Biography Hans Schmeets is senior researcher at Statistics Netherlands (Division of Social and Spatial Statistics, Heerlen) and professor at the University of Maastricht (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, department Political Studies). He is currently programme manager of the new spearhead on Social Cohesion at Statistics Netherlands. His main research interests are various aspects of the quality of life, elections, survey methodology and ethnic minorities. He is member of the advisory board of the Foundation Election Studies in the Netherlands (SKON). Moreover, he has a long-standing work relation with international organisations in the field of democratization – under which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CE) – and has been participated in over 40 Election Observation Missions (EOMs) in the capacity of statistical/election analyst.

Social cohesion: an integrated empirical approach Hans Schmeets Statistics Netherlands / University of Maastricht Brussels, 2007, May 15

Outline Introduction Social Statistical Database Data sources and results Conclusions and discussion

Introduction Social cohesion Social participation Civic participation Political participation Trust and networks (social capital) Integration (natives and ethnic minority groups) Statistics Netherlands: no tradition in statistics on ‘social cohesion’ or ‘social capital’ However, social cohesion: Spearhead in 2009-2013; Statistics on aspects of social cohesion; Social Statistical Database; Redesign of surveys: survey-module on social cohesion

Social Statistical Database

Register Data (population) Gender, age, country of origin Income Degree of urbanization Municipality Unemployed Social benefits Neighborhood characteristics Composition, e.g. % ethnic minorities Real Estate Value of houses % unemployed % social benefits Etc, etc.,

Surveys used for social cohesion Name Abbreviation Data collection N (per year) Interview-mode Permanent Survey on Living Conditions POLS 1997 – 2007 25,000 face-to-face Labor Force Survey LFS 2001 – 2007 100,000 telephone EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions EU_SILC 2005 – 2007 9,000 Security Monitor VM 2005 – 2008 15,000 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study DPES 2006 2,800 paper & pencil Survey on Integration of Ethnic Minorities SIM 5,000

Permanent Survey on Living Conditions Social contacts 1997 - 2007, persons aged 12+, % 1997 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 Contacts with relatives once a week or more 82 83 85 86 87 two times a month 9 8 7 6 once a month 5 4 3 < once a month 2 seldom or never 1 Contacts with friends and acquaintances 77 79 80 81 11 10

Permanent Survey on Living Conditions Volunteering work in the last 12 months before interview, 2007, % Youth work 4 School organisation 9 Care organisation 8 Sports club 13 Hobby club 5 Culture club Religious organisation Trade union 2 Political organisation 1 Social/justice Housing Neighborhood Other organisation 6 Total (at least one) 44

Permanent Survey on Living Conditions Volunteering work in the last 12 months before interview, 1997-2007, % (at least one organization) 1997 46 1998 44 1999 45 2000 2001 43 2002 42 2003 2004 Telephone (CATI) 54 2006 Telephone (CATI) 2007* * question slightly changed

2001 – 2007, (without period specification), % Labor Force Survey Volunteering work 2001 – 2007, (without period specification), %

Volunteering work (at least one) Labor Force Survey Volunteering work (at least one) 2001 – 2007, % (without period specification)

EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Participation activities for organisations 2006, in last 12 months, % Church, mosk, or religious group 13 Charitable organisation 28 Political party or trade union 4 Professional organisation 12 Action group 2 Recreational group in neighborhood 9 Other organisation Total (participation at least one organisation) 49

EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Cultural participation and social contacts 2006, % Going to the cinema (at least once a year) 45 Going to live performances (at least once a year) 52 Visiting a museum, cultural site (at least once a year) 49 Attending live sports event (at least once a year) 40 Getting together with relatives (at least once a week) Other contacts with relatives (at least once a week) 74 Getting together with friends (at least once a week) 56 Other contacts with friends (at least once a week) 64 Ability to ask any relative, friend, or neigbour for help 98 Membership sports club, hobby club, cultural club 47

‘Social cohesion’ in neighborhood Security Monitor ‘Social cohesion’ in neighborhood 2005 – 2008, % (fully) agree 2005 2006 2007 2008 Many contacts with direct neighbors 62 64 65 Many contacts with other persons in neighborhood 45 47 48 Persons are going along with each other in a nice manner 83 84 85 86 Pleasant neighborhood with a lot of solidarity 59 58 Persons hardly know each other 21 20 Comfortable with the persons in this neighborhood 77 78 79 If there is any chance, move from this neighborhood 12 Satisfied with composition of the population

Security Monitor + register data ‘Social cohesion’ in neighborhood by % non-Western ethnic minorities 2005 – 2007, % (fully) agree <5 5-10 10-25 25-50 >50 Many contacts with direct neighbors 71 64 61 57 54 Many contacts with other persons in neighborhood 55 45 41 38 36 Persons are going along with each other in a nice manner 91 86 81 72 65 Pleasant neighborhood with a lot of solidarity 66 51 42 Persons hardly know each other 13 25 30 Comfortable with the persons in this neighborhood 84 77 73 If there is any chance, move from this neighborhood 8 12 16 22 29 Satisfied with composition of the population 87 68 58

Security Monitor + register data ‘Persons are going along with each other in a nice manner’ by % non-Western ethnic minorities in neighborhood 2005-2007, % (fully) agree Country of origine <5 5-10 10-25 25-50 >50 Non-western ethnic minority 87 81 79 74 71 Western ethnic minority 89 86 77 67 Dutch (native population) 91 59

Survey on Integration of ethnic Minorities ‘Persons are going along with each other in a nice manner’ by % non-Western ethnic minorities in neighborhood 2006, % (fully) agree Country of origine <5 5-10 10-25 25-50 >50 Morocco 88 87 76 73 Turkey 85 83 75 70 Dutch Antillean 81 78 68 66 Suriname 84 69 Dutch (native population) 86 82 72 -

Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2006 + register data (2002-2005) Trust and income household, % Low Higher General trust (most people) 39 62 Churches 43 41 Army 60 58 Judges 70 Press 31 33 Police 73 Parliament 45 Civil servants 40 37 Big companies 32 35 European Union NATO 44 56

Conclusions and discussion Statistics Netherlands: no evidence that social cohesion is declining in the Netherlands. However: no tradition in Statistics on Social Cohesion; information on political participation and trust is rather limited; no information on networks. Although: large scale surveys on aspects of social cohesion, in particular on social and civic participation; register data which are linked to the surveys in the Social Statistical Database; many research questions can be tackled, on aspects of social cohesion: cross-sectional and longitudinal.

Conclusions and discussion How to proceed? Analyzing the current data sources from the perspective of research questions on social cohesion? Which research questions? How to analyze? (e.g. multi-level) Development of a survey-module on social cohesion to be included in the re-design of the surveys (from 2010 onwards)? Cross-section or panel design? Network approach? Interview-mode (Face-to-Face? Telephone? Mixed?) Sample size? Concepts and operationalization?