social networks and social capital, and (5) territorial belonging and identity (ibid.
996). Table 1 shows the components highlighted by each approach and classifies
these components as either ideational or relational. Kearns and Forrest’s approach is
clearly the most elaborate. The CoE’s approach is mainly inspired by the relational
and therefore organic solidarity dimension of social cohesion. By contrast, the
ideational dimension predominates in the approach of Chan et al, heavily drawing
from social capital theory as it does. The four approaches are thus very different in
their understandings of social cohesion, which only adds to the relevance of assessing
which of these approaches - if any - advances a reasonably coherent conception of
the term. The components displayed will be operationalized and subjected to analysis
in the ensuing sections.
Table 1 about here
Social cohesion: a universal or regionally specific phenomenon
Interestingly, the latest study of Green et al (2009) differs markedly from their
previous studies in its approach to social cohesion. These previous studies, as noted
above, aimed at identifying a coherent phenomenon of social cohesion at the societal
level consisting of interlinked constituents. Rather than aiming to discover a general
phenomenon of social cohesion applicable to all western states, the latest study sought
to verify the empirical validity of claims about unique and durable „regimes’ of social
cohesion specific to a world region. Drawing on the literature about varieties of
capitalism and civic culture (see below), it postulated the existence of four regionally
based social cohesion regimes in OECD countries: (1) a liberal regime, marked by
relatively low levels of equality and high levels of civic participation, value diversity
and tolerance; (2) a social-democratic regime, characterized by high levels of equality
and trust; (3) a conservative / social market regime, for which relatively low levels
of civic participation and tolerance and relatively high levels social hierarchy and
order are expected to be distinctive; (4) an East Asian regime, marked by high levels
of equality and social hierarchy and low levels of value diversity and tolerance. Table
2 provides a complete picture of these regimes, of the components they are expected
to include and of the countries in which they are said to be prevailing. The signs in the
table indicate relative levels. Thus, levels of social order are proposed to be low in the
liberal regime countries compared to those of countries with other regimes.
Performing cross-sectional analyses on administrative and aggregated survey data,
Green et al (2009) found evidence for a distinct English-speaking liberal and a distinct
Scandinavian social-democratic regime, while little empirical support was found for
the existence of a social market regime comprising the countries of mainland Western
Europe.
Table 2 about here
The contrasting approaches of the studies of Green et al reflect the well-known
opposition in the social sciences between „universalists’ and „particularists’ (the
labeling is mine). The former believe that social phenomena are primarily the product