1. 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.

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

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

4. 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 ;
Statistics on aspects of social cohesion;
Social Statistical Database;
Redesign of surveys: survey-module on social cohesion

5. Social Statistical Database

6. 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.,

7. 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

8. Permanent Survey on Living Conditions
Social contacts
, 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

9. 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

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

11. 2001 – 2007, (without period specification), %
Labor Force Survey
Volunteering work
2001 – 2007, (without period specification), %

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. ‘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

16. 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

17. Security Monitor + register data
‘Persons are going along with each other in a nice manner’
by % non-Western ethnic minorities in neighborhood
, % (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

18. 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 -

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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?