What Holds Asian Societies Together?: Insights from the Social Cohesion Radar

Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.)

What Holds Asian Societies Together?

Insights from the Social Cohesion Radar

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh

Responsible: Peter Walkenhorst

Editor and Translation (Introduction): Tim Schroder, Frankfurt

Production editor: Sabine Reimann

Cover design: Elisabeth Menke

Cover illustration: estherpoon / Fotolia.com

Layout and Typesetting: Katrin Berkenkamp, Bielefeld

ISBN 978-3-86793-770-2 (Print)

ISBN 978-3-86793-771-9 E-Book (PDF)

ISBN 978-3-86793-772-6 E-Book (EPUB)

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.org/publications

Contents

Foreword

1Introduction: What holds Asian Societies together?

Peter Walkenhorst, Kai Unzicker

Abstract

1.1Introduction

1.2Social Cohesion as a Policy Objective and Research Challenge

1.3What is Social Cohesion?

1.4Testing the Approach in Western Societies

1.5Can the Approach Used for the Social Cohesion Radar be Applied to Asian Societies?

1.6Which Asia Are We Analyzing?

1.7Adapting the Approach for Asian Contexts

1.8Content and Structure of the Book

References

2Conceptualizing Social Cohesion in Asia

Jan Delhey, Klaus Boehnke

Abstract

2.1Introduction

2.2Social Cohesion in Western Studies

2.2.1The Social Cohesion Radar’s Concept

2.3Social Cohesion in Asia

2.3.1Research Gap

2.3.2Western Definitions of Cohesion in an Asian Context

2.4Emic vs. Etic Conceptualizations

2.5Fit of the Concept to SSEA

2.6Conclusion

References

3Measuring Social Cohesion in Asia

Mandi Larsen, Michael Koch, Georgi Dragolov

Abstract

3.1Introduction

3.2Data

3.2.1Survey Data

3.2.2Expert Ratings and Institutional Data

3.3Countries and Time Periods

3.4Method: A Step-by-step Guide

3.4.1Initial Selection of Indicators

3.4.2Data Preparation

3.4.3Reflective Measurement

3.4.4Formative Measurement

3.4.5Color Coding

3.5Conclusion

References

4Level, Trend, and Profiles of Social Cohesion in Asia

Georgi Dragolov, Michael Koch, Mandi Larsen

Abstract

4.1Introduction

4.1.1Multi-dimensional Concept of Social Cohesion

4.1.2Focus Countries

4.2Data and Method

4.2.1Data

4.2.2Countries and Time Periods

4.2.3Method

4.3Results

4.3.1Overall Index of Social Cohesion

4.3.2Domains of Social Cohesion

4.3.3Dimensions of Social Cohesion

4.3.4Profiles of Social Cohesion

4.4Discussion and Conclusion

References

5Macro-level Determinants and Consequences of Social Cohesion in Asia

Georgi Dragolov, Michael Koch, Mandi Larsen

Abstract

5.1Introduction

5.1.1Determinants and Consequences of Cohesion in the Western World

5.1.2Beyond the Western world: Asian exceptionalism?

5.1.3Research Questions

5.2Data

5.2.1Overall Index and Dimensions of Social Cohesion

5.2.2Macro-level Characteristics

5.3Method

5.4Determinants and Outcomes of the Overall Index

5.4.1Wealth and Economic Situation

5.4.2Inequality and Poverty

5.4.3Political System

5.4.4Spatial Structure

5.4.5Demography

5.4.6Modernization

5.4.7Diversity

5.4.8Culture and Values

5.4.9Well-being

5.5Determinants and Outcomes of the Single Dimensions

5.5.1Wealth and Economic Situation

5.5.2Inequality and Poverty

5.5.3Political System

5.5.4Spatial Structure

5.5.5Demography

5.5.6Modernization

5.5.7Diversity

5.5.8Culture and Values

5.5.9Well-being

5.6Discussion and Conclusion

References

6Making Sense of Social Cohesion in Asia

Mandi Larsen, Georgi Dragolov

Abstract

6.1Conceptualizing Social Cohesion in SSEA

6.2Measuring Social Cohesion in SSEA

6.3Level, Trends, and Profiles of Social Cohesion in SSEA

6.4Determinants and Consequences of Social Cohesion in SSEA

6.5The Implications for SSEA

6.6The Way Forward

References

7Social Cohesion with Asian Characteristics? Conceptual and Methodological Reflections

Joseph Chan, Elaine Chan

Abstract

7.1Introduction

7.2Social Cohesion with Asian Characteristics?

7.3Social Cohesion and Democracy

7.4Social Cohesion Mechanisms in Non-democracies

7.5Social Cohesion and Political Polarization: A Methodological Reflection

7.6Conclusion

References

8Social Cohesion in Asia: Unexpected and Not So Unexpected Insights

Aurel Croissant

Abstract

8.1Introduction

8.2Challenges of Measuring Social Cohesion in Asia

8.3How Valid and Reliable is the Asian Radar?

8.4How Cohesive are Asian Societies?

8.5What Contributes to Social Cohesion?

8.6Does it Matter? Outcomes of Social Cohesion

8.7Conclusion and Outlook

References

About the Contributors

Appendices

Appendix to Chapter 3: Supplementary Tables

Table 3.A.1Pan-temporal final factor solution – Domain 1: Social relations

Table 3.A.2Pan-temporal final factor solution – Domain 2: Connectedness

Table 3.A.3Pan-temporal final factor solution – Domain 3: Focus on the common good

Table 3.A.4Wave-specific final factor solution – Domain 1: Social relations

Table 3.A.5Wave-specific final factor solution – Domain 2: Connectedness

Table 3.A.6Wave-specific final factor solution – Domain 3: Focus on the common good

Appendix A to Chapter 4: Supplementary Figures

Figure 4.A.1Dendrogram from hierarchical clustering of countries in Wave 1, 2004–2008

Appendix B to Chapter 4: Societal Profiles of Cohesion

List of Tables

Table 2.1Domains and dimensions of social cohesion

Table 3.1Countries included in the Asian Radar

Table 4.1Selected characteristics for seven focus countries

Table 4.2Overall index of social cohesion for 22 SSEA countries

Table 4.3Domain scores over time

Table 4.4Scores on social networks, trust in people, and acceptance of diversity

Table 4.5Scores on identification, trust in institutions, and perception of fairness

Table 4.6Scores on solidarity and helpfulness, respect for social rules, and civic participation

Table 4.7Scores for six profiles of social cohesion, 2009–2015

Table 4.8Pairwise comparison of main clusters on overall index and dimensions

Table 5.1Bivariate and partial linear and quadratic correlations for overall index of social cohesion

Table 5.2Partial linear and quadratic correlations for Domain 1, Social relations

Table 5.3Partial linear and quadratic correlations for Domain 2, Connectedness

Table 5.4Partial linear and quadratic correlations for Domain 3, Focus on the common good

Table 8.1Selected characteristics of the 22 entities in the SCR

Table 8.2Domains, dimensions and indicators of Social Cohesion in Asia

Table 8.3Strength of social cohesion according to domains and dimensions (second wave, 2009–2015)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1SSEA countries included in the Social Cohesion Radar

Figure 2.1Social quality concept

Figure 3.1The process of calculating an index of social cohesion

Figure 3.2Threshold values for the five groups

Figure 4.1Domains of social cohesion and their respective dimensions

Figure 4.2Dendrogram from hierarchical clustering of countries in Wave 2, 2009–2015

Figure 5.1Overall index of social cohesion relative to gross domestic product

Figure 5.2Overall index of social cohesion relative to income inequality

Figure 5.3Overall index of social cohesion relative to gender inequality

Figure 5.4Overall index of social cohesion relative to polity index

Figure 5.5Overall index of social cohesion relative to globalization

Figure 5.6Overall index of social cohesion relative to ethnic fractionalization

Figure 5.7Overall index of social cohesion relative to language fractionalization

Figure 5.8Net migration relative to the overall index of social cohesion

Figure 5.9Overall index of social cohesion relative to collectivism-individualism

Figure 5.10Life satisfaction (present) relative to overall index of social cohesion

Figure 5.11Life satisfaction (future) relative to overall index of social cohesion

Foreword

In recent decades, Asia’s economic significance and political influence have grown enormously, something which applies, above all, to India and China. Much suggests that this development will continue in the future and that the continent will play a decisive role in shaping the 21st century. Thus, Asia’s rise has often been seen as the beginning of an Asian Century, during which the global balance of power will shift towards the Far East and the West’s significance will wane.

Even if this expectation seems extreme, one thing is clear: Realizing solutions to pressing challenges will only be possible if Asian players are involved. The globalized world is marked by constantly growing interdependencies in the areas of business, trade, finance, the climate, the environment, and health, not to mention poverty, migration, food supplies, science, technology, and communication. These are all areas in which Asian actors are playing an ever greater role. Whether the topic is economic development, the ability to innovate, securing resources, or competing for talent, addressing almost all of today’s major issues already depends to a critical degree on events taking place and decisions being made in Asia.

Economic and political developments usually predominate when people speak of Asia’s growing significance for the rest of the world. What is frequently forgotten, however, is that as globalization progresses, Asia’s economic and political rise has often been accompanied by fundamental processes of social transformation. These changes have, on the one hand, given rise to substantial hopes for a better future. In many places, on the other, they have led to tension and conflict – developments that are, in turn, a threat to social cohesion and political stability. In terms of their impact, these far-reaching social shifts are just as important as the region’s economic and political dynamism.

Against this background, the cohesiveness of Asia’s societies is an issue that continues to gain importance. How is social cohesion developing in Asian nations? Which factors are influencing its development and what impact is cohesion having on other areas of life? How can social cohesion be maintained and/or strengthened? These questions are not primarily academic in nature; they are also extremely relevant in terms of policy. In order to answer them, however, a theoretical and methodological approach to social cohesion is needed.

With the Social Cohesion Radar (SCR), the Bertelsmann Stiftung has developed and empirically tested such an approach. The SCR model divides the phenomenon of cohesion into nine dimensions, which are grouped according to three aspects: social relations, connectedness to society, and a focus on the common good. The SCR approach was initially applied in an international comparison to 34 Western industrial nations and, in a subsequent analysis, to Germany’s 16 federal states. In the current study, it was used for the first time to assess non-Western societies, namely 22 countries in South, Southeast, and East Asia.

This collective volume presents the results of the most recent study, providing for the first time detailed data, analyses, and evaluations of social cohesion in Asia. This empirical appraisal opens new perspectives on the phenomenon of social cohesion; these perspectives, consequently, raise new questions, like, for example, the effect of ethnic and cultural diversity on social cohesion or the relationship between social cohesion and democracy. For some of these questions there are no conclusive answers yet. The contributions to this book suggest initial possibilities for finding answers to those questions.

I would especially like to thank the authors for their contributions to this volume and their assistance in ensuring the study was successfully carried out, as well as for their willingness to participate in this project. I would also like to express my thanks here to Klaus Boehnke and Jan Delhey, whose extensive knowledge of the subject and far-sightedness once again played a critical role as they designed and led the study. Thanks, too, to Georgi Dragolov, Mandi Larsen, and Michael Koch, who as members of the research team conducted and evaluated the empirical analyses. In addition, I would like to thank Joseph Chan, Elaine Chan, and Aurel Croissant for supporting the study by providing extensive comments and valuable ideas, something they do in this publication as well. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to all those experts who took part in this project during its various development phases by contributing comments, notes, and suggestions in workshops, online surveys, and discussions.

For the Bertelsmann Stiftung, the present analysis expands on the studies previously carried out for the Social Cohesion Radar project. We intend to continue our efforts with the goal of reaching a better understanding of what inherently holds Asian societies together. Future research will focus in particular on the interplay between transformation processes, cultural diversity and social cohesion.

Stephan Vopel

Director

Germany and Asia Program

Bertelsmann Stiftung

1Introduction: What holds Asian Societies together?

Peter Walkenhorst, Kai Unzicker

Abstract

Social cohesion has become a key policy goal around the globe – not only in the Western Hemisphere, but also in Asia. Asia’s economic and political rise is part of far-reaching social transformation processes. In many places, these developments have been accompanied by tensions and conflicts, which have, in turn, challenged social cohesion and political stability. The question of how cohesion fares in a society is therefore becoming a pressing issue in Asia as well. Despite growing interest in the concept among policy makers and researchers, no generally shared understanding of social cohesion exists. Most importantly, empirical findings are lacking. For these reasons, the Bertelsmann Stiftung developed its Social Cohesion Radar, whose findings for the societies of South, Southeast, and East Asia have been collected in this volume.

1.1Introduction

Asia’s economic and political rise is one of the most significant developments of the present age. This world region has become the driver of the global economy. Many Asian economies are expanding rapidly and growing ever more complex. Asian businesses, research institutes, think tanks, and political institutions have now become customary and, to an increasing degree, more self-assertive players in the globalized world. In particular, the reemergence of China and India as economic and political powers is changing the world’s power structure. A new multipolar global (dis)order is taking shape, one in which the United States and Europe are losing their economic, political, and cultural predominance. In short, Asia is changing the world (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2007).

At the same time, however, social problems are also increasing in the region. Virtually all Asian societies find themselves in a state of upheaval, and are being drastically altered by profound transformation processes (Croissant 2016). As a result of expanding economies and populations, urbanization is advancing almost everywhere and a new middle class is emerging. Traditions and values are changing due to increasing mobility, education, and prosperity as well as greater interaction with global information and economic flows. In many places, social inequality has become more prevalent. As a result of these developments, tensions, polarization, and conflicts are now present in numerous Asian nations, threatening social cohesion and political stability. The question of how cohesion develops in a society is therefore of growing importance in Asia as well.

If we are to assess this development and shape it strategically, it is imperative that we gain a better understanding of its preconditions and the factors influencing it. How does social cohesion develop in Asia and which factors determine its strength? The goal of this book is to help answer this question. It presents, for the first time, scientifically sound and comparable empirical data for 22 countries in South, Southeast, and East Asia (SSEA) for the years 2004 to 2015. To that end, a theoretically and empirically robust index was developed allowing social cohesion to be measured in as many SSEA nations as possible. The index shows the degree of togetherness in each country, depicts the development over time and presents each nation’s cohesion-related strengths and weaknesses. Social cohesion’s determinants and outcomes are also analyzed.

The current study makes use of the Social Cohesion Radar (SCR) as applied in three previous empirical studies. The latter examined Western industrial nations, Germany’s federal states, and the neighborhoods in a major German city (Dragolov et al. 2016; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016a; 2014; 2013). We have availed ourselves of the previous studies’ theoretical, conceptual, and methodological foundations, as described in detail in Chapters 2 and 3, and adapted them to examine social cohesion in Asia, more specifically in the SSEA nations.

If baroque titles were still in fashion today, this book might well be called Prolegomena to an Analysis of Social Cohesion in Asia, 2004–2015, Based on Data Available for International Comparison. Such a title would offer the advantage of being precise, since in many respects this pioneering study makes a foray into unknown territory. Yet its findings give rise to as many questions as they answer. In terms of research, the study therefore marks a starting and not an end point. To that extent, the following sections reiterate why social cohesion is an important topic and discuss why Asia was the second world region for which data were collected and cohesion examined at the national level. Subsequently, each of the contributions to this book is presented.

1.2Social Cohesion as a Policy Objective and Research Challenge

As a concept, social cohesion is not easily defined. It describes a not yet adequately understood quality of societies – one that makes them robust, sustainable, and livable. Its connotations are usually positive as a result. Moreover, social cohesion is often seen as the prerequisite for economic success and a functioning democracy. In the past two decades, the topic has received increasing attention in both the academic and policy discourse: ‘Social cohesion’, like ‘globalization’, has become another buzzword of the day (Chan et al. 2006: 273; Schiefer & Van der Noll 2016; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2012).

The explicit or implicit assumption is often that social cohesion is or could be weakened by the consequences of modernization and globalization. While in the academic discourse this assumption has been questioned, differentiated, and, at least to some degree for Western industrial nations, refuted (Dragolov et al. 2016; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2014; 2013), the policy discourse is still marked by concerns about diminishing social cohesion and the resulting social and political instability.

An additional aspect must also be noted: Societies with a high degree of social cohesion are considered more adaptable and robust, since they can react more flexibly to external changes. In times of rapid transformation, this ability to amend and adapt is becoming increasingly important. The ability of the political system to ensure that its society remains inherently cohesive is thus seen by many experts as an essential benchmark – perhaps even the most decisive one – for ensuring the system’s long-term stability in a globalizing environment (Bagger 2015: 100). In other words, social cohesion strengthens a society’s ability to withstand difficulties and regenerate itself. It is a key factor ensuring resilience, i.e., the ability to bear (usually unforeseen) crises and catastrophes without basic structures or processes undergoing change.

For these reasons, social cohesion is seen as an important policy goal by many governments, by supranational and international organizations, such as the EU, OECD, World Bank, and Council of Europe, and by nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, and other actors of civil society. Until now, the policy discourse on maintaining and strengthening social cohesion has taken place mostly in Western nations. With the exception of the government of Hong Kong, political players in Asia have shown little interest in the topic (Chan & Chan 2006). This lack of interest is surprising, since the question of social cohesion is a major challenge for policy makers in numerous Asian countries.

Despite the growing popularity of the concept among researchers and politicians, no standard definition of the term social cohesion exists; nor is there a generally accepted series of indicators for measuring it. Policy actors at the national and international level use very different approaches and seek support from what are in some cases competing academic concepts. The result is that, despite the importance of the topic, empirical findings are still sorely needed. The Bertelsmann Stiftung therefore initiated the Social Cohesion Radar project in order to advance research in this field and stimulate the relevant policy debate. The central objective is to measure social cohesion and to collect empirical data to serve as a basis for the political discussion.

The term radar was chosen after considerable deliberation. Radars make things visible that cannot be seen with the naked eye, either because they are hidden or because they are too far away. The Social Cohesion Radar is thus a tool that makes it possible to gain a direct insight into a community’s social fabric. Ideally, the SCR can even make it possible to identify certain risks and undesirable developments at an early stage.

1.3What is Social Cohesion?

A project that aspires to measure social cohesion must necessarily present a operationalizable definition of the object of its investigations. According to the British economist Anthony Atkinson (2005), if indicators are to be scientifically sound and policy effective, they must (a) target the core question and facilitate judgments of value, (b) be robust and statistically valid, (c) be comparable internationally, (d) be based on available data while also being receptive to change, and (e) react to targeted policy measures without being susceptible to manipulation. Using these five criteria, the Bertelsmann Stiftung has driven forward social cohesion’s empirical conceptualization in recent years in order to give an empirical foundation to the social and policy debate on cohesion. After all, social cohesion has, according to Canadian social scientist Paul Bernard (1999), long been solely what he calls a quasi-concept. Such quasi-concepts are characterized, on the one hand, by a certain realism, i.e., they indeed reflect in concrete terms empirical research, yet they are, on the other, so open and vague that they can be used in different contexts and for different policy goals.

There is general agreement in the literature that cohesion is a multidimensional and gradual quality evinced by a collective body. This means that cohesion comprises of different, more or less interdependent components which can be present to various degrees (Schiefer & Van der Noll 2016). Cohesion can be understood as a defining characteristic which describes the quality of solidarity within a collective body. Social cohesion is thus the quality of communal togetherness exhibited by a community that is (usually) constituted as a state. Yet as much as researchers might agree on these basic principles, there is still a lack of consensus as to which aspects of societal life constitute social cohesion.

We believe that a highly cohesive society is characterized by resilient social relationships, a positive emotional connectedness between its members and the community, and a pronounced focus on the common good. Three core aspects or domains of social cohesion thus distinguish the approach proposed here: social relations, connectedness, and the focus on the common good. Social relations represent the horizontal network that exists between individuals and social groups. Connectedness refers to the positive ties uniting people and the community as such and its institutions. Focus on the common good describes the actions and attitudes of society’s members, through which responsibility for others and the community is expressed.

This multidimensional concept of social cohesion, which is described in detail in Chapter 2, takes as its template a modern, inclusive, cohesive society, one that does not by definition view heterogeneity (e.g. religious or ethnic) as an expression of limited cohesion. In this regard, it is also true that an ethnically homogeneous population and a consensus on values are not defining characteristics of cohesion, something that does, however, apply to the acceptance of differing values and of diversity per se. This reflects the normative belief that social cohesion among the majority cannot exist at the expense of excluded minorities.

A second aspect is also not included in this approach: the distribution of goods within society. It has been repeatedly argued that equality and an equal distribution of wealth is one of cohesion’s core elements. We disagree. While we do recognize that, among others, income and wealth inequality are key factors impacting social cohesion, we maintain that they should not also be constituent components: The distribution of material goods can influence social cohesion, but for that to be the case, cohesion and distribution must be separated conceptually.

1.4Testing the Approach in Western Societies

The multidimensional approach to social cohesion used in this book has been already operationalized and empirically tested in three preceding studies. In the first study, social cohesion and its development were measured and compared in 34 industrial nations for the years 1989 to 2012 (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2013). These countries were the 27 EU member states (prior to the accession of Croatia) and seven other Western industrial nations (United States, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand). The second study examined social cohesion in Germany by comparing the country’s 16 federal states (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2014). Both of these studies were based on secondary data analysis. In the third study, data were collected using telephone interviews for 78 (out of 88) neighborhoods in the city of Bremen, Germany (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016a).

In both the international comparison of the 34 OECD and EU member states and the study of Germany’s federal states, a clear correlation can be seen between the societies’ levels of prosperity and social cohesion: the wealthier the nation or German federal state (measured in per capita GDP), the greater the degree of togetherness. Conversely, the higher the level of poverty or unemployment, the less cohesion there is. It is therefore not surprising that the Nordic nations – Denmark, above all – exhibit the strongest social cohesion, and that, in the comparison of German federal states, Hamburg and Baden–Württemberg perform particularly well. The lowest levels of cohesion can be found in the Southern and, above all, Southeastern European countries, such as Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece, and in Germany’s eastern federal states (Dragolov et al. 2016: 36 and 98). Owing to the omission of the wealth distribution from the concept of cohesion, we were able to ascertain that, independent of wealth itself, a more equal distribution (measured as a Gini income coefficient) leads to stronger cohesion. It is also clear that countries which are developing into knowledge societies exhibit higher levels of cohesion, as revealed by a comparison based on the World Bank’s Knowledge Index. Modernization and technological change thus do not at all lead, as many cultural pessimists presume, to a society’s dissolution. The international comparison further shows that the degree of economic, political, and social integration in the process of globalization (as measured by ETH Zurich’s KOF Index of Globalization) has no impact on the quality of communal life (Dragolov et al. 2016: 60ff).

In