Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Assessing the Explanatory Power of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 17 September 2010

Abstract

Unlike most studies on social cohesion, this study explores the concept as a real-life macro-level phenomenon. It assesses to what extent the conceptions of social cohesion suggested by several macro-level approaches represent coherent empirically observable forms of social cohesion. Additionally it discusses two perspectives on social cohesion—the universalist and the particularist perspective. The former would expect social cohesion to be related to stages of socio-economic development. The latter hypothesizes enduring, regionally unique regimes of social cohesion resisting the homogenizing pressures of modernization. The paper finds evidence for both perspectives. On the one hand, a syndrome of social cohesion was identified consisting of trust, equality, order (i.e. lack of crime) and consensus on basic values which correlates closely with indicators of socio-economic development. This finding supports the universalist perspective. On the other hand, and consistent with the particularist perspective, the study found regionally unique patterns for Latin America, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We used standardized variables (Z-scores) for these cluster analyses as this ensures that each variable is given equal weight in the analyses.

References

  • Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah, R., Madon, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendix, R. (1964). Nation-building & citizenship: Studies of our changing social order. New York: Barns and Noble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P. (1999). ‘Social cohesion: A critique’. CPRN Discussion Paper No. F/09, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

  • Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., To, H., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2005). Concerted development of social cohesion indicators: Methodological guide. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced quantitative data analysis. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepaz, M., & Damron, R. (2009). Constructing tolerance. How the welfare state shapes attitudes about immigrants. Comparative Political Studies, 42(3), 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, K., & Foltz, W. (1963). Nation-building. New York: Atherton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickes, P., Valentova, M., & Borsenberger, M. (2009). Social cohesion: Measurement based on the data from European value study. Paper presented at the NTTS Seminar (New Techniques and Technologies for Statistics), Brussels, 18–20 January 2009.

  • Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M., & Toth, K. (2008). Does the welfare state increase tolerance of homosexuality? A multilevel model of international differences? . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, Jul 31, 2008.

  • Green, A., Janmaat, J. G., & Han, C. (2009). Regimes of social cohesion, LLAKES Centre Research Paper Series. Available at: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/documents-/LLAKES_Centre_Research_Paper_1.pdf.

  • Green, A., Preston, J., & Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Education, Equality and social cohesion: A comparative analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green, A., Preston, J., & Sabates, R. (2003). Education, equality and social cohesion: a distributional approach. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 33(4), 453–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, W. (1995). The state we’re in. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Civic culture in western and eastern Europe. European Journal of Sociology, 17(3), 363–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5–6), 995–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, H. (1944). The idea of nationalism. A study in its origins and background. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, H. (1994). Western and eastern nationalism. In John. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith (Eds.), Nationalism (pp. 162–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets, S. (1955). “Economic growth and income inequality”, AER.

  • Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 21(1), 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, M. (1970). The social cohesion of liberal democracy. American Sociological Review, 35(3), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. (1996). Social dimensions of economic growth: Eric Journal Hansen Memorial Lecture, 25 January, University of Alberta.

  • Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Social cohesion and embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 68, 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, K. (1999). Social and political trust in established democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens (pp. 169–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1970). The social system. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pye, L. W., & Verba, S. (1963). Political culture and political development. Princeton: Princeton UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajulton, F., Ravenera, Z., & Beaujot, R. (2007). Measuring social cohesion: And experiment using the Canadian national survey of giving volunteering and participating. Social Indicators Research, 80, 461–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1969). Studies in British politics (2nd ed.). London: Mac- millan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R., Mishler, W., & Haerpfer, C. (1997). Social capital in civic and stressful societies. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32(3), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostow, W. (1960). The stages of economic growth. London: Cambridge UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoepflin, G. (2000). Nations, identity, power. London: Hurst & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolar, A. (1996). From opposition to atomization. Journal of Democracy, 7(1), 24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2001). World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Andy Green and the anonymous reviewer of this journal for their helpful and detailed comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK

    Jan Germen Janmaat

Authors
  1. Jan Germen Janmaat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Germen Janmaat.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9707-3

Appendices

Appendix 1. Composition of Social Cohesion Indicators

Items composing the civic participation indicator:

“Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organizations and activities and say which, if any, you belong to:”

  • social welfare for elderly, handicapped or deprived people;

  • religious or church organizations;

  • education, arts, music or cultural activities;

  • trade unions;

  • political parties;

  • third world development or human rights;

  • conservation, environment, animal rights groups;

  • professional associations;

  • youth work;

A not mentioned;

B mentioned

Active civic participation: Respondents were also asked whether they did voluntary work for these nine different organizations.

Table 6 The composition of the religious-secular and survival-selfexpression dimensions
Full size table

Appendix 2. Additional Social Cohesion Indicators Drawn From WVS

Respect for parents:

“Which of the two statements do you tend to agree with? <A—regardless of what the qualities and faults of ones parents are, one must always love and respect them; B—One does not have the duty to respect and love parents who have not earned it by their behaviour and attitudes”

Items composing Materialism-Postmaterialism index*:

  • Maintaining order in the nation (−)

  • Giving people more say in the decisions of the government (+)

  • Fight rising prices (−)

  • Protect freedom of speech (+)

*Postmaterialism = positive pole; a minus indicates that the item is negatively correlated with the index, a plus indicates a positive correlation

See Inglehart (1990) for a full description.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janmaat, J.G. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Assessing the Explanatory Power of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives. Soc Indic Res 100, 61–83 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9604-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9604-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation