Social Cohesion: Measurement
Based on the Data from European
Value Study
Paul Dickes,
Marie Valentova,
Monique Borsenberger
CEPS/Instead, Luxembourg
General outlines of the paper
• Aims:
– To test empirically validity of the Bernard’s definition of social
cohesion.
– To construct a measurement/s of social cohesion using micro-level
data.
• Data:
– European Value Study (EVS) 1999, representative sample of the
Luxembourgish population, N=1211 individuals aged 18 years and
older.
– EVS contains a great number of subjective and objective items that
measure attitudes toward and behaviour regarding social relations,
participation, and trust at many levels of social reality as well as in
many spheres of everyday life, which more or less correspond to
dimensions of social cohesion covered by the Bernard’s theory.
• Methodology:
– Multidimensional scaling, Confirmatory factor analysis.
Theoretical framework: Bernard’s integrated conceptual
scheme of social cohesion
Sphere
Nature of relations
Formal / attitudinal
Substantial / behavioural
Economic
Case A
Insertion/exclusion
Case D:
Equality/inequality
Political
Case B:
Legitimacy/illegitimacy
Case E:
Participation/passivity
Socio-cultural
Case C:
Acceptance/rejection
Case F:
Affiliation/isolation
Operationalization: 18 indicators of social cohesion
based on the EVS data
Relations
Sphere
Economic
Political
Socio- cultural
Formal/ attitudinal
IN01 income insertion
IN02 Confidence in national distributive
systems
IN03 Confidence in national
organizations
IN04 Confidence in authority institutions
IN05 Political adherence
IN06 Intended voting participation
IN07 Proximal solidarity
IN08 Vulnerable people solidarity
IN09 Family solidarity
IN10 Intention of solidarity
Substantial/behavioural
IN11 Participation in legal political
activities
IN12 Participation in illegal
political activities
IN13 Political interest
IN14 Involvement in social
activities/associations
IN15 Involvement in political
activities/ associations
IN16 Involvement in cultural
activities/associations
IN17 Involvement in youth and
leisure activities/associations
IN18 Intensity of social relations
MDS: Multidimensional representation of
the 18 social cohesion indicators
Political
participation
Solidarity
Insertion
FORMAL
SUBSTANTIAL
Trust
Social participation
Model 1: six oblique latent factors
IN07
.53
IN08
.38
IN09
.90
IN10
.57
IN01
.91
.68
.79
solidarity
.32
.66
.17
IN02
.48
IN03
.30
IN04
.71
IN05
.54
IN06
.75
IN13
.30
IN11
.43
IN12
.82
IN14
.68
.72
.84
trust
.47
.40
.24
.48
political
interest
.50
.84
.28
-.19
political
participation
.68
.59
.56
involvment
organisations
.47
IN15
.78
IN16
.57
IN17
.66
IN18
.48
.66
social
relationship
.58
.72
Model 2: Hierarchical representation with
two correlated second-order factors
IN07
.53
IN08
.39
IN09
.90
IN10
.56
IN01
.91
.69
.78
solidarity
.32
.66
.17
.87
IN02
.49
IN03
.29
IN04
.72
IN05
.54
IN06
.75
IN13
.31
IN11
.40
IN12
.67
IN14
.68
.72
FORMAL
.32
.84
trust
.49
.40
.23
.40
.48
political
interest
.50
.84
r=0.34
-.21
.28
.24
political
participation
.71
.58
.16
.56
SUBSTANTIAL
.98
involvment
organisations
.47
IN15
.78
IN16
.57
IN17
.56
IN18
.60
.65
.45
social
relationship
.66
.63
Model 3: Hierarchical representation with
two orthogonal second-order factors
IN07
.52
IN08
.40
IN09
.89
IN10
.57
IN01
.92
.69
.78
solidarity
.32
.66
.17
.88
IN02
.49
IN03
.29
IN04
.72
IN05
.54
IN06
.75
IN13
.32
IN11
.40
IN12
.67
IN14
.68
IN15
.79
IN16
.57
IN17
.60
IN18
.56
.72
FORMAL
.32
.84
trust
.49
.40
.23
.45
.48
political
interest
.50
.82
-.21
.26
.28
political
participation
.71
.58
.33
.57
SUBSTANTIAL
.65
involvment
organisations
.46
.66
.68
social
relationship
.63
.66
Model 4: Hierarchical representation with
one second-order factor
IN07
.53
IN08
.38
IN09
.90
IN10
.57
IN01
.91
.68
.79
solidarity
.32
.66
.16
.61
IN02
.50
IN03
.27
IN04
.73
IN05
.53
IN06
.74
IN13
.33
IN11
.40
IN12
.66
IN14
.68
.71
.85
trust
.49
.39
;30
.24
.49
.51
political
interest
.82
;64
COHESION
.27
-.19
.59
political
participation
.68
.59
.15
.57
.31
involvment
organisations
.45
IN15
.80
IN16
.56
IN17
.72
IN18
.37
.66
social
relationship
.58
.72
Concluding remarks
• Conclusions:
– The results of multidimensional scaling reveal that Bernard’s conceptualisation
of social cohesion can be confirmed.
– Using confirmatory factor analysis, we estimated four distinctive adequate
models: These four models allow us to calculate different factor scores of
social cohesion, which can be used to answer different research questions and
compare different population subgroups.
• Comments:
– The indicators do not cover perfectly all dimensions of Bernard’s integral
theoretical scheme. Due to the data restrictions, we used only one indicator
to cover formal economic sphere and none for the substantial dimension of
economic sphere.
– All these above proposed measurements of social cohesion are issued from
the data of one country collected at one point in time. It is necessary that in
the future the above described measurement sof social cohesion could be
replicated on the 2008 EVS data set and thus cross-validated across time and
across countries.