Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Measuring cross-country differences
in social cohesion
International Conference on
Social Cohesion
and Development
20.01.2011
Christopher Garroway de Coninck
Johannes Jütting
OECD Development Centre
2
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Discussion and regional patterns
5 Conclusion
3
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Regional patterns and discussion
5 Conclusion
4
Why measuring social cohesion today?
“Zeitgeist” of today, post crisis: riots, protests, strikes, dissatisfaction, persisting poverty – challenges “glue that holds society together”
Shifting wealth: how to manage the social transition of converging countries
Academic/policy debate: new interest in social issues; new data sets available, poverty discussion (multidimensional, relative)
New data sources– e.g., on subjective well-being (e.g., Gallup)
5
Why social cohesion today? Example of Thailand
Development success by many measures
• 3% annualized growth 2000-2009
• Inequality declining (Gini, MLD)
• Dollar-a-day poverty headcount
declined from near 22% in 1981 to less
than 0.4% today.
• Universal healthcare introduced in
2001
• Land reform program among the
largest in the world
Yet, since 2006 the country has
experienced conflict between
different groups.
6
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Regional patterns and discussion
5 Conclusion
7
Our definition- three dimensions
Our definition:
A cohesive society works towards the well-being of all
members, minimising disparities and trying to avoid
marginalization within and between groups.
3 dimensions
i) fighting discrimination, social exclusion and inequalities;
ii) fostering cohesion by building social capital, (i.e.,
networks of relationships, trust and identity between and
within different groups of society)
iii) enabling upward social mobility
8
The Social Cohesion “Triangle”
Social Cohesion
Social Exclusion •adequacy of living standard
•distance from customary living standard •satisfaction with living standard
Social Capital •trust
•civic participation
Social Mobility •parent/child educational differences
•perceived prospects to advance
9
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Regional patterns and discussion
5 Conclusion
10
1) Social Exclusion
Cross-country differences in key dimensions
11
Measuring social exclusion: 4 key approaches
Absolute poverty
($1.25 PPP/day) international absolute poverty line
Relative Poverty
50% of the median international relative poverty line (if $1.25/day headcount<5%)
National poverty line
Absolute or relative in nature, defined by national authorities (political)
Subjective poverty
Defined by whether you are satisfied with your standard of living
12
Absolute poverty in Asia, Europe and Latin America
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% P
HL
CH
N
KH
M
IND
BG
D
NP
L
KG
Z
MD
A
AR
M
GEO
GTM
CO
L
PER
EC
U
Po
ve
rty
he
ad
co
un
t
Dollar-a-day poverty Subjective poverty National poverty
East Asia South Asia Eastern Europe/Central Asia Latin America
Sources: World Bank (2009), Gallup (2010)
13
Absolute poverty in Africa
Sources: World Bank (2009), Gallup (2010)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% M
WI
AG
O
NER
TC
D
MO
Z
LBR
ZM
B
NG
A
RW
A
TZA
B
DI
GIN
ETH
G
HA
ZA
F
UG
A
MLI
SEN
C
MR
B
FA
C
OG
C
OM
C
OD
K
EN
M
DG
B
EN
SLE
C
IV
TGO
Dollar-a-day poverty Subjective poverty National poverty
14
Diff’t measures of exclusion, for diff’t levels of development P
overt
y lin
e in m
onth
ly 2
005 $
PP
P
At higher mean living standards, countries have higher national poverty lines
Sources:Garroway and de Laiglesia (forthcoming), Chen and Ravallion (2008)
15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80% C
RI
BR
A
MEX
EG
Y
SV
N
MY
S
PO
L
AR
G
CH
L
MA
R
JO
R
EC
U
DO
M
IRN
ALB
KA
Z
JA
M
BIH
EST
HU
N
BLR
HR
V
RU
S
MK
D
LVA
RO
U
BG
R
LTU
OEC
D-3
0
Po
ve
rty
he
ad
co
un
t
50% of median relative poverty Subjective poverty National poverty
Relative poverty in the rest of the world
Sources: Garroway and de Laiglesia (forthcoming), OECD (2009), World Bank (2009),
Gallup (2010)
16
2) Social Capital
Cross-country differences in key dimensions
17
Social capital: Trust and Participation
22%
78%
21%
65%
36%
91%
25%
70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Believe most people can be
trusted
Have someone close they count
on
Volunteered last month
Voted in last legislative election
Sh
are
of
po
pu
latio
n
non-OECD OECD
Participation
Sources: World Values Survey, Gallup, International IDEA
Trust
18
Social capital: Believe most people can be trusted
Sources: Most recent available wave of World Values Survey
40% 37%
21% 17%
22%
58%
21%
39%
49%
16% 19%
14% 14%
4%
16%
41%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
19
Social capital: Volunteered in the last month
Sources: Most recent available wave of Gallup World Poll
41%
21% 22%
16%
22%
17%
25%
12%
29%
40%
27%
15% 19%
25%
20%
29%
23%
42%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
20
3) Social Mobility
Cross-country differences in key dimensions
21
0.6
6
0.6
1
0.6
1
0.6
0
0.5
9
0.5
9
0.5
5
0.5
5
0.5
4
0.5
2
0.5
0
0.4
9
0.4
8
0.4
6
0.4
6
0.4
6
0.4
6
0.4
4
0.4
3
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.3
9
0.3
9
0.3
9
0.3
8
0.3
7
0.3
7
0.3
6
0.3
5
0.3
5
0.3
3
0.3
3
0.3
2
0.3
1
0.3
1
0.3
0
0.2
8
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Per
u
Ecu
ado
r
Pan
ama
Ch
ile
Bra
zil
Co
lom
bia
Nic
arag
ua
Ind
on
esia
Ital
y
Slo
ven
ia
Egyp
t
Hu
nga
ry
Sri L
anka
Pak
ista
n
USA
Swit
zerl
and
Irel
and
Sou
th A
fric
a
Po
lan
d
Vie
tnam
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Bel
giu
m
Esto
nia
Swed
en
Gh
ana
Ukr
ain
e
East
Tim
or
Ban
glad
esh
Slo
vaki
a
Cze
ch …
Net
her
lan
ds
No
rway
Nep
al
New
Zea
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
No
rth
ern
…
Gre
at B
rita
in
Mal
aysi
a
Den
mar
k
Kyr
gyzs
tan
OECD non-OECD
Social mobility: Correlation of parent/child education
Sources: OECD (2010) based on Hertz, et al (2007)
22
Social mobility: Believe hard work helps you get ahead
79% 73%
85%
73%
84%
46%
72%
55%
81%
91%
79%
88% 91%
81% 75%
83%
91% 86% 86%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sources: Most recent available wave of Gallup World Poll
23
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Discussion and regional patterns
5 Conclusion
24
Discussion
Complexity of results
•Calls into question reductionist approaches of measuring social cohesion only with one indicator
•Subjective well being data provides useful complements
•Need to simultaneously look at the different dimensions
Relative position in a society
•who your peers are matters (more?)– for social cohesion outcomes
25
Regional and national patterns?
Country-specific examples
•Less satisfaction with living standards in India, Thailand recently, for example
•More volunteering in Tunisia recently
Regional Patterns
•Eastern Europe feels more exclusion and less mobility than standard measures suggest
•Latin America feels less exclusion and more mobility than standard measures suggest
•Asia high trust but low volunteering
•High volunteering and trust in Central Asia
•Africa higher trust and civic participation, than many other regions; sharp contrast between subjective poverty and absolute/national poverty in both directions
Caveats: cultural/institutional specificities
26
Outline
1 Why measure social cohesion?
2 Conceptual framework
3 Cross-country differences in key dimensions
4 Regional patterns and discussion
5 Conclusion
27
Conclusions
1) Social cohesion: multidimensional concept, multidimensional measurement approach needed
2) Social exclusion, social capital and social mobility as key dimensions
3) Measuring these key dimensions requires material and subjective well-being data (absolute improvements not sufficient…)
4) Applying the framework: complex interactions, potentially useful to contribute explaining current Zeitgeist
5) Traffic light, one single indicator? What is most useful for policy making?
Many open questions, exciting new research field
