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 )

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.