Transcript Integration, social cohesion and social capital: complex

Integration, social cohesion
and social capital:
complex links and relations
Maarten Van Craen, Kris Vancluysen & Johan Ackaert
International Conference on Theoretical
Perspectives on Social Cohesion and Social
Capital
(Brussels, May 15 2008)
The concept of integration
• Essentially Contested Concept (Gallie, 1953)
 multidimensionality
- Veenman (1994): participation vs. orientation
- Esser (2004): system integration vs social
integration (culturation, placement,
interaction, identification)
- Dagevos & Schellingerhout (2003): structural
vs social-cultural dimension
- Choenni (1992): structural, social-cultural and
political dimension
The concept of integration: synthesis
The concept of social cohesion
• Divergent meanings
– Bourdieu (1893): organic solidarity vs
mechanical solidarity
– Woolley (1998): absence of social exclusion,
frequency of social interaction, shared values
– Jenson (1998): belonging, inclusion,
participation, recognition and legitimacy
– Forrest & Kearns (2001): common values and
objectives, social order, social solidarity, social
networks, sense of attachment to place and
identity.
–…
Integration vs. social cohesion
• Overlap in many elaborations/definitions
• Sometimes terms would appear to be
synonymous
 Clarity by giving the term ‘social
cohesion’ a specific content and fitting it
into our conceptual integration-framework
Integration vs. social cohesion
Questions
1. What is the relationship between social
capital and (the other subdimensions of)
social-cultural integration ?
2. What is the relationship between social
capital and three aspects of social
cohesion (mutual perception,
discrimination, trust) ?
3. Does integration create social cohesion?
Social capital
Putnam (2000), Bowling Alone:
• Aggregate and individual level
• Formal organisations and informal contacts
and relations
• Bonding vs. bridging social capital
– Bonding: contacts within homogeneous groups
– Bridging: contacts within heterogeneous groups
Useful in research about ethnic-cultural minorities
Data
• 740 standardized face-to-face interviews
• People with Turkish background: 265
• People with Moroccan background: 191
• Native Belgians living in less prosperous
neighbourhoods: 284
• Period: March-May 2006
• Where? Genk & Houthalen-Helchteren (B)
(two former coal mine communes with large
immigrant population)
Operationalization social capital
• Formal social capital
– Associational membership
• Turkish/Moroccan associations (bonding)
• Associations at least ½ majority group (bridging)
• Informal social capital
– How many friends:
• Turkish/Moroccan community (bonding)
• native Belgians (bridging)
– Frequency of chatting with neighbours:
• Turkish/Moroccan background (bonding)
• native Belgians (bridging)
1. Social capital vs. social-cultural integration
• Language competence/use
– Bridging social capital: positive effect
 Probably mutually reinforcing
• Value orientations: Gender roles
– more bridging social capital  less
traditional attitudes
 Probably mutually reinforcing
1. Social capital vs. social-cultural integration
• Strength host-country identity
– Bridging social capital: positive effect
– Bonding social capital: no effect
2. Social capital vs. social cohesion
• Mutual perception
– Bridging social capital: effect on three
out of nine given characteristics
 Native Belgians perceived as:
more ‘helpful’ / more ‘tolerant’ / less ‘racist’
• Discrimination
– Bridging social capital: positive impact
on (the reporting of) discrimination
experiences.
2. Social capital vs. social cohesion
• Trust
– By immigrants in local government
– Bridging social capital: no effect
– Bonding social capital: negative effect
Conclusion: Social capital is an important
but complex factor in the process of
integration and does not necessarily
generate more social cohesion.
3.Does integration create social cohesion?
• Different integration process T/M
– People with Turkish background…
• Are more strongly directed to ‘their own’ media
• Have more ‘bonding social capital’
• Use more frequently their mother tongue
– People with Moroccan background…
•
•
•
•
More often speak the majority language (Dutch)
Participate more in indigenous associational life
Have a more positive image of het majority group
Feel more ‘Belgian’
3.Does integration create social cohesion?
Different integration process T/M
Different attitudes towards the two minority
groups?
Expectation: M more positive than T
Results: T more positive than M
= paradox of integration
Conclusion
• Reducing the distance between
members of the immigrant and
majority communities on certain
subdimensions of social-cultural
integration does not automatically
lead to greater social cohesion.