Indicators of social cohesion: Hungary from comparative

Indicators of social cohesion: Hungary from comparative perspectives

Zoltán FábiánTÁRKI

23th of November, 2012

Aim and course of the presentation● Primary aim: to set up a causal model to test

– But this is not actual test of the model: it is rather to highlight some elements of it.● Course:

– Definition of social cohesion– Determinants of social cohesion, an analytical framework – TODO: a model to test

later on– Elements of model

● Party system● Political cleavages (socio-economic and cultural differences that fundamentally determine

political competition in a party system) ● Policy performance: quality of governance ● Generalized trust● Institutional trust and satisfaction● Socio-political attitudes● Social capital

– A so called 'conclusion' ● How to form a cohesive society? ● How to change social capital regime?

Meaning of social cohesion*

Dimension Lack of cohesion Cohesion

Socio-economic structure Economic distances, income inequalities

Legitimacy of social differentials, mobility, transparency, acceptance of the rules of games

Culture (values and opinions) Value homogenity, intolarance

Multiple group identification, general norm obedience, tolerance

Institutions (Relationship to public institutions)

Subordination, distrust Citizens' active participation, trust in public institutions

Social capital (Relationship between citizens, network)

Closed hierarchical links (network homophily) Nepotism, clientism, lack of generalized trust

Dense networks, network heterophily, active social embeddness, generalized trust in others

Based on Tóth, 2012

Definition

Meaning of Social Cohesion (continued)*Domain Description

(1) Common values and a civic culture Common aims and objectives; Common moral principles; Support for political institutions and participation in politics

(2) Social order and social control Absence of general conflict and threats to the existing order; Effective informal social control; Tolerance and respect for difference;Inter-group co-operation

(3) Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities

Harmonious economic and social development and common standards; Redistribution of public finances and of opportunities; Equal access to services and welfare benefits; Ready acknowledgement of social obligations and willingness to assist others

(4) Social networks and social capital High degree of social interaction within communities and families; Civic engagement and associational activity; Easy resolution of collective action problems

(5) Place attachment and identity Strong attachment to place; Intertwining of personal and place identity

* Source: Forrest and Kearns , 2001.

Definition

But fortunately Council of Europe

● Has a Directorate General of Social Cohesion:– According to them social cohesion is a concept “that includes values and

principles which aim to ensure that all citizens, without discrimination and on equal footing, have access to fundamental social and economic rights. Social cohesion is a flagship concept which constantly remind us of the need to be collectively attentive to, and aware of, any kind of discrimination, inequality, marginality or exclusion.”

– “The Council of Europe does not see social cohesion as being a homogenising concept that is only based on traditional forms of social integration, which nonetheless are important, such as identity, the sharing of the same culture, adhering to the same values. It is a concept for an open and multicultural society.”* (Emphasis added by the author)

* Quoted by Jane Jenson (2010)

Definition

Determinants of social cohesion

Party system Institutional trust

Generalized trustPerformance:

quality of governance

Political frag-

mentation (cleavages) Socio-political

attitudes

Social cohesion

Social capital regime

Model

Cleavages and party system




Political frag-


attitudes

Social cohesion


Concentrated party system: low effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

* Source: Own calculation. #

ENPP in Hungary 1990-2010* Average ENPP, 1994-2004**

** Jungerstam-Mulders, 2006.#

# ENPPs are calculated according to the Laakso and Taagepera (1979) formula

Party system

Left-wing 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Right-wing0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

2003

2007

2010

* Source: European Social Survey Rounds 1-5 ** Source: Hungarian Election Study Data

High level of left-right polarization and growing right-wing identification

Average left-right scale scores on 0-10 scale in selected countries, 2002-2010*

Left-right identification in Hungary, 2003-2010 (means on 1-10 scale)**

Party system

Low level of voters' volatility till 2010*

* Pedersen (1979) index values. Own calculations based on official election results.

Party system

Cleavage structure (pre 2010)

Left Right

Territorial Budapest and urban Country and rural

Age* Older Younger

Political class / Attitude toward pre 1990 system (Körösényi, 1996)

Nomenclature / More tolerance toward happiest barrack

Non or less integrated groups / anti-communist

Identity European / Cosmopolitan National

Religion Secularized Religious

Ethnicity (identity)* Multicultural values Lack of multicultural values (Extreme right: anti-Gypsy / Roma actions and rhetoric)cf. Karácsony and Róna (2010)

(Traditional left-right value dimensions – like attitude to inequality and role of government have been melted. cf. Fábián-Tóth, 2008.)

Cleavages

Characteristics of the Hungarian Party System

● Concentrated party system – Low effective number of parties● High level of left-right polarization● High level of partisanship (Tóka, 2006)

● Electoral blocs formation Network homophily in political →communication (e.g., Angelusz and Tardos, 2011)

● Camps are socially embedded Cleavage structure←● Low volatility, constant players till 2010● Political realignment – Critical election in 2010

● New players: Extreme right (Jobbik) – Greens (LMP)● Absolute, two-third majority to Centre Right party alliance● Fragmented left-wing opposition● Extreme right competitor for Fidesz-KDNP

Party system

Performance: quality of governance




Political frag-


attitudes

Social cohesion


Three basic indicators to show how Hungary missed the opportunity to be forerunner in the region and the basis of population's frustration in Hungary.

GDP

PC income

Inequality

GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) (EU-27=100) in Hungary,

Slovakia and Poland (1995-2011)*

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201140

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

Performance: quality of gov.

* Source: Eurostat.

Income and income inequality*

19911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201170.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

Per capita real income

Income inequality

* Source: KSH Stadat tables (3.1.13) and Tóth 2009. Notes: Income is per capita real income (1990=100), inequality is equalized Gini and 1987=100. The actual Gini value was 0.236 in 1987.

Performance: quality of gov.

Generalized and institutional trust




Political frag-


attitudes

Social cohesion


Institutional trust is very much dependent on political climate and performance of public institutions. Generalized trust is the results of socialization (family) and broader context of social capital. It is relatively stable over time, but institutional and performance factors may also have effect on it.

Generalized trust 2010*

Generalized trust

* Source: ESS 5. round.

Generalized trust in selected countries, 2002-2010*

Generalized trust

* Source: ESS 1-5 rounds. Interactive chart: http://www.tarki.hu/maps/blog/trust-trends-updated

http://www.tarki.hu/maps/blog/trust-trends-updated

Trust in the legal system, 2002-2010*

Institutional trust

* Source: ESS 1-5 rounds. Means on 0-10 scales. Interactive chart: http://www.tarki.hu/maps/blog/trust-trends-updated


Trust in parliament, 2002-2010*Institutional trust



Satisfaction with democracy, 2002-2010*

Institutional trust



Socio-political attitudes: tolerance and demand for redistribution




Political frag-


attitudes

Social cohesion


Socio-political attitudes


Percent of those who would not allow immigrants of different race to come

and live, 2002-2010*



* Source: ISSP Social Inequality.

Percent of those who “strongly agree” with the statement that “income differences are too high”

in selected countries, 1987-2009*


* Source: ISSP Social Inequality.

Percent of those who “strongly agree” with the statement that “government should reduce income

differences” in selected countries, 1987-2009*

Social capital




Political frag-


attitudes

Social cohesion


Percentage of those who never meet friends, relatives or work colleagues by country*

* Source: European Social Survey 1-5 rounds.

Social capital

Percent of those who worked in organisation or association (other than political parties) last 12 months by countries and ESS rounds*

Social capital

Worked for association by educational attainment, Hungary 2010*

Social capital

* Source: ESS 5. round.

Turnout in parliamentary, local and EP elections in Hungary, 1990-2010*

Year Parliamentary elections (1st

round)

Local election European Parliamentary

election

1990 65.1 40.2

1994 68.9 43.4

1998 56.3 45.7

2002 70.5 51.1

2004 38.5

2006 67.8 53.1

2009 36.3

2010 64.4 46.6

* Source: National Election Office (http://www.valasztas.hu)

Social capital

Instead of conclusionElement of the model Findings and some recommendations to achieve

more cohesive society

(1) Party system Too competitive / combatant, lack of consensual elements; need for political realignment and elite change.

(2) Performance Poor performance that have not meet popular expectations; need for change of political culture / political elite ???

(3) Socio-political attitudes Intolerance, high expectation toward the state and public services; Generational shift and cultural change resulted from good governance and performance of public institutions possibly could alter path dependencies.

(4) Institutional trust Dependent on political cycles, it can be recovered throughout good governance; need for political and cultural change

(5) Generalized trust It is the hardest to change, but should follow the pattern of social capital regime.

Conclusion

“Happy endings must come at the end of something,' the Walrus pointed out. 'If they happen in the middle of a story, or

an adventure, or the like, all they do is cheer things up for awhile.”*

(6) On observed low and over-politicized social capital regime a quote from Pichler and Wallace (2007) can be concluding**: “In countries where family or informal social capital predominate to a much greater extent it may be more difficult to establish a vibrant civil society of the kind described by Putnam because the culture does not allow it. Yet societies change. As civil society is rekindled in Southern and Eastern Europe, we might find new forms of social cohesion emerging.”

* Salman Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

Conclusion

References● Angelusz, Róbert, and Róbert Tardos. 2011. “Régi és új törésvonalak, polarizáció, divergenciaspirál.” In Részvétel, képviselet,

politikai változás., eds. Róbert Angelusz and Róbert Tardos. Budapest: Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány, p. 347–382.

● Fábián, Z., & Tóth, I. G. (2008). Lófogók és csirkekötők: pártpreferencia csoportok azonosulása és attitűdjei. In I. G. Tóth & P. Szivós (Eds.), Köz, teher, elosztás (pp. 203–219). Budapest: TÁRKI.

● Jenson, Jane. 2010. Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion. London: Commonwealth Secreteriat.

● Jungerstam-Mulders, Susanne. 2006. “Parties and Party Systems in Post-Communist EU Member States: Comparative Aspects.” In Post-communist EU member states: parties and party systems, ed. Susanne Jungerstam-Mulders. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 1–23.

● Karácsony, G., & Róna, D. (2010). A Jobbik titka. A szélső jobb magyarországi megerősödésének lehetséges okairól. Politikatudományi Szemle, XIX(1), 31–63.

● Körösényi, A. (1996). Nómenklatúra és vallás - törésvonalak és pártrendszer Magyarországon. Századvég, Új folyam(1), 67–93.

● Laakso, Maarku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “‘E ective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” ffComparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.

● Pedersen, Mogens N. 1979. “The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility.” European Journal of Political Research 7(1): 1–26.

● Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2007). Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 423–435. doi:10.1093/esr/jcm013

● Tóka, G. (2006). Vezérek csodálói: A magyar választói magatartás nemzetközi összehasonlításban. In G. Karácsony (szerk.), A 2006-os országgyűlési választások. Elemzések és adatok. (pp. 17–58). Budapest: Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány.

● Tóth, István György. 2012. “Inequalities and social cohesion in Hungary: a birds eye view on developments in the last three decades.” In Budapest: Conference presentation at the Annual conference of the Hungarian Sociological Association CEU Budapest, 2012 November 9.

Documents

Indicators of social cohesion: Hungary from comparative