6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ DV DQ $VSHFW RI WKH 4XDOLW\ RI 6RFLHWLHV &RQFHSW DQG 0HDVXUHPHQW Regina Berger-Schmitt EuReporting Working Paper No. 14 7RZDUGV D (XURSHDQ 6\VWHP RI 6RFLDO 5HSRUWLQJ DQG :HOIDUH 0HDVXUHPHQW A TSER-Project Financed by the European Commission Subproject (XURSHDQ 6\VWHP RI 6RFLDO ,QGLFDWRUV Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) Social Indicators Department Mannheim 2000 2 ,QWURGXFWLRQ Since about thirty years quality of life as a central societal goal has guided national policy. The concept of quality of life replaced the idea of wealth as the then dominant goal of societal development. The very broad and multidimensional notion of quality of life enlarged the perspective of societal development by considering not only economic aspects but also social and ecological concerns. Nowadays, the concept of quality of life is probably the most prominent and widely used theoretical framework for assessing the living conditions in a society. As regards the empirical operationalisation of quality of life one can distinguish various approaches which reveal different notions of the concept and thus highlight different components as relevant. But a common feature of all empirical approaches is the focus on the individual. They are based on a conceptualisation of quality of life as concerning individual characteristics. In opposition to this individuum-centred perspective of societal development, several other welfare concepts emerged during the last 10 to 15 years which put the focus on aspects concerning societal qualities such as the extent of equality, security or freedom or the quality and structure of the social relations within a society. Among those welfare concepts referring to characteristics of societies are for example "sustainability", "social quality" or "social cohesion". Besides the model of sustainable development, especially the idea of the social cohesion of a society received great political attention at the national and supranational level. At the national level for example the Canadian Government and the British Liberal Party have been concerned with issues of social cohesion. At the supranational level the European Commission has strongly emphasised the economic and social cohesion of the European Union as a main policy goal. Corresponding to the great interest at the political level much conceptual and empirical research on social cohesion has been undertaken. Referring to these developments, the present paper is serving two purposes. First, an attempt is made to clarify the meaning of the concept of social cohesion and to determine its inherent dimensions by reviewing the existing theoretical approaches to this issue. This includes a reflection of the relationship to the concept of quality of life by discussing the question whether conflicting, supplementary or identical societal goals are addressed by the two concepts. Second, a proposal to operationalise and to measure social cohesion is presented. The suggestions refer to the efforts made in the framework of a research project whose objective is to develop a European System of Social Indicators. Based on the conceptual considerations outlined in the first part of the paper, measurement dimensions of social cohesion are derived and appropriate indicators are exemplarily defined and quantified for the EU member states and several other countries. 7KH &RQFHSW RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ Social Cohesion is viewed as a characteristic of a society dealing with the connections and relations between societal units such as individuals, groups, associations as well as territorial units (McCracken 1998). The sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first who used the concept of social cohesion. He considered social cohesion as an ordering feature of a 1 This part of the paper has been mainly drawn from Berger-Schmitt/Noll (2000) 3 society and defined it as the interdependence between the members of the society, shared loyalties and solidarity (Jenson 1998b). Aspects often mentioned in describing social cohesion are the strength of social relations, shared values and communities of interpretation, feelings of a common identity and a sense of belonging to the same community, trust among societal members as well as the extent of inequality and disparities (Woolley 1998, Jenson 1998b). The Social Cohesion Network of the Policy Research Initiative of the Canadian Government defined social cohesion as "the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians" (PRI 1999, p. 22). 'LPHQVLRQV RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ There have been various efforts to determine the dimensions of social cohesion. Collaboratively, the Canadian Policy Research Networks and the Policy Research Initiative of the Canadian Government, explored the dimensions of social cohesion as indicated in four policy documents of the Canadian Government, the French Government, the OECD, and the Club of Rome. Five dimensions were identified (Jenson 1998b, p. 15ff.): - Belonging ­ Isolation which means shared values, identity, feelings of commitment - Inclusion ­ Exclusion which concerns equal opportunities of access - Participation ­ Non-Involvement - Recognition ­ Rejection which addresses the issue of respecting and tolerating differences in a pluralist society; this aspect was emphasised in the document of the Club of Rome (s. Berger 1998) - Legitimacy ­ Illegitimacy with respect to the institutions acting as a mediator in conflicts of a pluralist society Another effort of "mapping social cohesion" resulted in three categories of issues covered by the concept (O' Connor 1998, p. 2): - ties that bind, such as values, identity, culture - differences and divisions: inequalities and inequities, cultural diversity, geographical divisions - social glue which refers to associations and networks, infrastructure, values and identity Furthermore, several implicit propositions on the dimensions of social cohesion can be extracted from descriptions of the concept and of empirical results. Similar to the three categories listed above, Woolley has distinguished three ways to define social cohesion (Woolley 1998, p. 2-5): - as absence of social exclusion, - as interactions and connections based on social capital - as shared values and communities of interpretation based on group identity. A definition of social cohesion by relating it to the concepts of social exclusion/inclusion and of social capital has also been presented by other authors. For example Dahrendorf et al. described a social cohesive society as a society preventing social exclusion: "Social 4 cohesion comes in to describe a society which offers opportunities to all its members within a framework of accepted values and institutions. Such a society is therefore one of inclusion. People belong; they are not allowed to be excluded" (Dahrendorf et al. 1995, p. vii). Other scientists have emphasised that the social capital of a society is an essential foundation of its social cohesion (McCracken 1998; Maxwell 1996). From the review of the various approaches I have drawn the conclusion that the concept of social cohesion incorporates mainly two societal goal dimensions which can be analytically distinguished: (1) The first dimension concerns the reduction of disparities, inequalities, and social exclusion. (2) The second dimension concerns the strengthening of social relations, interactions and ties. This dimension embraces all aspects which are generally also considered as the social capital of a society. The two dimensions must be viewed as independent from each other to a certain degree. In principle, strong ties within a community can be accompanied by the tendency to discriminate and exclude those people who do not belong to that community (s. for example Narayan 1999, p. 8). The issue of a strong social cohesion within a community which itself is exclusive has lead to the question "Can social cohesion be a threat to social cohesion?" (Jenson 1998a, p. 4). This problem highlights the importance of considering ERWK dimensions - disparities/inequalities/social exclusion DQG social relations/ties/social capital - in order to get a comprehensive picture of the social cohesion of a society. 6RFLDO ([FOXVLRQ As described above, the conceptualisation of social cohesion proposed in the present paper conceives social exclusion as one aspect of the first dimension of social cohesion. Social exclusion represents a further concept which has become more and more popular during the last decade. In recent years, it has increasingly attracted attention in scientific and socio-political discussions on actual social concerns. The popularity of the concept was especially promoted through the growing interest in matters of social exclusion at the level of the European Union. The European Commission launched a series of research programmes in the framework of the European Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion and of the European Poverty Programmes. By the increasing research on social exclusion older terms of poor living conditions such as poverty or deprivation have been replaced to some extent. The term social exclusion has often been used in the sense of a multidimensional notion of poverty. This leads to the question of how to define social exclusion and how to contrast the term from the notion of poverty. The origin of the concept of social exclusion can be traced back to France, where the term was used in the context of debates on a new poverty and defined as a rupture of the relationship between the individual and the society due to the failure of societal institutions to integrate individuals (Silver 1994; Rodgers/Gore/Figueiredo 1995; de Haan 1999). The researchers of the European Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion and of the European Poverty 3 Programme implicitly relied on this meaning of social exclusion as they defined it in terms of the denial of citizenship rights - civil, political and social rights - which major societal institutions should guarantee. They 5 suggested, that social exclusion should be conceptualised as the insufficiency of one ore more of the following four systems: - "the democratic and legal system which promote civic integration - the labour market which promotes economic integration - the welfare state system promoting what may be called social integration - the family and community system which promotes interpersonal integration" (Berghman 1998, p. 258-259). While the French social exclusion approach focuses on relational issues, that is to say on the disruption of social ties between the individual and the society, poverty represents a concept of the Anglo-Saxon research tradition with a focus on distributional issues, that is to say on the lack of resources at the disposal of individuals or households (Room 1995; Room 1998; de Haan 1999). Thus poverty may be regarded as a characteristic of individuals and households whereas social exclusion may be conceived as a feature of societies and of the individuals' relations to society. In contrast to this position are the considerations made in the framework of a research project on "Patterns and Causes of Social Exclusion" launched by the International Institute of Labour Studies and the United Nations Development Programme in 1993. The researchers argued that social exclusion can be regarded both as a property of societies and as an attribute of individuals (Gore/Figueiredo 1997; IILS 1998). As an individual attribute it is defined as a low level of welfare (economic disadvantage) and the inability to participate in social life (socio- political disadvantage). This perspective equals social exclusion to a multidimensional notion of poverty which describes a state or an outcome of a process. As a societal characteristic the term social exclusion refers to the impairment of social cohesion caused by the way in which institutions regulate and thereby constrain access to goods, services, activities and resources which are generally associated with citizenship rights. This view focuses attention to the processes of social exclusion and its causes which are attributed to the failure of institutions (Gaudier 1993). The conclusion arising out of these considerations is the requirement to differentiate between the causes of disadvantageous living circumstances and the processes leading to them on the one side and the outcomes of those processes themselves, that is people's living situation. The causes may be attributed to societal institutions and can then be described by the concept of social exclusion as a property of societies. The impact of social exclusion on people is observable in the form of poor living conditions. In this sense social exclusion represents a characteristic of individuals and corresponds to the concept of poverty in a multidimensional notion. 6RFLDO &DSLWDO The conceptualisation of social cohesion as it is proposed here considers social capital as representing a second main dimension which may be used to describe the social cohesion of a society. The concept of social capital covers topics like the density and quality of relationships and interactions between individuals or groups, their mutual feelings of commitment and trust due to common values and norms, a sense of belonging and solidarity which are supposed to be the fundamentals of the internal social coherence of a society (McCracken 1998, Woolley 1998; Jenson 1998b; O' Connor 1998). "The social capital of a society includes the institutions, the relationships, the attitudes and values that 6 govern interactions among people and contribute to economic and social development. Social capital, however, is not simply the sum of the institutions which underpin society, it is also the glue that holds them together. It includes the shared values and rules for social conduct expressed in personal relationships, trust, and a common sense of "civic" responsibility, that makes society more than a collection of individuals. Without a degree of common identification with forms of governance, cultural norms, and social rules, it is difficult to imagine a functioning society" (Social Capital Initiative 1998, p. 1). There are various theoretical approaches and perspectives of social capital which use a more or less narrow concept. But they all have in common that they regard social capital as a property of a social entity and not of an individual. It is a relational concept, it presupposes a social relation and exists only as far as it is shared by several individuals. Therefore, it cannot be the private property of a single person, but has the character of a public good (Grootaert 1998; Immerfall 1999; Narayan 1999). A rather narrow concept of social capital is used by Robert Putnam (Putnam/Leonardi/Nanetti 1993; Putnam 1995), one of the most prominent author in this field of research. He defines social capital as a set of "horizontal associations" between people, as "networks of civic engagement" which mediate norms and operation rules of society and generate and reinforce trust in the credibility of these rules and in social relationships (O' Connor 1998; Hjerppe 1999; Social Capital Initiative 1998). In this sense social capital is defined as "features of social organisation, such as networks, norms and trust, that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit" (Putnam 1993, p. 36, cited in Rossing Feldman/Assaf 1999, p. 30). A more general conception of social capital, which also covers vertical associations, has been used by Coleman. He defines social capital as "a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actors - whether personal or corporate actors - within the structure" (Coleman 1988, p. 598, cited in Social Capital Initiative 1998, p. 2). The third, most comprehensive perspective is hold by North (1990). He also includes formalised relations and structures of macro-institutions, such as the political regime or the legal and judicial systems (Social Capital Initiative 1998, p. 2; Rossing Feldman/Assaf 1999, p. 2) Corresponding to these different scopes of the concept, a distinction between three levels of manifestation of the concept has been made (Immerfall 1999, p. 121-122): - the level of interpersonal relations, such as family, friends, neighbours - the level of intermediary associations and organisations, such as clubs, firms, political parties - the macro-level of societal institutions In a similar way Narayan (1999) differentiates between (1) the social capital within primary groups which he labels "bonding" capital, (2) the cross-cutting ties, that is the linkages between social groups which are calls "bridging" social capital, and (3) the functioning of the formal institutions of the state. Social capital is not only considered to be an essential basis for the social cohesion of a society, but at the same time as a main component of the wealth of a nation and as an important determinant of economic growth, besides physical, human and environmental capital (Jenson 1998b; Hardi/Barg 1997; Hjerppe 1999, Grootaert 1998; Wiman 1999). 7 This view is empirically supported by results showing a relation between the social capital of a society and its economic well-being (for example the studies of Putnam 1993; Knack and Keefer 1997, and Shleifer 1997). Furthermore, there are also investigations pointing to the improvement of other dimensions of welfare such as education, health, rates of crime, and the environment (Coleman 1988; O' Connor 1998; Rossing Feldman/Assaf 1999). 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ DQG 4XDOLW\ RI /LIH The concepts of social cohesion and quality of life are related to each other in multiple regards. There are at least three ways of thinking about the relationship between the two concepts. First of all one has to take into consideration that although social cohesion represents an attribute of a society it ultimately rests on the behaviour, attitudes and evaluations of its members, too. Social cohesion is based on social capital which is also created by social relations and ties established, maintained and experienced by individuals. Thus, looking at the social cohesion of a society involves aspects which are part of the individual life situation and in this sense components of the individual quality of life. Secondly, elements of the social cohesion of a society may have a direct impact on individual quality of life. Empirical examples are the above cited results on the influence of social capital on economic and other dimensions of welfare. At a conceptual level, the perspective of social exclusion as a process rooting in the malfunction of societal institutions and resulting in a deprived living situation of the individual is another example. Thirdly, one can take the point of view that the social cohesion of a society affects the individual quality of life anyway. Social cohesion can be conceived as a societal quality which is experienced by individuals in their daily lives, for example in the form of the perceived inequality or the social climate at the working place, at school or in the neighbourhood, and thus also refers to the individual quality of life. This perspective considers elements of the social cohesion of a society to form an integral part of the quality of life of the individuals belonging to that society. Such a position, which is supported here, advocates a broad conceptualisation of quality of life encompassing not only individual characteristics of the life situation but also societal qualities. In this sense, quality of life represents the common overarching policy goal with social cohesion as an important component to be addressed. 7KH 0HDVXUHPHQW RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ ([DPSOHV IRU 'LPHQVLRQV DQG ,QGLFDWRUV LQ WKH )UDPHZRUN RI D (XURSHDQ 6\VWHP RI 6RFLDO ,QGLFDWRUV The concept of social cohesion will be operationalised and measured in the context of a European System of Social Indicators (EUSI) which is going to be developed in the framework of a current European research project2 . This indicators system considers dimensions of social cohesion across a wide range of life domains3 . As explained above, we distinguish between two principle goal dimensions of social cohesion: 2 The project bears the title "Towards a European System of Social Reporting and Welfare Measurement" (EuReporting) and is funded by the European Commission from March 1998 until February 2001. The development of a European System of Social Indicators is the objective of a subproject located at the Social Indicators Department of the Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Mannheim, Germany. The subproject is directed by Heinz-Herbert Noll, the head of the Social Indicators Department. 3 Besides dimensions of social cohesion, dimensions of quality of life and of sustainability are covered by the indicators system. See Berger-Schmitt/Noll 2000 8 (1) Reducing disparities, inequalities, and social exclusion within a society. Within this first dimension the following issues can be distinguished: - regional disparities - equal opportunities of/ inequalities between - women and men - generations - social strata - disabled - citizenship groups - social exclusion (2) Strengthening the social capital of a society. From the previous discussion of the concept the following aspects have been identified as relevant: - availability of social relations - social and political activities and engagement - quality of social relations - quality of societal institutions - furthermore, European-specific concerns, that is aspects of the social cohesion EHWZHHQ European countries will be considered These dimensions have been operationalised for various life domains. The European System of Social Indicators distinguishes between a total of fourteen life domains. Within each domain the two principal goal dimensions of social cohesion with the aspects listed above have been operationalised, as far as they are meaningful for the respective domain. The operationalisation of the dimensions in the different domains is presented in the following tables (tables 1 and 2). Concerning the first goal dimension - reduction of disparities, inequalities and social exclusion - measurement dimensions for the various aspects can be derived for nearly all domains (table 1). Regional disparities are taken into account for example with respect to access to transport, leisure and cultural facilities, educational and health care institutions, employment opportunities or the state of the environment. Issues of equal opportunities/ inequalities are considered for many domains and population groups. Examples are gender inequalities in the engagement in housework and childcare, political participation or employment opportunities; generation inequalities in social relations or unemployment risks; inequalities between social strata in housing conditions or physical health; inequalities between disabled and non-disabled people in access to public transport or educational institutions; inequalities between nationals and non-nationals in educational enrolment or public safety. The aspect of social exclusion can be operationalised in many domains, too. Relying on the previous discussion of the concept and the distinction made between two different notions of the concept - the causes and processes leading to disadvantageous living situations on the one hand and the results and manifestations of these processes, that is the deprivations themselves on the other hand - the operationalisation of social exclusion will be oriented at the second notion. Thus, 9 7DEOH *RDO 'LPHQVLRQV RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ RI 'LVSDULWLHV ,QHTXDOLWLHV DQG 6RFLDO ([FOXVLRQ ZLWKLQ D 6RFLHW\ Dimension Life Domain Regional Disparities of ... equal opportunities / inequalities between women and men, generations, social strata, disabled, citizenship groups concerning Social Exclusion Population Households and Families - engagement in housework and childcare - existence of family relations Housing - housing conditions - housing conditions - homelessness - poor housing conditions Transport - access to / quality of transport - access to transport - no access to public/private transport Leisure, Media and Culture - availability of facilities and goods in the area of leisure, media and culture - leisure time - access to media, recreational and cultural facilities Social and Political Participation and Integration - availability of social relations and social support - social and political activities and engagement - social isolation - social discrimination Education and Vocational Training - access to education and vocational training - investment in education - educational enrolment and qualification - lack of completed education and vocational training Labour Market and Working Conditions - employment opportunities and risks - employment opportunities and risks - long-term unemployment Income, Standard of Living, and Consumption Patterns - income level and standard of living - income level and standard of living - poverty Health - availability of health care facilities - health status - health status - permanent health impairments Environment - state of environment Social Security - social insurance coverage, benefits - lack of social protection Public Safety and Crime - crime rates - becoming a victim of crime Total Life Situation - quality of life index - quality of life index - overall subjective well-being - multiple deprivation 10 7DEOH *RDO 'LPHQVLRQV RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ 6WUHQJWKHQLQJ WKH 6RFLDO &DSLWDO RI D 6RFLHW\ Dimension Life Domain Availability of Social Relations Social and Political Activities and Engagement Quality of Social Relations .... Quality of Societal Institutions European-Specific Concerns Population Households and Families - social relations within households - care for old-aged household members - between household members Housing Transport - transport connections between European Countries - frequencies of journeys between European Countries Leisure, Media and Culture - membership in leisure organisations - activities in leisure organisations - dissemination of cultural products across European Countries Social and Political Participation and Integration - existence of personal relations - membership in political and social organisations - frequency of personal contacts - support within informal networks - civic engagement in public realms - outside the household - political institutions - church/religious institutions - social institutions - European Identity - social relations and attitudes to other EU nationals - similarities in basic values and attitudes - social and political activities at the European level Education and Vocational Training - educational institutions - exchange of pupils, students - teaching and dissemination of European languages Labour Market and Working Conditions - participation in the area of working life - at the work place - labour unions - labour offices - labour courts - connections between European Countries in working life Income, Standard of Living, and Consumption Patterns Health - system of health care Environment Social Security - social security institutions Public Safety and Crime - legal system Total Life Situation 11 manifestations of social exclusion will be measured such as homelessness, social isolation, long-term unemployment, poverty, heavy health impairments or a lack of social protection. The second goal dimension of social cohesion - strengthening the social capital of a society - concerns fewer life domains. Most of the aspects of this dimension refer to the life domain of "social and political participation and integration". Naturally, this domain covers all general issues of social relations and engagement outside the own household community such as the availability of relatives and friends, frequency of contacts and support within those personal networks, membership in organisations, engagement in the public realm such as volunteering and political activities. Other life domains relevant to these aspects are "households and families" and "labour market and working conditions" which concern social relations and activities within the own household or family respectively at the work place. The quality of societal institutions is a component of the social capital which applies to several life domains since, for example, institutions of education, health care, social security or the legal system are addressed. European-specific aspects of social cohesion concern the social cohesion EHWZHHQ European countries. They can be operationalised in several life domains, too. Examples are the frequency of journeys, the dissemination of cultural products, the exchange of pupils, students and labour between European countries, the dissemination of European languages, social relations and attitudes to people from other European countries, and the formation of a common European identity of citizens. In the European System of Social Indicators, the domain-specific measurement dimensions related to the goal dimensions of social cohesion are further differentiated by firstly distinguishing subdimensions of each measurement dimension and then developing one or several indicators for each subdimension. Thus, the final result represents a list of indicators of social cohesion which can be categorised by life domain, goal dimension, measurement dimension and subdimension. In the following, I will demonstrate this approach by example of two life domains and present some indicators of social cohesion based on data sources which allow the monitoring of developments in a cross-national comparable perspective. The selected life domains are "Social and Political Participation and Integration" and "Labour Market and Working Conditions". The first domain has been chosen because it well covers all aspects of the social capital dimension of social cohesion on a rather general level as has been outlined above. The second domain has been selected because it provides sound examples for domain-specific indicators of the inequality dimension and the social capital dimension of social cohesion. In total, these indicators will show the impact of the working life on the social cohesion of societies. It should be noted that the subdimensions and indicators for both life domains are preliminary suggestions till now and will be revised in future work. 'LPHQVLRQV DQG ,QGLFDWRUV RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ LQ WKH 'RPDLQ RI 6RFLDO DQG 3ROLWLFDO 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG ,QWHJUDWLRQ The social capital of a society can be mainly operationalised at the level of measurement dimensions of the individual social and political participation and integration. They concern the individuals'social relations, contacts and activities in private networks as well as in public areas, the quality of their social relations in the private realm, and the perceived quality of institutions There are well-known differences between individuals in the availability of social relations and social support by informal networks, for example between the young and the elderly. 12 7DEOH 'LPHQVLRQV DQG ,QGLFDWRUV RI 6RFLDO &RKHVLRQ LQ D (XURSHDQ 6\VWHP RI 6RFLDO ,QGLFDWRUV 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU WKH 'RPDLQ 6RFLDO DQG 3ROLWLFDO 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG ,QWHJUDWLRQ *RDO 'LPHQVLRQ 0HDVXUHPHQW 'LPHQVLRQ 6XEGLPHQVLRQ ,QGLFDWRUV VHOHFWHG H[DPSOHV I. Reduction of Disparities, Inequalities and Social Exclusion Regional Disparities Inequalities in the Existence of Social Relations Inequality of the Availability of a Close Friend Inequalities in the Frequency of Social Contacts Inequality of the Frequency of Contacts to Close Relatives Inequalities Between Generations in the Availability of Social Relations and Support within Informal Networks4 Inequalities in the Support Available by Informal Networks Inequality of the Support Available in Case of Feeling Depressed Equal Opportunities / Inequalities - Women and Men - Generations - Social Strata - Disabled / Non-Disabled - Nationalities Inequalities Between Women and Men in Political Participation Inequality of Representation in National Parliaments Objective Social Isolation Percentage of People with Rare Social Contacts Outside the Household Social Isolation Subjective Social Isolation Percentage of People who Feel Lonely Percentage of People Repudiating People of a Different Race Social Exclusion Social discrimination Percentage of People Repudiating Foreigners 4 For saving space and keeping the table straightforward, dimensions and indicators of equal opportunities / inequalities of different generations and of women and men have been presented in this table, only. However the European System of Social Indicators will also consider similar dimensions and indicators for the other population groups listed in the first column of the table. 13 *RDO 'LPHQVLRQ 0HDVXUHPHQW 'LPHQVLRQ 6XEGLPHQVLRQ ,QGLFDWRUV VHOHFWHG H[DPSOHV II. Strengthening Social Capital Relations to Relatives Existence of Close RelativesExistence of Personal Relations Relations to Friends / Neighbours Existence of at Least One Close Friend Membership in Political Organisations Membership in a Political Party Membership in Social Organisations Membership in a Charitable Organisation Availability of Social Relations Membership in Organisations Membership in Church / Religious O. Membership in a Church / Religious Organisation Contacts to Relatives Weekly Contacts to Close RelativesFrequency of Personal Contacts Contacts to Friends / Neighbours Weekly Contacts to the Best Friends Support in Activities Available Support in Household Jobs Support in Personal Problems Available Support in Case of Feeling Depressed Support within Informal Networks Support in Material Needs Available Support in Case of Financial Distress Political Participation Political Interest Engagement in Social Organisations Volunteering in the Charitable Realm Social and Political Activities and Engagement Civic Engagement in Public Realms Church / Religious Activities Regular Attendance of Church Quality of Personal Relations Good Relations to Neighbours Attitudes Towards Other People General Trust in People Quality of Social Relations Subjective Quality of Social Relations Outside the Household Perceived Quality of Social Relations of Other People Perceived Conflicts between Generations Trust in Political PartiesPerceived Quality of Political Institutions Satisfaction with Democracy Perceived Quality of Social Institutions Trust in Charitable Organisations Quality of Societal Institutions Perceived Quality of Church/Religious I. Trust in Church / Religious Organisations European Identity Identification with Europe Social Relations/Attitudes to Other Europeans Friends Living in another European Country Similarities in the Value Attached to FreedomSimilarities between European Countries in Basic Values / Attitudes Similarities in the Value Attached to Tolerance European-Specific Concerns Social and Political Activities at the European Level Participation in Activities of European Associations Thus, as to the first goal dimension of social cohesion, the consideration of equal opportunities and inequalities in this domain seems to be meaningful (table 3). One can distinguish three subdimensions of inequalities: the existence of social relations to relatives, friends and neighbours, the cultivation of these relations in the form of meetings or other forms of contacts, and the support available from them in case of need. Examples of indicators for these subdimensions are inequalities between the young and the elderly in the availability of a close friend or in the support available by relatives, friends or neighbours in case of feeling depressed. The figure below shows the ratios of the respective percentages of the young and the elderly based on data of the ISSP 19865 . In all countries the ratio of young and old people with at least one close friend turns out to be above the value of 1 which indicates a relative disadvantageous situation for the elderly. Especially in Hungary there is a considerable difference with young people having a close friend nearly twice as often as elderly people. However the inequality between the young and the elderly in the availability of social support in case of feeling depressed is much smaller because elderly people can partially compensate the lack of friends by an increased support from neighbours or relatives. The cross-national differences are rather small in this respect. )LJXUH 5DWLR RI WKH 3HUFHQWDJHV RI