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.