Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Social Indicators Research
Published in: Social Indicators Research 3/2013

01-02-2013

Social Capital or Social Cohesion: What Matters For Subjective Well-Being?

Author: Carlo Klein

Published in: Social Indicators Research | Issue 3/2013

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The theoretical analysis of the concepts of social capital and of social cohesion shows that social capital should be considered as a micro concept whereas social cohesion, being a broader concept than social capital, is a more appropriate concept for macro analysis. Therefore, we suggest that data on the individual level should only be used to analyze the relationship between social capital, social cohesion indicators and subjective well-being and that they do not allow commenting on the level of social cohesion in a society. For this last type of analyses aggregated indicators of social cohesion have to be computed which is not the issue of this paper. Our empirical analysis is based on individual data for Luxembourg in 2008. In general, our results suggest that investments in social capital generate monetary returns (increased income) and psychic returns (increased subjective well-being) even in a highly developed and multicultural country like Luxembourg. When we are adding on the micro level variables representing the economic domain of social cohesion following Bernard (1999), then we observe that this domain also has an effect on income and on subjective well-being. Therefore, we recommend including the economic domain in any future analysis using the concept of social cohesion.
previous article An Indigenous Model of Career Satisfaction: Exploring the Role of Workplace Cultural Wellbeing
next article The Personal Wellbeing Index: Psychometric Equivalence for Adults and School Children

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Even if there were earlier works about social capital (see Putnam 2000), the recognition of the concept in the social sciences happened during the eighties.
 
2
These restrictions are due to the fact that a certain number of questions are only available for the Luxembourg EVS wave of 2008.
 
3
Acket et al. (2011) therefore consider Chan et al.’s (2006) definition that excludes the economic domain.
 
4
This method considers that the observed individual characteristics can be used to describe social cohesion of a community or a society.
 
5
The used variables will be described in more details in paragraph 4.
 
6
Even if the question about happiness states: “Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy, quite happy, not very happy, not at all happy”.
 
7
For a detailed presentation of the EVS studies, see: http://​www.​europeanvaluesst​udy.​eu/​.
 
8
The definitions of the variables are presented in “Appendix”.
 
9
The used social capital/cohesion variables slightly differ from those used by Dickes et al. (2008, 2009) because we only consider the EVS wave 2008 and so we do not have Dickes et al.’s (2008, 2009) constraint to use only variables that are available for 1999 and 2008.
 
10
This last variable has been excluded from the happiness function to respect the identification condition mentioned on page 12.
 
11
To give an equal weight to the emotional and the cognitive aspect of SWB, we have computed the global indicator as follows: global = [(happy/4)*10]+ satisfaction.
 
12
Here we only present the variables measuring social capital and those variables allowing discussing social cohesion on an aggregated level. The complete results can be obtained from the author.
 
13
This can be illustrated by the fact that the same regression without the “dependency” variable gives no significant coefficient for the “child” variable so that we can expect social benefits to correct the potential loss of income due to child care.
 
14
See “Appendix”.
 
15
The complete results can be obtained from the author.
 
16
Only the coefficient of “Formal ch. economic domain 2” is statistically significant.
 
Literature
Acket, S., Borsenberger, M., Dickes, P., & Sarracino, F. (2011). Measuring and validating social cohesion: A bottom-up approach. Working paper no 2011–08, CEPS/INSTEAD.
Bartolini, S., Bilancini, E., & Pugno, M. (2008). Did the decline in social capital depress Americans’ happiness? Quaderni del dipartimento di economia politica, n. 540, University of Siena.
Becker, G. S. (Ed.) (1996). Preferences and values. In Accounting for tastes (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bernard P. (1999). Social cohesion: A critique. CPRN Discussion paper no F 09, Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31(1), 2–3.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Chan, J., To, H.-P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.CrossRef
Clark, A., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.CrossRef
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge and London: Belkamp Press of Harvard University Press.
Council of Europe. (2008). Well-being for all—concepts and tools for social cohesion, Trends in social cohesion, p. 20.
Dasgupta, P. (2010). A matter of trust: Social capital and economic development. SCI Discussion Paper, The University of Manchester.
Dayton-Johnson, J. (2003). Social capital, social cohesion, community: A microeconomic analysis. In L. Osberg (Ed.), The economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 43–78). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dickes, P. (2011). Vérification et affinement des échelles d’égalitaruisme du fichier Luxembourg 2008. Note de recherche pour l’égalitarisme. Internal document CEPS/INSTEAD.
Dickes, P., Valentova, M., & Borsenberger, M. (2008). Social cohesion: Measurement based on the EVS micro data. Statistica Applicata, 20(2), 1–16.
Dickes, P., Valentova, M., & Borsenberger, M. (2009). Construct validation and application of a common measure of social cohesion in 33 European countries. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11205-009-9551-5. Accessed 4 May 2010.
Easterlin, R. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111, 465–484.CrossRef
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659.CrossRef
Frey, B. (2008). Happiness. A revolution in economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002a). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, XL, 402–435.CrossRef
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002b). Happiness and economics. How the economy and institutions affect well-being. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Frey, B. S., Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2004). Introducing procedural utility: Not only what, but also how matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 377–401.CrossRef
Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.CrossRef
Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hausemer, G. (2008). A propos… du Luxembourg multiculturel. Service information et presse du gouvernement du Luxembourg (SIP).
Hausman, D., & McPherson, M. (2006). Economic analysis, moral philosophy, and public policy (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Helliwell, J., Barrington-Leigh, C. (2010). Measuring and understanding subjective well-being. NBER working paper series.
Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: A cross cultural comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109–128.CrossRef
Jenson J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. CPRN discussion paper No F 03, Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Kahneman, D. (2000). Experienced utility and objective happiness: A moment-based approach. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation.
Lin, N., & Erickson, B. H. (2008). Social capital. An international research program. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Nettle, D. (2005). Happiness: The science behind your smile. New York: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations. The role of human and social capital. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
OECD. (2009). Society at a glance 2009—OECD social indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osberg, L. (2003). Introduction. In L. Osberg (Ed.), The economic implications of social cohesion. Studies in comparative political economy and public policy. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1133–1152.CrossRef
Policy Research Committee Government of Canada (1999). Sustaining growth, human development, and social cohesion in a global world. Report prepared for the policy research initiative, Canada.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rajulton, F., Ravanera, Z., & Beaujot, R. (2007). Measuring social cohesion: An experiment using the Canadian national survey of giving, volunteering, and participating. Social Indicators Research, 80, 461–492.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Social Capital or Social Cohesion: What Matters For Subjective Well-Being?
Author
Carlo Klein
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Social Indicators Research / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9963-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Social Indicators Research 3/2013 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being

OriginalPaper

Development and Application of Environmental Quality of Life Scale Among People Residing Near Three Types of Industrial Areas, Southern Thailand

OriginalPaper

The Subjective Wellbeing of Indigenous Australian Adolescents: Validating the Personal Wellbeing Index-School Children

OriginalPaper

Does How You Measure Income Make a Difference to Measuring Poverty? Evidence from the UK

OriginalPaper

Quality of Parent–Child Relationship, Family Conflict, Peer Pressure, and Drinking Behaviors of Adolescents in an Asian Context: The Case of Singapore

OriginalPaper

Relationships Among Adolescents’ Leisure Motivation, Leisure Involvement, and Leisure Satisfaction: A Structural Equation Model