempt
bring
an aspect
that has often neglected
in the literature. More
cohesion,
to
test
this
tries
whether
there exists
any
specifically,
question
The
or cleavages
lower
alliances
inter-group
and strong cleavages
for they will divide
emerging
alliances
cohesion,
Table
VI
cohesion
between
in societies.
will
the overall
Both
level
of
society as a whole.
at the subjective
side of vertical
cohesion,
citizens
(or civil society) and the state. This
looks
strong
social
that
is,
entails
measurement
trust in both
of people's
the major
and
public figures
and social institutions.
at the
The former
includes politicians
political
as
as
name
well
to
the
civil
senior
the
latter
but
servants;
includes,
top
a few, the legislature,
Table VII concerns
cohesion.
pation.
Chiefly,
We have
this refers
listed
on
that, depending
constitutes
"political
societies.
What
the judicial
the police and mass
system,
the objective
behavior
associated
with
we
the
three
media.
vertical
to measuring
people's
political
partici
here.
We
questions
acknowledge
sample
context
specific
participation"
have suggested
and
culture,
political
have some variation
may
here are
therefore
examples.
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
some
what
across
common
298
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
To
this
conclude
to our measurement
introduction
we
scheme,
of social
our measurement
to reiterate
two points.
First,
a
cohesion
is composite
level and group
of both individual
level data.
us from the "systemic
as
as from
This distinguishes
well
sociologists"
as
we
The former,
tends to
many
discussed,
analysts.
policy-oriented
would
like
study
social
cohesion
(and
without
integration)
at
looking
the
of operationalization.
while
Many
problem
policy-oriented
analysts,
aware of the importance
of operationalization,
tend to look only at
the individual
level and neglect
the group
is
level, which we believe
as far as
Secondly,
equally
important.
trust and sense of belonging
from
surveys as
large-scale
the measurement
of general
is concerned,
many
sample
can
the World
Value
Survey
questions
be readily
adopted.
CONCLUSION
This
three main
tasks. To begin with, we have
attempted
or conceptions
the many
definitions
of social cohesion
in the
are
in so doing we observed
of these accounts
that many
article
reviewed
has
literature;
as they have
not very satisfactory,
or has formulated
it in such a way
the content
the conditions
and
count,
we
social
cohesion
vertical
and
have
proposed
is defined
sense of belonging
as their behavioural
this definition
As
social
the
that does
for
own
social
cohesion.
of
definition
as a state
the term,
loosely defined
not discriminate
Built
the
between
on
term,
this ac
in which
the
both
concerning
the horizontal
interactions
members
of
among
society as
and norms
that includes
trust, a
by a set of attitudes
characterized
level of
our
too
either
title
and
the willingness
manifestations.
of
to participate
and help, as well
we have suggested
how
Finally,
can
be operationalized
in different
cohesion
of
the
article
affairs
to measure
and
compare
the
societies.
suggests,
of social
this
discussion
is meant
to
a conceptual
a term that we be
cohesion,
provide
analysis
in
lieve is meaningful
the literature.
This
yet inadequately
analyzed
on
insistence
and rigor
is not pedantry,
but a
conceptual
clarity
fruitful
research
and policy
for more
analysis.
Having
prerequisite
said
this,
ceptual
a good
however,
foundation
theory
of
we
would
also
like
to stress
that
a sound
is only a necessary
but not sufficient condition
social cohesion,
which
large amounts
requires
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
con
for
of
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
empirical
research.
attraction,
although
The
latter
much
more
299
a
is already
becoming
has yet to be done.
researchers'
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
authors
like to thank
would
of Hong
University
the Faculty
the generous
for
Kong,
of Social
the
Sciences,
research
and
funding
support.
and
is associate
of Politics
Department
Joseph Chan
professor,
for
and
Gov
Public Administration;
Centre
Civil
Director,
Society
the University
To is research
fel
of Hong Kong.
ernance,
Ho-pong
low of the Centre
for Civil Society and Governance,
the University
of
is visiting
Elaine Chan
associate
Department
professor,
for Civil
and Administration;
research
Centre
officer,
and Governance,
the University
of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong.
of Politics
Society
NOTES
1
This
one,
this
division
of
literature
into
and
the boundary
between
classification
is meaningful,
discernable
quite
"academic"
the
two
at
least
in terms
differences
can
and "policy"
be blurred. We
senses.
in two
of
We
that
suggest
to
group
proach
3
In fact, Bollen
spective
will
be more
it may
two
First,
and
approach
seems
to suggest
artificial
believe
however,
the
their
the pattern
of cross-references
also
ondly,
are relatively
literature
self-contained.
2
It is not very clear why
and Hoyle
have
Bollen
are based
since
the measures
after all on members'
an
is certainly
do,
that
traditions
level
of
that
these
have
Sec
analysis.
two sets of
this approach
"objective",
to others.
distance
self-reported
to call this an "inter-subjective"
ap
appropriate
called
cohesion.
and
be
also
Hoyle
particularly
as a whole.
in their
suggested
to
applicable
the
that
paper
of
analysis
the
per
perceived
social
groups,
large
society
4including
See, for example, Jenson (1998), Jeannotte (2000) and Beauvais and Jenson (2002).
5
In principle,
these criteria
should
sciences.
However,
many
sociologists,
and
therefore
have
less
analysis",
cohesion.
two
Therefore,
evaluative
frameworks,
stems
from
we
have
to any
apply
as we have
interest
not
subjected
however,
criteria.
We
insist,
including
our belief
our
proposed
one,
that policy
analysis
an operational
which
research,
presupposes
6
It would
be more
to call
appropriate
because
the authors
in such
cases
have
in operationalizing
these definitions
that
should
to focus
tend
argued,
the
and
all policy-oriented
to these
be subject
should
be
in the
definitions
operational
based
on
on
concept
frameworks
social
"systemic
of social
to the
definitions
two
concrete
criteria.
and
This
empirical
definition.
some
explicitly
of
these
stated
that
definitions
it is not
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"conceptions"
their intention
to
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
300
a rigorous
of the term.
In fact,
definition
or organizations
countries
have used
provide
survey,
most
policy
discourse
without
any
term
the
to define
effort
explicit
as Jeannotte
it. However,
the
still work out from their policy papers the "implicit definition"
of
7
held
cohesion
social
These
five
formulations
stressed
that
our
Beauvais
and
these
by
interest
primary
in their paper.
Jenson
to consider
these
five
as
dimensions
can
researcher
(that is, conception)
Forrest
It must
be
(2000).
and elaboration
interpretation
by
seem
Kearns
and Forrest
analysis,
is in the
here
in their
or regimes.
to Kearns
and
governments
in turn, due
are,
in her
observes
(2000)
"social
cohesion"
In the original
constituents
of
social
cohesion
and,
therefore,
term
is arguably
less pluralistic.
on these
be given
technical
will
below.
points
can meaningful
eliminates
the possibility
that one
by no means
across
In
in the next
the
level
social
cohesion
different
societies.
of
fact,
compare
we will devise
a scheme
for measuring
cohesion.
section
social
10
we admit
reason why
In other words,
that there is no a priori
the unit of analysis
should
state. Further
for social
cohesion
be that of a sovereign
and the
globalization
their conception
8
More
discussion
9
This,
however,
creation
that
the
the
of
of a sovereign,
"global"
level of analysis
could
in future,
government
shift
well
from
it happen,
should
to
"state"
will
imply
this
Before
"global".
are still the most
as far as
the state boundaries
relevant,
however,
important
happens,
social
is concerned.
cohesion
11
be tempted
to counter
that items
like political
and social
One may
participation,
to cooperate
"a set of shared
the willingness
and help
constitute
values".
already
a concept
too far.
is, again,
stretching
to cooperate
while
the
behaviour,
willingness
one
or values
type of ideologies
(including
12
frameworks
of
For
the various
analytical
This
and Assaf
13
Or,
be
justified
an objective
than
by more
ones).
see the review
capital,
by Feldman
(1999).
to quote
exclusive
ital"
14
Of
can
instrumental
social
se is only
per
Participation
and help
the
phrases
"bonding
different
capital"
(across
Putnam
(2000:
without
groups)
there
22-24),
much
could
inclusive
a
be
lot
of
cap
"bridging
groups).
this also
course,
the pursuit
15
For more
from
(within
of more
to the
points
social
cohesion
of other
discussion
of studying
when and
empirically
importance
with
other
conflict
such
social
values.
may
measurement
in the
schemes
see
literature,
how
the review
by Beauvais and Jenson (2002).
16
One
of
may
social
taxation
of
odological
are two
difficulty
on
behaviour"
"objective
the
need
right
the
example,
incumbent
high
turnout
not
an
be
a result
indication
extreme
may
rate can be a
and high
donation
government,
This
and
it is a major
meth
incentives.
is a valid
indeed
doubt,
with most
research.
these
there
empirical
Despite
complications,
For
with
dissatisfaction
result
that
argue
cohesion.
voters'
be
of
on the measurement
scheme.
for retaining
these
Con
items
to social
like the subjective
is integral
cohe
behaviour,
objective
feeling,
ceptually,
not be perfect
turnout
while
like high voters'
sion. Empirically,
behaviour
per se may
it is at least a testimony
that the people
share
of high
social
indication
cohesion,
justifications
or
trust
minimal
17
The
full
in the
confidence
set of
questions
which
institutions,
in this
adopted
research
is integral
is reported
to social
cohesion.
in Chan
and
Chan
(2004).
18
We
must
deviating
to
is not
stress
from
look
our
at
that
this
claim
internal
that
to
attention
social
cohesion
group
within
level
is a societal
cohesion
any
particular
data
does
not
attribute.
groups
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mean
Our
or
class;
we
interest
rather,
are
here
we
SOCIAL COHESION
RECONSIDERING
the level of cohesion of
like to check if such social divisions have undermined
would
301
as a whole.
society
REFERENCES
C.
Beauvais,
and
CPRN
search',
J. Jenson:
cohesion:
'Social
2002,
Discussion
No.
Paper
F|22
state
the
updating
(Canadian
Research
Policy
re
the
of
Networks,
Ottawa).
Berger, P.: 1998, The Limits of Social Cohesion: Conflict and Mediation
in Pluralist
Societies
Boulder,
Colorado).
(Westview,
as an
R.:
'Social
cohesion
2000,
Berger-Schmitt,
and
measurement',
concept
eureporting
Working
Research
and Methodology,
Mannheim).
P.:
Bernard,
'Social
2000,
SRA-491,
Heritage,
K.
and Analysis
the quality
No.
Paper
a dialectical
cohesion:
Research
(Strategic
of
aspect
of
critique
Directorate,
a quasi-concept',
Paper
of Canadian
a
R. H. Hoyle:
'Perceived
cohesion:
2001,
Social
Forces
examination',
pp. 479-504.
empirical
69(2),
on Social Development:
Canadian
Council
cohesion
'Social
2000,
indicators
Research
SRA-542,
Paper
highlights',
(Strategic
of Canadian
torate, Department
Heritage,
Ottawa).
Chan,
J. and
E.
Chan:
Social
2004,
Case
available
of Hong
Kong,
and Governance,
Society
Cohesion
without
at
online
the University
the
Kong
and
conceptual
in canada:
and
Institutional
possible
Direc
Analysis
Mediation?
the Centre
of
homepage
of Hong
societies:
for Survey
Department
Ottawa).
A.
and
Bollen,
of
14, (Centre
The
Civil
for
(http://web.hku.hk/~ccsg/
papers.html).
Couch,
J. Adams
L.,
Journal
and W.
of Personality
G., E. Searles,
Duhaime,
and
'The
1996,
67(2),
pp.
assessment
P. Usher,
Research
66,
pp.
trust
of
orientation',
305-323.
H. Myers
and P. Frechette:
artic: from
theory
295-317.
'Social
2004,
to measurement',
in the Canadian
conditions
living
Indicators
Jones:
Assessment
cohesion
Social
T. R.
and S. Assaf:
'Social
and
frameworks
1999,
capital:
conceptual
an annotated
evidence:
Initiative
Social Capital
empirical
bibliography',
Working
Bank, Washington).
Paper No.5
(World
on
I. and G. Olofsson
and Social
Cohesion:
1999, Capitalism
Gough,
Essays
(eds.):
Exclusion
and Integration
(Macmillan,
Basingstoke).
Feldman,
'Inclusion
to Social
for all: A Canadian
Cohesion',
Roadmap
at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/comsocohe.pdf
M.
S.: 2000,
'Social
cohesion
around
the world:
Jeannotte,
accessed
on
17 June
2004
parison
of
Analysis
Directorate,
M.
Jeannotte,
zlewood:
Social
SRA-321
Heritage,
S., D.
2002,
Cohesion
Directorate,
Jenson,
definitions
J.:
and
Department
R.
Stanley,
'Buying
Research',
Department
issues',
SRA-309,
Paper
of Canadian
Heritage,
B. Jamieson,
Pendakur,
in or Dropping
Paper
of Canadian
out:
SRA-631,
the
Public
(Strategic
an
Research
Ottawa).
M. Williams
Policy
Research
Heritage,
Ottawa).
social
cohesion:
the state of Canadian
'Mapping
Research
and Analysis
Directorate,
(Strategic
Department
1998,
Ottawa).
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
com
international
(Strategic
and
and
A.
Ai
of
Implications
and Analysis
research',
Paper
of Canadian
JOSEPH CHAN ET AL.
302
A.
Kearns,
and R.
Forrest:
'Social
2000,
and multilevel
cohesion
urban
governance',
Urban
Studies 37, pp. 995-1071.
Lockwood, D.: 1992, Solidarity and Schism, The
mian
and marxist
(Clarendon
sociology
Press,
problem of disorder'
in durkhei
Oxford).
D.:
'Civic integration
and social cohesion',
in Gough
and Olofsson
1999,
and Social
ch.4.
Cohesion,
Capitalism
N.:
and social
in Gough
Mortensen,
1999,
system
'Mapping
integration
integration',
and Olofsson
and Social
ch.2.
(eds.), Capitalism
Cohesion,
L.: 2003,
'Introduction'
in Osberg
L. (ed.), The
Economic
of
Osberg,
Implication
Lockwood,
(eds.),
Social
Pahl,
R.
Cohesion,
E.:
commission',
Putnam,
R.
D.:
American
Putnam,
R. D.:
of Toronto
for
social
European
Journal
1993,
'The prosperous
Prospect
Community
Ritzen,
J., W.
13, pp.
of
and
and Public
xxxii,
-
community
2000, Bowling Alone:
(Simon
Toronto).
from durkheim
social
capital
the Collapse
New
Schuster,
the
european
and
public
life',
and Revival
of American
York).
2000,
'On "Good"
and Growth',
World
Politicians
Bank
Policy
and
"Bad"
Research
Bank).
Administration
The University
of Hong
Road
Pokfulam
to
345-360.
pp.
35-42.
Paper 2448 (The World
Working
Press,
cohesion:
Sociology
and M. Woolcock:
Easterly
Social Cohesion,
Institutions,
Policies:
Politics
(University
'The search
1991,
Kong
Pokfulam
Hong Kong
E-mail:
[email protected]
This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:40:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
J. Chan