Diversity, Populism and Threats to Social Cohesion
Threats to social cohesion posed by globalisation, immigration and economic inequality have been the source of much public discussion in recent years, especially as they are often credited with the rise of right-wing populist parties (RWPPs) in many countries. This article argues that an inclusive welfare state can offset the negative effects of globalization and inequality, while the impact of diversity on social cohesion depends to a large extent on how the issue is framed.
Inequality and social cohesion
Economic inequality can result in less social capital within communities, and thus preclude social cohesion. Higher inequality leads to a lack of ‘shared fate or solidarity needed for social trust and collective action’, as well as general pessimism and cynicism (Kesler and Bloemraad 2018, 323). It also creates an overall feeling of ‘powerlessness and mistrust’, thereby making people less likely to interact and build social capital (Laurence 2011, 71).
Institutions can mitigate inequality and deprivation, and in doing so prevent them from negatively impacting cohesion. Swank (2003) looks at support for radical right-wing populist parties (RWPPs) as a proxy for a lack of social cohesion. Support for this ideology appears to be an appropriate proxy for a lack of cohesiveness, as rather than promoting society wide trust, belonging and willingness to help, these parties are explicitly singling out certain groups within society as deserving of exclusion.
Globalisation and social cohesion
Swank investigates the relationship between the ways in which the impacts of globalization (decreased demand for low skilled workers, more insecurities in employment and income) are mitigated by the welfare state, and corresponding differences in levels of support for RWPPs. He finds that ‘universalist coverage, generous social wage and well-developed employment policies’ lower support for the far right (Ibid., 218). It is important to note that higher levels of immigration still increase the vote for RWPPs, but much less in universal welfare states.
The welfare state as a solution
The welfare state can help to lessen threats to social cohesion, by combating inequality and relative deprivation. Kumlin and Rothstein (2005) study welfare state structure and social capital and find that universalist welfare states such as those in the Nordic countries engender interpersonal trust, while means-tested liberal ones as in the UK and Canada do not. This could be connected to cushioning effects of higher levels of support offered by universalist systems on the negative impacts of deprivation on social cohesion.
Both Canada and the UK are liberal welfare states which have never been hugely generous or had widespread universal benefits, and have recently been further cutting and restructuring welfare services. Universal insurance, and even generous benefits targeted at specific groups can strengthen cohesion, as when social assistance is provided as a right to any member of a community in need, it lays ‘a basis for a shared sense of social security and solidarity’ (White 2016, 51). In Canada, there has been straightforward welfare state retrenchment: ‘reductions in unemployment protection’, a ‘two-tiered health system’, and a sharp drop in spending since the 70s (Ibid., 52). Social cohesion policy is currently being rebuilt around ‘citizenship’ rather than social rights, With access to social support increasingly being linked to citizenship (or immigration status), the welfare state is no longer acting as a foundation for social cohesion in communities.
The UK has also shifted away from using the welfare state to maintain social cohesion, pursuing ‘a divided and conflictual capitalist market society’ instead, and imposing cuts to services in a similar approach to Canada (Taylor-Gooby 2016, 711). Rather than achieving social cohesion through social support, policy has become about social control through division and blame. Thus, the preconditions for a social cohesion problem are met in both countries – economic deprivation and inequality, leading to discontent that can be channelled towards outsiders or difference within communities.
Political discourse, and perceptions of the ‘other’
Discourse and issue framing can strengthen the idea of diversity as a threat to social cohesion. One important influence on individuals’ conception of political problems is political discourse. Generalized trust is a key aspect of social cohesion, and it is based on a conception of others as more or less risky to deal with – if particular groups have been publicly constructed as dangerous or threatening (a technique often mobilised by RWPPs against immigrants) this will decrease general trust in them. Helbling et al. (2015) find that that ‘the more salient the mobilization of diversity issues becomes, the stronger the negative effect of diversity on trust’ – even if the tone of a political party is not negative. Hjerm and Schnabel (2012) also finds that acceptance of redistribution is based on ‘ethnically based perceptions about who is part of the common’ – who belongs in the group.
The role of discourse in determining division is further illustrated in the difference between attitudes towards immigrants in Quebec versus the rest of Canada, despite the similar levels of deprivation and shared pool of immigrants settling across provinces. Quebecois respondents are more ‘sensitive to threatening cues about immigrants’ – more hostile to Middle Eastern and economically low status immigrants, as their public discourse constructs Quebecois identity as under threat (Stolle et al. 2008, 64).
However, the negative impact of diversity on trust is significantly reduced for those who have ‘bridging’ ties as opposed to just ‘bonding’ ones (Kearns et al. 2014, 81). This indicates that while deprivation interacts with diversity and political narratives to create division, face to face interaction can provide a counterbalance. This experience is echoed in Canada (Stolle et al. 2008, 64), as while white majorities are less trusting when they experience more diversity in their environment, actually speaking and interacting with neighbours prevented or decreased this lack of trust.
References
Helbling, Marc, Tim Reeskens, and Dietlind Stolle. 2015. “Political Mobilisation, Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion: The Conditional Effect of Political Parties.” Political Studies 63 (1): 101–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12087.
Hjerm, Mikael, and Annette Schnabel. 2012. “How Much Heterogeneity Can the Welfare State Endure? The Influence of Heterogeneity on Attitudes to the Welfare State.” Nations and Nationalism 18 (2): 346–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00523.x.
Kearns, Ade, Nick Bailey, Maria Gannon, Mark Livingston, and Alastair Leyland. 2014. “‘All in It Together’? Social Cohesion in a Divided Society: Attitudes to Income Inequality and Redistribution in a Residential Context.” Journal of Social Policy 43 (3): 453–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000063.
Kesler, Christel, and Irene Bloemraad. 2018. “Does Immigration Erode Social Capital? The Conditional Effects of Immigration-Generated Diversity on Trust, Membership, and Participation across 19 Countries, 1981–2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43. Balfour Library (Pitt Rivers Museum): 319.
Kumlin, Staffan, and Bo Rothstein. 2005. “Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare-State Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies 38 (4): 339–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414004273203.
Laurence, James. 2011. “The Effect of Ethnic Diversity and Community Disadvantage on Social Cohesion: A Multi-Level Analysis of Social Capital and Interethnic Relations in UK Communities.” European Sociological Review 27 (1): 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp057.
Stolle, Dietlind, Stuart Soroka, and Richard Johnston. 2008. “When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions.” Political Studies 56 (1): 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x.
Swank, D. 2003. “Globalization, the Welfare State and Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe.” Socio-Economic Review 1 (2): 215–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/soceco/1.2.215.
Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2016. “The Divisive Welfare State.” Social Policy and Administration 50 (6): 712–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12257.
White, Deena. 2016. “Social Policy and Solidarity , Orphans of the New Model of Social Cohesion Author ( S ): Deena White Source : The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie , Vol . 28 , No . 1 , Published by : Canadian Journal of Sociology Stable URL” 28 (1): 51–76.
About the Author
Hannah Goddard-Rebstein is a graduate student reading for the Msc in Comparative Social Policy at the Department of Social Policy and Intervention. Her research interests include gender and the welfare state, as well as the impact of the funding and structure of legal aid programs on access to justice. Hannah graduated from the University of British Columbia in 2017, where she completed a BA in Political Science.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect any editorial policy.