THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND RESEARCH
Yitzhak Berman
External Research Associate
European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research
Vienna, Austria
Discussion paper submitted to the European Network on Indicators of Social Quality of the European Foundation on Social Quality, Amsterdam
January 2003
1

INDICATORS for SOCIAL COHESION
INTRODUCTION
The European Commission has strongly emphasized the economic and social cohesion of Europe as a main policy goal of the European union. In Article B of the
Maastricht Treaty we find: “The Union shall set itself the following objectives: to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion ….” (European Union, The Maastricht Treaty: Title 1,
Common Provisions, Article B.). Social cohesion is a component of social quality that gained renown in both academic and policy circles as a result of the 1997
Amsterdam Declaration on the Social Quality of Europe (Amsterdam, Declaration,
1997). The following paper will present the development of the component social cohesion and place it within the social quality framework. The paper has three tasks.
The first, to define the concept of social cohesion within the framework of social quality. Second, to review key intellectual themes of social cohesion and place it within a European context. Finally, we present a set of domains, sub-domains and indicators for social cohesion within the social quality context.
Social cohesion has been identified as one of the four components of social quality. van der Maesen (2002) in his introduction to a discussion on social cohesion notes that as explained in the Foundation’s second book (Beck, van der Maesen, Thomese and Walker, 2001) the subject matter of the four components, socio-economic status, social inclusion, social cohesion and empowerment is intrinsically related by the same dialectic between (i) self-realisation and (ii) the formation of collective identities. The challenge that the Foundation has set for itself is to develop a coherent and consistent conceptual scheme with which to relate theoretically these concepts in an unequivocal way to a set of domains, sub-domains and indicators.
In the second book of the Foundation social cohesion is defined in the following way:
“ Social
cohesion concerns the processes that create, defend or demolish social networks and the social infrastructures underpinning these networks. An adequate level of social cohesion is one which enables citizens 'to exist as real human subjects, as social beings’” (Beck, van der Maeson et al., 1997b:284). Defining the subject matter of social cohesion is a complicated task. Beck, van der Maesen and Walker point out that because of its long scientific and political history the concept has been associated with a wide range of other concepts and related connotations such as inclusion, exclusion, integration, disintegration, social dissolution and social capital.
Woolley (1998) claims for example that social cohesion has no precise definition. In the European scene, the European Union, the OECD and the Council of Europe do not have an explicit or widely accepted working definition of the term. (Jeannette, 2000).
Yet we notice a growing attention for cohesion in societies, and this without a clear understanding of what is meant by the term social cohesion. This we see especially in the Council of Europe and the European Union that have promoted studies about cohesion in order to underpin public policies with which to create positive conditions for citizens in Europe. Also, the proliferation of studies (see for example Canadian studies, and studies prepared by the Council of Europe) challenge us to find a precise delineation of the concept in order to give it a heuristic meaning. We may say that too much is being done without a clear understanding of its conceptual coherence.
2

DEFINING THE CONCEPT
Social cohesion has a rich theoretical history. Social cohesion is more or less directly descended from Tönnes' notions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschraft, Durkheim's mechanical and organic solidarity and Parsons' normative integration. In its most radical interpretation it embraces social solidarity, collective social welfare and egalitarian aspirations. The sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first who used the concept social cohesion. He considered social cohesion as an ordering feature of a society and defined it as the interdependence between the members of the society, shared loyalties and solidarity. For Durkheim, "the continuous distribution of the different human tasks is the principal constituent of social solidarity". Durkheim states that a cohesive society depended on shared loyalties, which citizens owed to each other and ultimately to the state because they were bound in ties of interdependency.
If Durkheim was ultimately optimistic about social diversity and that new institutions could foster cohesion, the next wave of fundamental social change and political crisis, the 1930s generated pessimism. Talcott Parsons, whose work is still shaping debates in the social sciences, was sensitive to what he saw as the dangers of excessive liberalism. A Parsonian view would focus on the presence of a set of shared values and norms. This would enable the members ‘to identify and support common aims and objectives, and share a common set of moral principles and codes of behaviour through which to conduct their relations with one another (Kearns and Forrest
2000:997).
Adherence to the concept of social cohesion, in both its Durkheimian and Parsonian manifestations, tended to result in a focus more on values than on interests. The result was a theoretical downplaying of democratic mechanisms for resolving conflict.
Governments were called on to foster consensus more than to resolve conflict.
Historically the concept of social cohesion surfaced just as people recognised the disquieting effects of rapid social change. It is not surprising, then, that in this era of globalisation eyes have turned again to issues of order, stability and cohesion.
According to Alaluf (1999) insofar as the idea of social cohesion is linked to the functionalist tradition it gives more room to consensus, adaptation, norm, values and balance than to the opposition of interests, conflicts and antagonisms. The social system is the framework that gives a meaning to cohesion. It is in fact delimited by the nation and the social State, even if they are not explicitly named. That is why we will often find the same set of characteristics for national identity and social cohesion.
Lockwood
An approach to social cohesion that received attention in the Foundation’s second book is that of Lockwood that is restricted to the strength or weakness of primary social relations. The central theme of Lockwood * is the distinction between social integration (relationships between actors ) and system integration (relationships
* This section on Lockwood is based on an analysis by Phillips, D. (2001) Social
Capital, Social Cohesion and Social Quality.
3

between the parts) in a social system. This social integration is decomposed by
Lockwood into ' civic integration , the integrity of the core institutional order of citizenship at the macro-social level, and social cohesion , the strength of primary and secondary networks at the micro- and meso-social levels. The antonyms of these are civic corruption and social dissolution respectively (Lockwood, 1999:6). Lockwood's usage is very similar to the Putnam (1993) or Coleman (1988) usage of social capital .
Civic integration / dissolution is manifested through: political participation, support for democracy, and political extremism; economic crime and economic participation; and universalism and selectivity in social rights and the provision of welfare.
Manifestations of social cohesion / dissolution are: voluntary associations; traditional crime; and family disorganisation (Lockwood, 1999:69).
For Lockwood, civic integration and social cohesion are distinct both analytically and empirically but high levels of civic corruption have a negative effect on social cohesion and vice versa. The boundary between civic integration and social cohesion is bridged by secondary associations intermediating between the individual and the state. Lockwood makes a distinction between actors at the macro level (political parties, trade unions, the church etc.) and associations at the meso or micro level
(Lockwood, 1999:176).
In relation to system integration, Lockwood (1999:64) warns that the extent to which system legitimacy is grounded in principles that are procedural – that is, impersonal, universalistic, 'rules of the game' – should not be underestimated. To conclude,
Lockwood's approach, while muddying the waters in terms of nomenclature, is immensely helpful in situating social cohesion theoretically. The distinction between civic integration and what others would call social capital is most helpful in that it introduces a meso level of intermediary networks and institutions between the micro levels of groups of individual actors and the macro level of systems.
THE FOUNDATION’S APPROACH
Social cohesion, as we noted, is an inherent part of the concept of social quality. As such, an analysis of social cohesion requires us to locate its place within the social quality quadrant (see the Foundation’s second book, page 352). Social cohesion, although justifiably allocated to the 'communities, groups and citizens' end of the horizontal continuum of the social quality quadrant because of its emphasis on human subjects as social beings, is also seen as dependent upon social infrastructures and the societal institutions that regulate access to public goods and services. Similarly, although undeniably relevant at the macro level, issues of social cohesion are arguably pertinent at the micro level too. Therefore rather than just occupying one discreet point, social cohesion can be placed, in a zone that maps into the other three areas of the social quality quadrant as well (Phillips and Berman. 2001).
Phillips and Berman (2001) state that social cohesion is explicitly concerned with processes that create, defend or demolish social networks and the social infrastructures underpinning them. Its outcome has very much to do with impact: to enable citizens 'to exist as real human subjects, as social beings' (Beck, van der
Maesen and Walker, 1997. p.284). The infrastructures and inputs underpinning social cohesion include those needed to maintain and strengthen civil society - legislative frameworks of legal, political and social protection, along with cultural norms and
4

mores relating to citizenship, cultural pluralism, tolerance and respect. The processes needed to enhance social cohesion, as well as those linked to the inputs just noted, include policies and provisions for regional development, equal opportunities in both the public and private sectors, and economic and fiscal equity to overcome unequal sharing of economic burdens.
Social cohesion is not easy to operationalise in terms of the aspired goal of 'real human subjects, as social beings' but it is easier to do so if conceptualised in terms of being close-knit: i.e. if social inclusion minimises inequality in access to social goods and statuses, then social cohesion maximises solidarity and shared identity. But social cohesion's outcome and impact are still difficult to pin down. There is - or appears to be - an unresolved conflict between cohesion as solidarity and as minimising of inequalities .
This has consequences for choice of indicators and for measurement levels: thresholds versus measures of central tendency (eg. proportion below minimum acceptable level versus standard deviation).
Beck et al. (2001) do not share Lockwood's claim that social cohesion operates only at the micro level, in relation to the strength or weakness of primary social relationships
– friends, family, neighbours, communities: 'There are different causes for the impairment of social cohesion, such as unemployment, entrenchment of the long-term unemployed, changes in family and demographic structures, unmanageable streams of migrants and urban riots’ (Beck, van der Maeson et al., 2001c:343). Beck et al. use
Lockwood's distinction between social integration and system integration to make a link between social cohesion and social exclusion. They revise Lockwood's formulation to relate social integration to social cohesion and system integration to social exclusion.
According to the Foundation’s second book the subject matter of cohesion refers to the nature of outcomes of processes of integration and disintegration. Therefore, cohesion of social beings will be influenced and changed by processes of differentiation in societies. Interpretations of trans-national and global developments play no heuristic role in analyses of cohesion. The focus is on processes addressing the positions, ideas and feelings of social beings. They are not living on global level but in concrete circumstances.
OTHER APPROACHES ON SOCIAL COHESION
The citizenship scheme defined by Marshal (1950), identifying civil, political and socio-economic rights can contribute, in the perspective of basic social rights, to the outlining of a more operational definition of social cohesion. It leads us to a political redefinition of social protection capable of giving a concrete meaning to criteria of trust, belonging and contribution that precisely, according to Therbon (1999), enables us to define social cohesion. Therbon distinguishes between three dimensions on which a definition of social cohesion may be based. The first dimension is the trust in particular in institutions. The second dimension, a feeling of belonging based on individuals’ social integration, and on the place given to them in society. The third dimension is a willingness to show solidarity (in terms of social and fiscal contribution) with their society. Therbon also emphasises that "sharing common values" is not sufficient to bring about social cohesion. He says that cohesion may be based, beyond common values, on innovation, creativity or civic practices resulting
5

from the necessities of everyday life. It may also be sectarian types of unification, based on discipline and obedience, for instance.
Alaluf (1999) suggests that the idea of social cohesion leads us to associate this concept with forms of solidarity produced by what we have called the social State. He writes that it is important, however, to adopt two methodological points of reference when speaking of social cohesion. First one must clearly identify the social framework that conditions the forms of social protection. Secondly, one must be careful not to consider each national system of social protection in its own right as a closed system but rather as a process within which the different elements evolve and change. It is therefore necessary to think of the various components of social protection separately without, however, taking them out of their historical context.
Another facet of social cohesion is a feeling of belonging to or identification with a group (Vranken, 2001). Identification with a group could also be regarded as an integration of the two dimensions a relational dimension (structured solidarity, social networks, and social capital) and a cultural dimension (common value pattern and group identification). The forces leading to this group formation are internal and external. Internal are the networks facilitating interaction and communication, and common cultural frameworks, providing shared values, facilitating common meanings and interpretations, and common norms. The external force promoting identification with the in-group is the perception of the out-group as a threat.
DEFINITIONS
The multitude of approaches to social cohesion has produced a number of definitions of the concept that indicate variations of content as expressed through the labeling of the dimensions of the concept. For example, the General Planning Commission of the
French government defines social cohesion as "all the social processes which help individuals to feel they belong to the same community and are identified as belonging to that community" (quoted by Jenson, 1998,5). The same terms could also define belonging to a collective identity.
Canada has been a leader in the use of social cohesion as an integral part of its social policy. It can be seen as part of the motivation of Canadian policies in the ‘60s and
70’s that attempted to foster a new distinctly Canadian identity (Wooley, 1998).
The Social Cohesion Network of the Policy Research Initiative of the Canadian
Government defined social cohesion as “the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians” (Policy Research
Initiative, 1999, p.22).
“ This network identified five dimensions for social cohesion
(Jenson 1998).
Belonging – Isolation that means shared values, identity, feelings of commitment
Inclusion – Exclusion concerns equal opportunities of access
Participation – Non-Involvement
Recognition – Rejection that addresses the issue of respecting and tolerating differences in a pluralistic society
Legitimacy – Illegitimacy with respect to institutions.
6

It should be noted that the Canadian experience with social cohesion is based partly on its “defense’ from American socio-cultural encroachment and globalisation. This is conceptually antithetical to the European Union experience that uses the term social cohesion as a unifying factor among different member countries.
The normative element in defining social cohesion becomes more prominent in the following approaches. Berger-Schmitt (2000:7) argues that elements of a society's social cohesion form an integral part of the quality of life experienced by individuals
– including perceived inequalities in the work-place, school or neighbourhood – and that 'quality of life represents the common overarching policy goal with social cohesion as an important component to be addressed'.
Berger-Schmitt (2000) states that the concept of social cohesion incorporates two societal goals dimensions: (1) the reduction of disparities, inequalities, and social exclusion; (2) the strengthening of social relations, interactions and ties. It also includes what is considered social capital. This is similar to the World Bank that uses the terms social capital and social cohesion synonymously.
Berger-Schmitt identifies the dimensions of social cohesion as follows:
(1) Reducing disparities, inequalities and social exclusion within a society includes: regional disparities, equal opportunities and social exclusion.
(2) Strengthening the social capital of a society includes: availability of social relations, social and political activities and engagement, quality of social relations quality of societal institutions and within the European framework as aspects of the social cohesion between European countries.
The conceptualization of social cohesion by Berger-Schmitt conceives social exclusion as one aspect of the first dimension of social cohesion. Social capital is an inherent part of the second dimension.
Woolley (1998) in discussing social cohesion in the Canadian context, states that one can differentiate processes, the way that social cohesion is created, and outcomes, whether a particular society is cohesive or not. He emphasizes that social cohesion is a property of societies, thus inherently in the “social”. He finds that one can describe a cohesive society in three ways: (1) Social cohesion may be interpreted as absence of social exclusion; (2) Frequency of social interaction and (3) Shared values and communities of interpretation.
Our analysis of approaches to social cohesion finds that working outside of the context of ‘social quality’ there is a tendency for researchers to use social cohesion and social exclusion as opposites. In the definition of social quality by the foundation social cohesion and social exclusion are independent of each other. A first attempt to clarify the distinctions between these two terms was made at the pre-meeting
(November 2002) of ENIQ (European Network for Indicators of Social Quality) where social exclusion was given the key word “reference” and social cohesion, the key word “relationship”. This of course needs to be developed especially in its theoretical context.
But the intermingling of the components of social quality is not only between social cohesion and social inclusion. Social cohesion and empowerment are also seen as
7

one. Van der Maesen (2002) cites Amin and Tomaney (1995). They write that:
“cohesion has to be about the political empowerment of diverse communities …”
(p.320). ENIQ relates to this issue and based on the Foundation’s theoretical approach sees each component as unique.
THE ENIQ PROPOSAL
To facilitate the theoretical development of social quality ENIQ has proposed definitions for the components of social quality. The fundamental principle of these definitions is that the components of social quality are orthogonal. Each component defines a different relationship in the social quality quadrant (see Figure
17.11, The New Quadrant of Social Quality in Beck, van der Maesen and Walker,
2001, p. 352). The definitions of the components of social quality as put forth by
ENIQ are the following:
Socio-economic security : socio-economic security plays a role on a societal level with regard to how systems, institutions and organisations of a country cope with social risks and enhance life chances of citizens. It describes a status, a state of being, a condition.
Social inclusion : social inclusion is a reference concept and, therefore, requires the reference to other groups (also institutions). It operates on different levels (societal, institutional, community and interpersonal).
Social cohesion : social cohesion is the strength or weakness of social relations. It is a relational concept.
Empowerment : empowerment is the link to self-realisation. It has to do with concepts as ‘being able to’, ‘impact’, ‘taking advantage of opportunities’,
‘accessibility’, ‘co-determination or co-shaping’ and ‘self-realisation’.
So for ENIQ social cohesion is not a unique entity but is part of the concept social quality. It is part of a greater theoretical scheme that concerns itself with the selfrealisation of individuals as social beings in the context of the formation of collective identities. ‘The social’ is the outcome of constantly changing processes through which individuals realise themselves as interacting social beings (van der Maesen and
Walker, 2002). Social cohesion is part of that ‘social’ process.
To conclude this section it would be worthwhile to bring Jenson, (1998) who in her paper “Mapping Social Cohesion” reports that the literature reveals different uses of related concepts that are often deployed in conversations about social cohesion.
These are ‘social economy’ and “social capital”. This we will see is relevant when studying the European experience.
THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
As noted above without knowing exactly what social cohesion is, European institutions see social cohesion as an important goal of their social and economic programmes. Jeannotte (2000) has made a valuable contribution by analyzing the approach to social cohesion of three European related institutions, the European
Union, the OECD and the Council of Europe. She found that the implicit definition of social cohesion used by the three organizations has evolved from a fairly narrow economic and materialistic focus to encompass elements related to social well-being, as well as cultural and democratic cohesion. The major elements stated or implied in the definitions of social cohesion include: democratic/political cohesion, economic well-being, social well-being and cultural cohesion. At the same time the study
8

concludes that there is greater consensus about what threatens social cohesion
(unemployment, poverty, income inequality, social exclusion and exclusion from the information society) than on what promotes it. The absence of a widely accepted definition of social cohesion has not prevented the European Union, the OECD and the Council of Europe from using the concept to justify a wide array of activities. For example, Jeannotte reports that the term "social cohesion" denotes an important aspect of the Council of Europe's efforts to strengthen human dignity and social rights in a spirit of solidarity. It covers a variety of actions to combat inequalities, promote protection of groups at risk and reinforce supporting measures to family policy. On a practical level, it aims to identify effective models developed in certain countries and introducing them systematically in other countries. These activities are intended to assist the reintegration of excluded persons in five main areas: access to social protection, housing, employment, health care and education
( http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/strategy/CDCS/sumstrat.htm
).
Based on an analysis of the three institutions Jeannotte proffers the following characteristics of a cohesive society.
Characteristics of a cohesive society
Characteristics
Political
Freedom of expression, free flow of information, protection of human rights, application of the rule of law, political link between citizen and the state, active participation in society
Economic
Stable and secure society, secure access to material well-being, regulation to correct market failure
Social
Universal systems of social protection, access to housing, health care and education, freedom from crime and corruption, social links to the community, systems of social dialogue
Supporting factors
Solidarity, renewal of civil society
Capacity to balance competitive markets with a strong social fabric, dematerialisation and culturalisation of the economy, potential of information technologies
Solidarity, capacity for dialogue and cooperation, societal flexibility and demographic change, renewal of civil society
Cultural
Positive attitude to cultural diversity, strengthened sense of European identity
Jeannotte, 2000, p.25
Culture and a sense of belonging, openness to cultural diversity
The European Union
The European Union has characterized its approach to social cohesion as being consistent with “the European model of society”, founded on a notion of solidarity that is embodied in “universal systems of social protection, regulation to correct market failure and systems of social dialogue” (European Union, 1996, p.14). The
European Union has no official definition of social cohesion. An analysis of documents provides elements of the definition. This includes: the link social cohesion with the objectives of the European model of society that is founded on the notion of
9

the social market economy. In it the solidarity dimension is facilitated through
“universal systems of social protection, regulation to correct market failure and systems of social dialogue” (European Union, 1996, p.14). The promotion of social cohesion requires the reduction of disparities that arise from unequal access to employment opportunities and to the rewards in the form of income. Van der Maesen
(2002) notes that the European Union associates social cohesion with institutional development. But the exact definition of social cohesion within the EU remains ambiguous. van der Maesen reports that Jacques Delor saw social cohesion as a policy
“as a counterpart for neo-monetarists approaches” (p.4) while during the Portuguese presidency in 2000 social cohesion was seen as a goal.
In the 2001 Report on the social situation in the EU it is written that: “the strengthening of the European economy and its social model will result from policies promoting synergy and positive interaction between economic growth, employment and social cohesion” (Eurostat, 2001, p.7). One should note at this juncture that the
Amsterdam Declaration emphasized the “social” aspects of social cohesion within the framework of social quality.
OECD
The OECD has no single, formally agreed-upon definition of social cohesion. The definition by OECD is usually weighted toward economic issues. Social cohesion is influenced by macro economic issues such as growing international economic and cultural interdependence, and high and persistent levels of unemployment and underemployment. Major threats to social cohesion according to the OECD include: socio-economic pressures such as changing conditions of employment, poverty, income inequality and social exclusion and skills deficit in a knowledge-based society.
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe also has no official definition for social cohesion. The Council of Europe's introduces the notion of human dignity: 'Because it makes respect for human dignity and personal integrity paramount and enables the social link between the individual and society to be restored, the best response to the tragedy of exclusion
... is to strengthen social cohesion' (Council of Europe, 1998:15). The link explicitly made here between social cohesion and social exclusion is an issue that we referred to earlier in this paper.
On 12 May 2000, the European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) adopted its
Strategy for Social Cohesion. This document, approved by the Committee of
Ministers on 13 July, represents a statement of intent setting out a precise agenda for the Council in the social field for the coming years.
It does not define social cohesion as such but seeks to identify some of the factors in social cohesion such as: (1) setting up mechanisms and institutions which will prevent the factors of division (such as an excessive gap between rich and poor or the multiple forms of discrimination) from becoming so acute as to endanger social harmony; (2) the importance of decent and adequately remunerated employment; (3) measures, to combat poverty and social exclusion, particularly in areas such as housing, health, education and training, employment and income distribution and social services; (4) strengthening social security systems; (5) developing policies for families, with
10

particular emphasis on children and the elderly; and (6) partnership with civil society bodies, in particular trade unions, employers’ representatives and NGOs.
Accordingly, social cohesion policies should help to revitalise the economy and capitalise on the contribution made by the two sides of industry and other interested bodies, particularly by creating employment, stimulating enterprise and ensuring employment opportunities for all. It should also meet people’s basic needs and promote access to social rights within the universal spirit of the Council of Europe’s many conventions and recommendations, particularly in the fields of employment, education, health, social protection and housing. It should acknowledge human dignity by focusing policies on the individual and guaranteeing human rights in
Europe and establish forums and procedures enabling the underprivileged and those whose rights are insufficiently upheld to make themselves heard. Finally, it needs to develop an integrated approach bringing together all the relevant fields of action
( http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/strategy/CDCS/sumstrat.htm
).
The Council of Europe recognizes three closely inter-related types of cohesion: democratic cohesion, social cohesion and cultural cohesion. The following is an analytical framework of the elements of cohesion as presented by the Council of
Europe.
11

Type of cohesion
Democratic cohesion
Elements of Cohesion
Council of Europe Analytic Framework
Major Threats Major Measures to
Address
The ‘rights deficit’ - Recognition of social and cultural rights
- Measures to combat intolerance and protect minorities
Social cohesion Social exclusion - Recognition of social rights
- Restructuring of committees and Social
Fund
- Increased investment in job creation
- Establishment of
Cultural cohesion Loss of identity
Decreased access to information by the socially excluded specialized unit to monitor social cohesion
- Civic education
- Recognition of diverse
European heritage
- Development of new information technology policy
The European experience has demonstrated that the use of social cohesion as a policy goal is “needs-led” and is basically a catalyst for action. This flexibility of the term social cohesion while making it convenient for policy orientations and programming prevents it from being a useful theoretical concept that will lead to a more empirical use of the term. This pragmatism lacks scientific rigour that does not enable one to answer basic questions of indicator development: why those indicators, why only those indicators and what do the indicators indicate. A definition of social cohesion will facilitate the methodological analysis of the concept and its indicator development. This brings us to the Foundation’s theoretical approach towards social quality and the component social cohesion.
DEFINING SOCIAL COHESION
The problematic of social cohesion as a theoretical concept is two-fold. First, its inclusion of different domains that is without a definition that qualifies the use of various terminologies. This brings about the inclusion within the social cohesion component of domains like social exclusion, solidarity and social capital without a theoretical justification. It appears that social cohesion is a catchall for politically favorite jargon. The second is related to social cohesion within the social quality framework. Early writing on social quality found that the components of social
12

quality are not intended to be orthogonal - they often interact with and complement each other - but taken together as the components of social quality they are intended to provide a comprehensive model of the social and economic determinants of citizen well-being (Berman and Phillips, 2000). This approach that the components of social quality are not intended to be orthogonal has been a critique of the social quality approach since the beginning of the Foundation’s work on the subject.
The Foundation recognizes the problematics of the “babel” of terminology and interconnectivity of the components of social quality. As the Foundation sees social quality as theoretically based, there is a necessity to define the components and to demonstrate their exclusivity. The Foundation sees the root of the definition of the components through “the social”. Van der Maeson (2002) defined “the social” as “the outcome of constantly changing processes through which human subjects realize themselves as interactive social beings”. There are two key terms in this definition
‘changing processes’ and ‘interactive human beings’. Changing processes is defined as the four components of social quality, socio-economic security, social exclusion, social cohesion and empowerment. Interactive human beings we define as the
‘collective identity’ that includes nation, minority group, community etc. where the processes are viable. Thus, when defining the components of social quality we need to take into consideration “the social” as manifested by interaction of the terms
‘changing processes’ and ‘interactive human beings’. At the same time each component needs to be orthogonal to respond to the critique regarding the theoretical relevance of the term.
The response to this challenge is found in the document reporting on the results of the pre-meeting of ENIQ that took place in November 2002. Two goals were achieved.
The first, each component was defined based on the definition of “the social”. Thus, there is an expectation of consistency in the domains, sub-domains and indicators based on the components. Second, as each component was defined there is an expectation of exclusiveness of each component. This of course needs to be verified empirically. (The Foundation intends to do this as its next programme for the
European Commission).
INDICATORS FOR THE SUB-DOMAINS
The Methodological Premise
The theoretical bases for the indicators of social quality, is that the formation of collective identities is related to the self-realisation of individual subjects. “The social” is situated in this dialectic tension (van der Maesen, 2002). The methodological premise of the social quality paradigm is that the indicators are an embodiment of this dialectic tension, a relationship between the collective identity and self-realisation. At the same time the theoretical assumption of the social quality quadrant requires that the components, domains and sub-domains be orthogonal. The implications of this is that it is expected that the indicators within each sub-domain should measure the same phenomenon and are more related to each other than to indicators in other sub-domains.
To test the orthogonality of the indicators in relation to the sub-domains a statistical analysis (such as factor analysis) needs to be carried out. This will be done in the future. At this stage of our indicator development we only need to point out that if the
13

indicators for the sub-domains are not orthogonal it can mean one of two things.
First, the indicator chosen is not an indicator for the chosen sub-domain. Second, the sub-domains may not be orthogonal. This methodological analysis is relevant in analyzing all stages of the social quality paradigm. It is especially significant to prove the orthogonality of the two social quality components social inclusion and social cohesion.
The Indicator Matrix (a prototype)
Social quality is a theory-based concept. As a result the indicators of the components, sub-domains and sub-domains need to be linked to the theoretical concept. The indicators in social quality in general and for social cohesion specifically should be an outcome of that theoretical model. This modus operandi facilitates the response to two basic questions in the development of indicators. Why were those indicators chosen and why were only those indicators chosen? It also mitigates the issue of determining what the indicators indicate.
The definition of social quality is based on two elements self-realisation and collective identities. These elements enable us to develop a matrix to facilitate the formation of indicators for each of the four components. By defining the elements self-realisation and collective identities within the context of the specific component one can build a component context matrix that will be the basis for defining the indicators. Based on this approach Beck and van der Maesen (2003) suggest the following prototype that can be used by all four social quality components.
Self-realisation
Interactivity
Exchange
Formation of collective identities
Public World Private world
(world of systems)
A
C
(life-world)
B
D
The public world, according to Beck and van der Maesen (2003) can be distinguished in systems, institutions and organisations. The private world can be distinguished in communities, formations (networks), and groups (families).
The social processes of social cohesion are found in various aspects of societies. This includes their formal and informal organizations, institutions and networks (van der
Maesen, 2002). From this we can identify various forms of collective identities. In our context they are: public domain, institutions, communities, networks, primary relationships and the family. Five forms of self-realisation have been identified from the literature for the component of social cohesion. They are: interactivity, exchange, relationship, participation and confidence.
The following matrix can be made for social cohesion. The indicators will emanate from the domains and sub-domains of the interaction between self-realisation and collective identities as illustrated in the matrix.
14

Matrix of Interaction between Self-Realisation and Collective Identities for Indicators of Social Cohesion*
Selfrealisation
Collective Identities
Interactivity
Public domain
Institutions Communities Networks Primary solidarity relationships
Family solidarity reciprocity affinity
Exchange
Relationship human rights/justice human rights/justice, social status functional exchange reciprocity functional exchange affinity
Participation general trust altruism altruism, solidarity altruism
Confidence general trust institutional personal/ trust domestic trust

This matrix is work in progress. Further suggestions and discussion is welcome.
Ideally indicators of social cohesion can be developed for each of the self-realisation
– collective identity relationships. For our purposes we present a list of recommended indicators for social cohesion by domains and sub-domains. Following the list we will present the rationale behind the choice of the indicator using the matrix as a reference point.
The Indicators
The criteria used to pick the indicators for each of the sub-domains is that the indicators measure “the social”, the relationship between self-realisation and the collective identity, through the unique property of the sub-domain. The working definition for social cohesion is the strength or weakness of social relations. altruism opportunity
15

RECOMMENDED INDICATORS for SOCIAL COHESION by DOMAINS and
SUB-DOMAINS
DOMAINS
Trust
SUB-DOMAINS
General trust
INDICATORS
Incidence of crimes against property
Institutional trust
Incidence of crime against individuals in public spaces
Use of public space
Notifications to police
Notifications to child, youth and family services
Use of social services
Number of actions addressed to bureaucracy (i.e. letters)
Trust in:
- political parties
- charitable organisations
- church/religious organisations
Personal/domestic trust Turn to family and friends for help
Unintentional child injuries
Receiving voluntary help
Integrative norms Altruism
Reciprocity
Giving voluntary help
Unpaid work
Blood donations
Charity shops
Philanthropic activity
Time and money help from friends
Sharing with friends (skills, services, commodities)
Human rights/justice Percent discriminated population
(foreign workers, refugees, gypsies etc.)
Equal opportunities in access to services
Accessibility to bureaucratic appeal
16

DOMAINS
Solidarity
SUB-DOMAINS
Social networks: personal, community, societal and transnational
INDICATORS
-participating in elections
-participating in social and political organizations
-participating in voluntary organizations
-participating in information networks
-participating in leisure organisations
Contact with neighbors
Social and political activities at the
European level
Intergenerational relations
Social status
Time and money help from family
Contact with extended family
Contact within nuclear family
Sharing with family (skills, services, commodities)
Gini coefficient
Labour market participation
Subjective perceptions of discrimination
Level of discrimination by sex, ethnicity, disability etc.
Rationale of the Indicators
Domain: Trust
For the sub-domain general trust the indicators chosen relate to the relationship between the citizens ability to participate with assurance in the public domain .
For the sub-domain institutional trust the indicators chosen relate to the confidence of the citizen with institutional collectives.
For the sub-domain personal/domestic trust the indicators chosen relate to the level of primary relationships .
Domain: Integrative Norms
For the sub-domain altruism the indicators chosen relate to activities of the citizen of self-realisation participation in the collective .
For the sub-domain reciprocity the indicators chosen relate to the level of interactive relationships on the primary relationship level.
For the sub-domain human rights/justice the indicators chosen relate to the level of normative relationships within the collective .
17

Domain: Solidarity
For the sub-domain social networks the indicators chosen relate to the level of participation in the social networks of the collective .
For the sub-domain intergenerational relations the indicators chosen relate to the level of affinity, opportunity and functional exchange (Beaujot and Ravanera,
2001) within the family .
For the sub-domain social status the indicators chosen relate to the level of relationships to institutions of the collective .
Some considerations
The validity of the indicators should be tested, by linking the indicators to the social quality theoretical point of departure. One should review the indicators of social cohesion to see if there is internal consistency in that they relate to “the social”. A second task is to link the indicators to policy objectives. This means developing indicators of social cohesion for two of Svetlik’s (1999) analytical model of indicators of social quality, input and impact indicators. Input indicators relate to the resources of the collectives in promoting social cohesion, a policy indicator. The impact indicator evaluates the change of the level of social cohesion in the collective as a result of policy implementation.
18

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaluf, M. 1999.
Final Report - Seminar “Demographic trends and the role of social protection: the idea of social cohesion”,
Centre de sociologie du travail, de l'emploi et de la formation (TEF) Brussels. 1999, at http://www.ulb.ac.be/project/tef/cohsocen.html
Amin, a. and J. Tomaney 1995. ‘A framework for cohesion’. In A. Amin and j.
Tomaney eds: Behind the myth of European union, London.
Amsterdam Declaration, 1997 Amsterdam Declaration on the Social Quality of
Europe. at http://www.socialquality.nl/declaration.htm
Beaujot, R. and Ravanera, Z. R. 2001. Family transformation and social cohesion,
Summary, second workshop, 14-15 June 2001. at http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/ftsc/Second%20Workshop%20Summary.PDF
Beck W. and van der Maesen 2003. Some considerations with regard to Yitzhak
Berman’s paper about ‘indicators fopr social cohesion’. Working paper DG12.34.
Amsterdam, European Foundation on Social Quality.
Beck, W. van der Maesen. L. and A. Walker, 1997. ‘Social quality: from issue to concept’ in Beck, W. van der Maesen, L. and A. Walker. (eds) The Social Quality of
Europe. The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pp. 263-297.
Beck, W. van der Maesen, L., Thomese, F. and A. Walker. (eds) Social Quality: A
Vision for Europe. The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
Berger-Schmitt, R. 2000. Social cohesion as an aspect of the qualities of societies: concept and measurement. EUReporting Working Paper No 14. Centre for Survey
Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Social indicators Department. Mannheim/
Berman, Y. and D. Phillips 2000. Indicators of social quality and social exclusion at national and community level, Social Indicators Research, 50/3: 329-350.
Coleman, J. 1988. 'Social capital in the creation of human capital'. American Journal of Sociology 94: (supplement), S95-S120.
Council of Europe 1998. “fighting social exclusion and strengthening social cohesion in Europe”, Recommendation 1355 (1998) of the Parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe, paragraph 15.
European Union, The Maastricht Treaty: Title 1, Common Provisions, Article B. at http://www.uni-mannheim.de/users/ddz/edz/doku/vertrag/engl/m_title1.html
European Union, 1996. First Report of Economic and Social Cohesion 1996,
Luxembourg, p. 14.
19

EUROSTAT, European Commission, The social situation in the European Union .
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001, p.7
Jeannette, M.S. 2000. Social cohesion around the world: an international comparison on definitions and issues. Strategic Research and Analysis (SRA), Strategic Planning and coordination, Department of Canadian Heritage, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Jenson, J. 1998. Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research.
Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.. CPRN Study No. F/03, Ottawa
Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. 2000. Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance,
Urban Studies, 37/ 5-6:995-1017.
Lockwood, D. 1999. 'Civic integration and social cohesion'. Capitalism and Social
Cohesion. eds, I. Gough and G. Olofsson, Basingstoke: Macmillan : 63-83.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays . Cambridge:
CUP.
Phillips, D. 2001. 'Social Capital, Social Cohesion and Social Quality', paper presented at European Sociological Association Conference: Social
Policy Network: Helsinki, August 2001.
Phillips, D. and Y. Berman, 2001. Social quality: definitional, conceptual and operational issues, (pp. 125-145) in Beck, W., van der Maesen, L. and A. Walker,
(eds.) 2001. Social Quality: A Vision for Europe, The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer
Law International.
Policy Research Initiative (PRI) 1999. Government of Canada: Sustaining growth human development and social cohesion in a global world. A report Prepared for the
Policy Research Initiative. at http://www.schoolnet.ca/pri-prp/keydocs/sustain99/index-e.htm
Putnam, R. 1993. 'The prosperous community - social capital and public life'.
American Prospect 13 : , 35-42.
Svetlik, I. 1999. Some conceptual and operational considerations on the Social
Quality of Europe. European Journal of Social Quality 1 : 1/2, 74-89.
Therborn, G.1999, The Unemployment Iceberg:What is Beneath, Behind and
Ahead?. International Journal of Health Services , Vol. 29/ 3:545-563. van der Maesen, L. and A.C. Walker, 2002. Social quality: the theoretical state of affairs. Working Paper, European Foundation on Social Quality, Amsterdam. van der Maesen , L. (2002) social cohesion notes
20

van der Maeson, L. 2002. Social quality, social services and indicators: a new
European perspective?. Presentation at the conference on ‘Indicators and Quality of
Social Services in a European context’. German Observatory for the Development of
Social Services in Europe in Berlin, 16 and 17 October 2002. van der Maesen, L. 2002 Comments on a study by Wolfgang Back: Social cohesion and European policies
Vranken, J. 2001. No social cohesion without social exclusion? Research Unit on
Poverty, Social Exclusion and the City, University of Antwerp. at http://www.shakti.uniurb.it/eurex/syllabus/lecture4/Eurex4-Vranken.pdf
Woolley, F. 1998. Social cohesion and voluntary activity: making connections, paper presented at the CSLS Conference on the State of Living and the Quality of Life of
Canada. Ottawa Canada, October 30-31, 1998. at http://www.csls.ca/oct/wool.pdf
21