Skip to main content
Log in

Are Informal Connections a Functional Alternative to Associational Life in Enhancing Social Cohesion? Findings from Hong Kong

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article aims to ascertain whether organizational life and informal connections, which made up part of Putnam’s (Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000) Social Capital Index, have separate effects on social cohesion. Postulating that informal gatherings with family and friends might be a functional alternative to associational life, we employed multiple regression analysis to test the hypothesis. The analysis was based on a 2011 territory-wide door-to-door survey in Hong Kong. Controlling for the effects of demographic variables including gender, age, educational level, and employment status, it was found that formal participation in organizations contributed significantly to the explanation in five of the eight subindexes of social cohesion. In contrast, informal connections contributed significantly only to one subindex. The pattern persisted when attitudinal variables such as life satisfaction, social support, and perceived social class were added to the regression analysis. In short, our analysis demonstrated that participation in formal organizations fosters various aspects of social cohesion, and that this effect cannot be replaced by informal gatherings with family and friends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the United States, organizational participation and informal connections were positively correlated, causing Putnam (2000) to include both measures as constituents of the Social Capital Index.

  2. Halpern (2005) reviewed both theoretical and empirical works of social capital and concluded that it has been studied from three dimensions—components (network, norms, and sanctions), functions (bond, bridge, and link), and levels of analysis (interpersonal interactions, community characteristics, and state action).

  3. Membership and participation in associations represent the micro level of social capital, which is the focus of this study. At the meso level, it was claimed that interlocking and overlapping networks of organizations facilitated social cohesion by integrating groups into society. However, results from empirical research are mixed (see Zmerli and Newton 2007).

  4. Moreover, controlling for demographic variations and community sizes, the difference between associational members and non-members persisted across various types of organizations such as cultural, leisure, political, community, etc.

  5. Putnam contended that it is through face-to-face interaction in associations that social capital is created. Contrary to Putnam, studies showed that there is not much difference in generalized trust and civic engagement between passive and active members of associations. However, association members (both active and passive) were more trusting and civically engaged than non-members (Wollebak and Selle 2003).

  6. According to this view, large, impersonal organizations and cyber networks are unable to produce the kind of effect that associational life has on social cohesion.

  7. The comparison draws on the 2000 World Values Survey on belonging to an organization. Within Asia, the percentage of people belonging to organizations was higher in Bangladesh (61.1 %), Republic of Korea (69.1 %), Philippines (52.8 %), Singapore (54.5 %), and Vietnam (68.2 %).

  8. From a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being very close), respondents reported being close to their partners (8.27), children (8.51), parents (8.18), and siblings (7.97).

  9. According to a recent survey on volunteering in Hong Kong, about a quarter of active volunteers found out about volunteering opportunities from friends and classmates. Friends and classmates were also the most common source of volunteering opportunities (Chan and Chan 2011: 31; see also The Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups 2002b).

  10. These groups include: someone from a higher social strata, someone from a lower social strata, someone who has different political views, homosexuals, new immigrants from mainland China, Indians/Pakistanis, someone who once was on welfare, and Europeans/Americans.

  11. Half of the legislature is returned by geographic constituencies selected by universal suffrage. The other half is selected by functional constituencies, devised on the basis of professions.

  12. The factor loadings of the variable judicial system on the two indexes are rather similar, indicating that respondents were ambivalent about the nature of the judiciary. For the sake of conceptual clarity and consistency with a previous study, we grouped judiciary under the justice administration index.

  13. Three percent of respondents engaged in neither formal participation nor informal connections. The classification added up to 99 % due to rounding (34 % formal participation and 62 % informal connection).

  14. Standardized regression coefficients are used rather than the beta values because the purpose of this analysis is to compare the weights of the independent variables on the eight social cohesion subindexes, and not to predict the scores of the subindexes.

  15. For the variable gender, male was coded “1”, female “0”. For the variable economic status, “0” denoted unemployed, “1” employed. The variable age had five categories: (1) 15–19 years old, (2) 20–24, (3) 25–29, (4) 30–39, and (5) 40–44. The variable education had six categories: (1) primary school, (2) lower secondary, (3) upper secondary, (4) matriculated, (5) non-degree tertiary, and (6) university.

  16. Self-perceived social class is a variable that required respondents to place themselves on a scale of 1–10, with 1 denoting the lowest socio-economic class and 10 the highest.

  17. The following five scenarios of social support were included in the index: Whether the respondents received support when they: (1) needed advice to handle crises; (2) needed someone to accompany them to a doctor’s appointment; (3) wanted someone to listen to them; (4) felt deserted and needed support; and (5) wanted someone to do something fun with.

  18. The two questions are: (1) “In general, how satisfied are you with your life?” and (2) “Overall, how much would you say that your life is happy?”.

  19. Both variables range from 1 to 10.

  20. The one exception was its effect on the social involvement subindex (standardized regression coefficient = −0.067).

  21. The one exception was its effect on the reciprocity subindex (standardized regression coefficient = −0.128).

References

  • Battaini-Dragoni, G., & Dominioni, S. (2003). The Council of Europe’s strategy for social cohesion. Paper presented at the conference on social cohesion, organized by the Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, 28–29 November.

  • Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2002). Social cohesion: Updating the state of research. CPRN Discussion Paper No. F/22. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

  • Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000). Social cohesion as an aspect of quality of societies: Concepts and measurement. EuReporting Working Paper No. 14. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology.

  • Bernard, P. (1999/2000). Social cohesion: A dialectical critique of a quasi-concept? SRA-491/CPRN. Ottawa: Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Canadian Heritage.

  • Chan, E. Y. M. (2012). Civil society. In W. M. Lam, P. L. T. Lui, & W. Wong (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong government and politics, expanded (2nd ed., pp. 179–197). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., & Chan, E. (2006). Charting the state of social cohesion in Hong Kong. China Quarterly, 187, 635–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., & Chan, E. (2011). Survey on volunteering in Hong Kong, 2009. Hong Kong: Agency for Volunteer Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, E., & Chan, J. (2012). Social cohesion in a semi-democracy: The case of Hong Kong. In P. Spoonley & E. Tolley (Eds.), Diverse nations, diverse responses: Approaches to social cohesion in immigrant societies (pp. 215–235). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., To, B., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G., & Thirion, S. (2012). Social cohesion and well-being: The Council of Europe’s view. In P. Spoonley & E. Tolley (Eds.), Diverse nations, diverse responses: Approaches to social cohesion in immigrant societies (pp. 269–287). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, I., & Tam, W. (2001). Social capital in Hong Kong. East Asia: An International Quarterly, 19(1/2), 144–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M. (2003). Voluntary associations and democratic attitudes: Value congruence as a causal mechanism. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 89–111). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannotte, M. S. (2000). Social cohesion from around the world: An international comparison of definitions and issues. Paper SRA-309. Ottawa: Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Heritage.

  • Jeannotte, M. S. (2003). Social cohesion: Insights from Canadian research. Paper presented at the conference on social cohesion, organized by the Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Hong Kong, and the Council of Social Service, 28–29 November.

  • Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. CPRN Study No. F/03. Canada: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Inc.

  • Lau, S. K. (1982). Society and politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, L. (2003). Introduction. In L. Osberg (Ed.), The economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 3–18). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzen, J., Easterly, W., & Woolcock, M. (2000). On “good” politicians and “bad” policies: Social cohesion, institutions, and growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2448. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • Rossteutscher, S. (2008). Social capital and civic engagement: A comparative perspective. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 208–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Spoonley, P., & Tolley, E. (Eds.). (2012). Diverse nations, diverse responses: Approaches to social cohesion in immigrant societies. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolle, D., & Rochon, T. R. (2001). Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, & M. Diani (Eds.), Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective (pp. 143–156). New England: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups. (2002a). A study on social capital with regard to social networks, trust and reciprocity. Hong Kong: The Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups Youth Study Series no. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups. (2002b). A study on social capital with regard to giving, volunteering and participating. Hong Kong: The Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups Youth Study Series no. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollebak, D., & Selle, P. (2003). The importance of passive membership for social capital formation. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 67–88). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, R. (1994). Sharing the journey: Support groups and America’s new quest for community. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, R. (1998). Loose connections: Joining together in America’s fragmented communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2007). Networking among voluntary associations: Segmented or integrated? In W. A. Maloney & S. Roßteutscher (Eds.), Social capital and associations in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 153–174). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding of this research came from RGC General Research Fund HKU741209H. The author would also like to thank Joseph Chan and Ian Holliday for commenting on an earlier draft of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Chan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chan, E. Are Informal Connections a Functional Alternative to Associational Life in Enhancing Social Cohesion? Findings from Hong Kong. Soc Indic Res 119, 803–821 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0506-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0506-5

Keywords

Navigation