Search

Begin New Search Topic Social Cohesion Political Geography Global Focus

1. Social Contract and Social Cohesion: Synergies and Tensions between Two Related Concepts

Author:
Markus Loewe, Armin von Schiller, Tina Zintl, and Julia Leininger
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
“Social cohesion” and the “social contract” are two related analytical concepts, which have become increasingly popular among researchers and practitioners. Both concepts help to understand and characterise societies and countries by shedding light on the relationships between members and groups of society and state institutions. Unfortunately, there is often little precision in the use of the concepts. As a result, their respective analytical strengths have not always been well utilised for policy analysis and project design. Furthermore, the synergies between them have been overlooked. This paper therefore defines both concepts, considers their respective strengths and discusses the relationship between them. The concept of the social contract emphasises the deliverables exchanged between societal groups and governing authorities. Social contracts are the sum of formal and informal agreements amongst societal actors and between them and the actor in power (the government or any other type of authority) on the rights and obligations of one towards the other. Social contracts vary enormously, but all establish more stability in state–society relations, especially if they are inclusive and flexible enough to account for changes in the framework conditions. The concept of social cohesion, in contrast, refers primarily to the quality of the relations between individuals, societal groups and the state, and the underlying values, norms and attitudes that shape these relationships. Social cohesion can be characterised as the glue that holds a society together and enables it to develop a shared vision. It concerns the horizontal relationships between members of society and the vertical relationships between societal actors and political institutions. Social contracts and social cohesion affect each other. Social contracts contribute to social cohesion because the regular and predictable exchange of deliverables between societal groups and the state creates an interdependence that strengthens mutual trust, willing-ness to cooperate and a sense of common identity. Conversely, social contracts tend to be more resilient and sustainable if they are based on cohesive societies. Both concepts are thus useful for national governments and foreign donors to assess opportunities and design policies for sustainable development. The social contract concept helps us to understand the “give and take” in a country: it shows where governments could do better in delivering to society and thereby make state–society relations more stable. The social cohesion concept in turn helps to determine what holds societies together and which attributes of intra-society relations could or should be strengthened. In addition, both concepts assist foreign donors in assessing which interventions would be favourable for the internal relationships in partner countries and in thinking carefully about potential unintended harmful effects. In particular, international donors can benefit from exploiting the mutually enforcing relationship between social contract and social cohesion.
Topic:
Development, Institutions, Development Aid, Social Cohesion, and Social Contract
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Social Bonds: A Lifeline for Atrocity Victims

Author:
David Scheffer, Caroline Kaeb, and Madeline Babin
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
This report examines the funding gaps that undermine the delivery of sufficient funds—reparations and assistance—to victims of “atrocity crimes” (genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes) and options for developing a funding mechanism in the form of a social bond for the benefit of such victims. The report aims to generate an innovative means to scale funds in order to meet the immediate and long-term needs of survivors and those adversely impacted by atrocity crimes. This exercise has become even more vital in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic as funding shortages have erupted for human rights and humanitarian priorities across the globe. This is no small matter. The victim populations of atrocity crimes encompass the survivors of ongoing atrocities in addition to those stretching back years and decades. Atrocity victims currently number in the tens of millions globally. Addressing their needs—both with short-term provision of assistance to meet victims’ economic, health, and living requirements in the immediate aftermath of atrocities as well as with the long-term objectives of securing justice and reparations—remains at the forefront of policy priorities. The victim populations of atrocity crimes encompass the survivors of ongoing atrocities in addition to those stretching back years or even decades, including the assaults on civilians in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Cambodia, central Africa, Colombia, Darfur, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Syria, Ukraine, Xinjiang (China), Yemen, and many other regions and countries. Stripped of their human rights, and often enduring the losses of their relatives or friends, millions of these oppressed peoples are internally displaced or forced to flee as refugees. Tribunals, transitional justice mechanisms, and some domestic courts endeavor to hold criminally accountable those responsible for atrocities. Just as the millions who perished during or survived the Holocaust continue to be entitled to criminal justice and reparations, those who have endured contemporary atrocities seek compensation for the injustices suffered. This is proving increasingly difficult.
Topic:
Transitional Justice, Atrocities, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. How Does Globalisation Affect Social Cohesion?

Author:
Kasper Vrolijk
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper explores the effects of globalisation on social cohesion outcomes and the underlying mechanisms. A framework for reviewing the literature is offered, in which labour earnings, household expenditures and firm productivity are identified as the main channels through which economic globalisation affects cohesion, trust and pro-social behaviour. Evidence points towards substantial losses in cohesion following negative globalisation changes, altering cohesion through absolute and relative changes in employment and expenditure (and people’s perception thereof). However, evidence is thin and inconsistent; studies are limited to effects of trade (and not foreign direct investment), cover some dimensions of cohesion but not others, and often evaluate the effect of negative trade events on cohesion (while trade and foreign direct investment may offer gains to workers, households and firms, which boosts cohesion). From the available evidence, it is determined that when setting policy, it is important to address relative losses from globalisation (between groups), incorporate economic costs of social repercussions, and take on market distortions and underlying cyclical or secular trends that may amplify the effects of globalisation on cohesion.
Topic:
Globalization, Economy, Trade, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Strengthening Social Cohesion in Conflict-Affected Societies: Potential, Patterns and Pitfalls

Author:
Fletcher D. Cox, Charlotte Fiedler, and Karina Mross
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Bilateral and multilateral donors are increasingly focusing on strengthening social cohesion in efforts to build and sustain peace in conflict-affected societies. What does promoting social cohesion mean with respect to inter­national engagement? This policy brief provides an overview of the “social cohesion” approach, explains how it applies to conflict-affected and fragile contexts, and intro­duces a typology of common interventions. It discusses the added value of taking a social cohesion approach to development and peacebuilding practice, as well as challenges policymakers and practitioners may encounter when using it. Social cohesion can be understood as positive relations among individuals and groups (the horizontal dimension) and between society and the state (the vertical dimension). While fostering, rebuilding or sustaining cohesion are challenges for any society, they are particularly difficult in conflict settings where divisions fuel violence and violence reinforces divisions. We argue that taking a social cohesion approach in divided, conflict-affected societies offers several advantages. First, it has the potential to focus intervention on less tangible aspects of conflict – drawing attention to overlooked grievances and bringing tensions between groups and the state into focus. Second, it helps integrate a peacebuilding lens in a broad variety of policy spaces. Third, it helps policymakers to integrate citizen perspectives into develop­ment strategies and to focus on the provision of quality peace for all citizens. Taking a social cohesion approach, however, also brings challenges. It may be sensitive for external actors to address social grievances, identity-based divisions and power relations. Dominant groups may feel threatened in their position of power and push back against these attempts, or tensions among historically marginalised groups may cause friction. Donors may experience backlash against programmes that directly address sensitive topics. At the same time, if the intent is to take a transformative approach to building social cohesion, it may be difficult for donors to maintain a neutral stance. Social cohesion programmes may risk increasing tension in the short term, but to restore inter-group trust and state legitimacy over the long term, it might be necessary to confront and accept tension.
Topic:
Development, Engagement, Social Cohesion, Donors, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Attracting, Retaining, and Diversifying Sponsors for Refugees in Community Sponsorship Programs

Author:
Maria Belen Zanzuchi, Nadja Dumann, Florian Tissot, and Admir Skodo
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
More countries in Europe and elsewhere are exploring the potential of sponsorship programs to open up another pathway for refugee protection and integration. This reflects recognition of both the staggering scale of unmet protection needs globally and the value of involving receiving communities more directly in welcoming and supporting refugee newcomers. The strength of these community sponsorship programs—and their ability to be sustained and scaled up over time—hinges on recruiting community members to volunteer their time and often some personal resources to support arriving refugees. This report examines the challenges sponsorship programs have faced to recruiting, retaining, and diversifying the sponsors involved in these efforts, as well as strategies that programs could and in some cases already use to overcome these obstacles. It highlights findings from surveys and interviews conducted in three case-study countries (Belgium, Germany, and Ireland) as well as evidence from other countries that operate sponsorship programs. This MPI Europe study is part of the Building Capacity for Private Sponsorship in the European Union (CAPS-EU) Project, which aims to build the capacity of European, national, and local governments and nongovernmental stakeholders to design, implement, sustain, and scale up community sponsorship programs for refugees.
Topic:
Refugees, Resettlement, Asylum, Integration, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

6. Towards caring and safeguarding research practices – A trauma-informed approach to violence-related qualitative research

Author:
Gugu Resha and Amina Mwaikambo
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR)
Abstract:
IIn recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of understanding vicarious trauma among practitioners and researchers of sexual and gender-based violence as well as other forms of violence. Mental health practitioners and organisations working with people affected by violence are framing the provision of resources and tools to prevent vicarious trauma as a crucial ethical and institutional obligation. This comes from the understanding that trauma exposure can affect both the research participants and the researcher and can have lingering effects well beyond the duration of the study in the form of re-experiencing thoughts, feelings and sensations that were experienced during a traumatic event or the re-telling of that event. Among these risks faced by researchers, scholars have included the challenge of blurred boundaries between interviews and therapy during qualitative research, the spillover effects of traumatic experiences and emotional collateral experienced by research staff, and countertransference of trauma which has mostly been described in the context of therapists and clients but also extends to researchers. Research has also shown that plans for researcher safety and well-being are a necessary strategy for building researcher resilience and preventing vicarious trauma. The growing literature on this topic reveals the centrality of this issue to the area on qualitative research, violence and trauma. The work that the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) has done on violence and how it impacts communities over the past few decades has highlighted the importance of support mechanisms and systems to ensure the well-being of the staff who carry out research with participants who have witnessed or experienced violence. Our own reflections from CSVR researchers, fieldworkers, and mental health practitioners have shown the need to establish a rigorous and consistent framework to adequately capacitate staff to understand the risks that come with designing and carrying out research with participants on their experiences of violence. More specifically, these reflections have highlighted the reality of how trauma from these experiences affects research participants in their engagement with researchers, and how the repeated exposure to people recounting their traumatic experiences can inadvertently affect researchers too. These reflections indicate the need for research frameworks that take the effects of trauma into account, to guide researchers in their research design in order to safeguard their own well-being as well as that of their participants during the project. This practice brief consolidates the feedback of researchers, data collectors, and mental health practitioners about the challenges they face in the field and offers practical strategies on how to use a trauma-informed approach in research to provide adequate support, training, and measures to ensure that these adverse effects are limited with appropriate planning and implementation. The objective of this practice brief is to promote a trauma-informed research practice that ensures that research projects: Address research participants in a manner that is sensitive to traumatic experiences of violence and its effects; Avoid re-traumatising participants; Avoid second-hand traumatisation of researchers and data collectors; and, Contain any adverse effects on the researchers and data collectors that may emerge from the context and exposure to people who have witnessed and experienced violence. This brief seeks to improve and consolidate the existing tools within CSVR’s own research methods and operationalise trauma-informed approach into the research design process and distress protocol. Furthermore, this brief seeks to provide guidance for CSVR’s partners, as well as other research and nonprofit organisations, social intervention projects, and practitioners who conduct research in areas such as gender-based violence, conflict, and other forms of violence that may result in traumatic effects on individuals, families, and communities.
Topic:
Inequality, Trauma, Mental Health, Social Cohesion, Qualitative Research, and Safeguarding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Determinants of Social Cohesion: Cross-Country Evidence

Author:
Yabibal M. Walle
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Noting that few studies to date have investigated the determinants of social cohesion in a comprehensive and systematic manner, this paper examines the macro-level determinants of social cohesion using a panel of up to 92 developing and developed countries for the period 1990–2020. Employing the system GMM dynamic panel data estimator, which addresses endogeneity concerns by means of internal instruments, I find that the levels of education, government size, globalisation, and economic development have significantly positive effects on most dimensions of a country’s social cohesion. In contrast, inflation, corruption and income inequality are detrimental to social cohesion.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Income Inequality, Inflation, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. Social Cohesion After Armed Conflict: A Literature Review

Author:
Charlotte Fiedler and Christopher Rohles
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper brings together 39 academic studies on how armed conflict affects social cohesion. Reviewing the literature shows that conflict mostly harms social cohesion. However, this review also points toward several important caveats as well as blind-spots of the current literature.
Topic:
Academia, Literature Review, Social Cohesion, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Solidarity in Isolation? Social Cohesion at a Time of Physical Distance

Author:
Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan and Aliyyah Ahad
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
In addition to its widespread public-health and economic impacts, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged social cohesion in many countries by forcing changes in how people interact. Physical connection, the most human response to collective adversity, has been largely out of reach during long periods of lockdown, social distancing, and remote work and learning. The temporary closure of public spaces such as libraries and schools has also limited the spontaneous, casual encounters that can build bridges between disparate groups. This MPI Europe report explores ways to assess the pandemic’s effects on social capital and social infrastructure in Europe and North America. It also presents an initial analysis of how and where social cohesion is in peril and where it may actually be gaining strength, and highlights the importance of governments taking an inclusive approach and prioritizing social cohesion as societies move toward recovery. The authors identify three trends: Bridges between groups are weakening, even as new forms of connection may be strengthening bonds within existing networks. Immigrant integration programs have worked hard to move their offerings online, but digital tools may capture only a fraction of what in-person programming can and they may leave behind some people who most need assistance overcoming integration barriers, such as those with limited access to and familiarity with technology. A wide range of volunteering, mutual aid, and other grassroots forms of solidarity have emerged during the pandemic, but it remains to be seen which can make the switch from emergency response to longer-term engagement.
Topic:
Immigration, Citizenship, Integration, Social Cohesion, Social Capital, COVID-19, and Civic Engagement
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and Global Focus

10. The Role of Values for Social Cohesion: Theoretical Explication and Empirical Exploration

Author:
Daniel Nowack and Sophia Schoderer
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Shared values are deemed necessary as a solid foundation for social cohesion by commentators and observers in many countries. However, when examining what kind of values this is based on, answers often come down to platitudes and national clichés. This discussion paper offers some clarification through both a theoretical explication and an empirical exploration concerning the general role of values for social cohesion. Values are notions about desirable, trans-situational end-states and behaviours. They fall into two categories, individual and societal values. We provide a critical discussion of the most prominent conceptualisations and their operationalisation in the social sciences. Values affect social cohesion in three possible pathways: First, when they are shared; second, when they promote behaviour per se conducive to social cohesion and third, through their effect on policy choice and institutional design. We review evidence provided by the research literature for each of these pathways. We further explore the third pathway by deriving from the research literature the conjecture that a cultural value emphasis on egalitarianism makes a universalistic scope of welfare institutions more likely, which in turn increases social and political trust. We first examine this conjecture with a series of regression models, and then run a mediation analysis. The results show that (1.) egalitarian values are moderately strongly and positively linked to universalistic welfare institutions, but that (2.) welfare institutions mediate the association of egalitarian values with social trust only to a small extent and that (3.) more universalistic welfare institutions counteract a negative association between egalitarian values and institutional trust.
Topic:
Culture, Institutions, Values, Welfare, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus