‘One Size Fits All’? An Empirical Study into the Multidimensionality of Social Cohesion Indicators in Belgian Local Communities

Abstract

Recently, various attempts have been undertaken to develop a comprehensive social cohesion index to monitor the social progress of society. However, classical sociological theories predict that contemporary modern communities function according to a different type of social cohesion than traditional communities. From both a theoretical and a methodological perspective, it can be questioned whether social cohesion can be summarised into one single index. In this article, an extensive dataset of social cohesion indicators is analysed, including indicators of religious involvement, social inclusion, crime and voter turnout, for 308 local communities in the Flemish region of Belgium. Based on first-and second-order factor analyses, it is concluded that it is impossible to construct one single indicator for social cohesion when taking the multidimensionality of the concept into account. While the traditional form prevails in rural areas, it does not coincide with a distinct modern form that prevails in urban areas.communities (Putnam, 2000;Chan et al., 2006; OECD, 2009). From a theoretical perspective, however, social cohesion should be seen as a multidimensional concept (Jenson,

Public houses and house prices in Great Britain: a panel analysis

“…Third places are assumed to facilitate the accumulation of social capital within the communities they serve, with social capital being the whole of relationships and ties among individuals which provide a degree of social interaction, cohesiveness and networking in a given community (Putman, 2000). Empirical evidence seems to suggest that third places play an important functional role in providing platforms for these concepts to develop and expand (Botterman et al, 2012). Relationships between individual and society are often regulated 'by other social "bodies" such as community groups, friendship networks, voluntary groups but, above all, by families and organisation' (Watson and Watson, 2012, p. 687); and these relationships define the network dimension of social capital (Copus & Skuras, 2006).…”

Doing ‘social cohesion’: Cultural policy and practice in outer metropolitan Melbourne

“…This expanded orientation was reflective of the emphasis within the social cohesion paradigm on social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), and particularly on Putnam’s (1993) distinction between bonding social capital – the creation of exclusive ties within identified social groups – and bridging social capital – relating particularly to horizontal social ties that transcend ethnic, linguistic, religious, and class-based differences. It is this latter form, bridging social capital, that is emphasised within the social cohesion literature (for example Berger-Schmitt, 2000; Botterman et al, 2012; Holdsworth and Hartman, 2009). In contrast, bonding social capital is often seen as less desirable because it is associated with perceived disconnects between minority ethnic communities and the majority culture (Cheong et al, 2007), a sentiment reflected in populist critiques of multiculturalism as having led to ‘ghettoisation’.…”

Política pública educativa centrada en la tecnología. El caso del programa habilidades digitales para todos en el estado de puebla y su efecto en la formación de cohesión social

“…Las Ciencias Sociales han sido el caldo de cultivo para innumerables estudios sobre cohesión social (Botterman, Hooghe y Reeskens, 2012;Demireva y McNeil, 2012;Jenson, 2010;Juul, 2010;Vasta, 2010). También existen investigaciones en los campos de la psicología (Cramm, Van Dijk, y Nieboer, 2013;Carrón, 1995), la medicina (Wilkinson, 1997;Kawachi y Kennedy 1997), incluso la zoología (Wartburton y Lazarus,1991; Wey y Limstein, 2010), entre otros autores, sin embargo, no existe un consenso mundial sobre el concepto de cohesión social, las definiciones abundan pues ha sido estudiado desde diversas perspectivas.…”