CAIRN-INT.INFO : International Edition
Volume
64
format_quote Cite share Share

Full-text

1 – Introduction

1Europe is struggling with the consequences of the economical crises at different levels. Due to the impending insolvency of several EU-member states and pessimistic future scenarios regarding the European integration process, it is not easy for European citizens to remain progressively oriented towards societal challenges. While some authors (e.g. Honneth, 1994; Heitmeyer, 1997) favour a broad conception of social disintegration encompassing the objective level (e.g. relative deprivation, lack of political participation, social exclusion) and the subjective level (e.g. fear of social decline, political disenchantment, social distrust) other authors refer more specifically to high levels of discontent (e.g. Ehrenberg, 2010) and rising feelings of uncertainty (e.g. Castel, 1995; 2009) in European states. In this article a new multidimensional concept of societal well-being vs. malaise is presented to understand and evaluate new cleavages in societal embeddedness, social recognition and social belonging in contemporary Europe. The term malaise originates from medical science and describes general feelings of discomfort or a lack of well-being (see Online Medical Encyclopedia, Medline Plus, 2014). But in recent years the term is more used in a societal sense referring to societies “afflicted with a deep cultural malaise” (see Online Oxford Dictionary, 2014). This second connotation of social malaise encompasses latent feelings that society is not doing well. Certain expressions can be captured as visions of decline, feelings of anomie and lack of political and personal trust (see Elchardus, de Keere, 2012, p. 103f.).

2Interestingly, although social integration was always a popular topic in sociological theory addressed by various founding fathers of this discipline (in particular Durkheim, 1967[1893]; 1967[1897]; Parsons, 2003[1973]) an empirically wide-ranging examination of subjective feelings of societal well-being is virtually absent. There is a clear need to develop multidimensional attitudinal indicators of societal functioning (e.g. Harrison, Jowell, Sibley, 2011), to assess the progress of contemporary European societies not solely based on economic indicators but to include subjective evaluations of society. This necessity to conceptualize subjective well-being in a multidimensional way is also recognized by contemporary well-being research [1]. Glatzer (e.g. 2006; 2008) suggests in various articles to measure quality of life in certain nations by combining the operationalization of objective living conditions with subjective perceptions of the citizens. Both measurements should be multidimensional, addressing on the objective side various areas of societal functioning and encompassing on the subjective side individual well-being (using the classical indicators of life satisfaction and happiness) as well as satisfaction with various life domains and perceived social problems (Glatzer, 2008, p. 101). It is necessary to focus on various issues of societal well-being because the association between objective living conditions and subjective perceptions is found to be weaker than expected (e.g. Huppert et al. 2009, p. 302). This so-called well-being-paradox meaning that higher objective living conditions do not automatically lead to higher satisfaction levels was already addressed by various researchers in national studies (e.g. Glatzer, Zapf, 1984) as well as in cross-national survey research (e.g. Easterlin, 1995).

3The aim of this article is to focus on contemporary challenges of societal well-being by a new theoretical and comprehensive empirical approach. A theoretical model connecting causes (societal conditions) and characteristics of actual challenges on quality of life at the objective and subjective level serves as the theoretical starting point and represents a Macro-Micro-Macro explanation scheme (see Esser, 1993; Coleman, 2001) of potential future developments in Europe. Feelings of societal well-being vs. social malaise represent the core of the explanation model. Those perceptions evolve from contemporary societal challenges (causes), describe various individual feelings of discomfort (characteristics) which may lead to certain tendencies threatening social cohesion (consequences) (see section 2). In a second step a possible operationalization strategy of societal well-being based on cross-national survey data (European Social Survey) is presented. Societal well-being vs. malaise is designed as a second order factor (based on various subjective evaluations of life domains) and the whole operationalization strategy is evaluated using the method of Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Structural Equation Modelling [2].

4The second part of the empirical analysis refers to the evolution of those potential feelings of discontent within Europe in recent years. All European countries participating in the European Social Survey were grouped geographically to measure different developments of societal well-being across major European regions (Western, Central Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe). Finally, separate multiple OLS-regressions with even more fine tuned regions were conducted to explore if certain limitations of living conditions as well as certain crises perceptions are able to explain ethnocentrism as one proposed societal consequence of malaise.

2 – A Macro-Micro-Macro explanation scheme

5The approach adopted in this article tries to systematize and link approaches at the macro and micro-level and can thus be illustrated in a bathtub model (Coleman, 2001). The main logic of this classical explanation scheme in sociology is that social phenomena have to be explained with reference to the micro-level because they are always influenced by individual actions (see Udehn, 2001).

Figure 1

The Macro-Micro-Macro explanation scheme of European Crises perceptions (according to the bathtub model, Coleman, 2001)

Figure 1

The Macro-Micro-Macro explanation scheme of European Crises perceptions (according to the bathtub model, Coleman, 2001)

6In this theoretical approach contemporary societal developments (mainly summarized under the three dynamics of political transformations, economic challenges and cultural insecurities) are seen as major causes at the macro level influencing objective living conditions and societal well-being at the micro level. At the individual level it can be measured if current restrictions in living conditions combined with crises perceptions exert an influence on ethnocentrism (the dependent variable). A higher amount of ethnocentrism may influence further societal developments at the macro level.

7The theoretical model tries to explain potential future developments within Europe but the empirical analysis in this contribution focuses solely on the micro-level. It is assumed that ethnocentrism is a key consequence resulting from negative evaluations of societal functioning (see section 2.3). Objective indicators of restrictions in living conditions together with subjective indicators of societal well-being may exert effects on ethnocentrism (as one key consequence at the micro-level). The central aim of the article is therefore to provide a theory-driven concept of societal well-being mainly highlighting the subjective dimension (perceptions of society). After the empirical evaluation of the construct it is measured if this conception of well-being is relevant to explain certain individual outcomes (such as tendencies towards ethnocentrism). Societal outcomes are not further addressed in this article due to the high complexity in the multilevel explanation model [3].

2.1 – The Causes of malaise

8To clarify the influence of societal conditions on societal well-being vs. malaise it is useful to refer to the dichotomy of system integration and social integration as developed by Lockwood (1971) and further elaborated by Habermas (1981), Luhmann (1984) and Giddens (1990). System integration means the economic and political order (integration of societal systems), while social integration refers to socio-cultural standards of society (integration potentials of individuals). Nations may be regarded as being integrated if both modes mutually enforce each other (see Heitmeyer, 2008, p. 11f.). According to the theoretical model, gaps between system and social integration within the EU arise due to rapid political transformations without the involvement of citizens (e.g. Fligstein, 2008; Haller, 2008), increasing inequalities within (e.g. OECD, 2011) and regional disparities between EU-members states (e.g. Vobruba, 2005) and cultural developments activating vulnerability (e.g. Castel, 1995) and insecurities (e.g. Bauman, 2008).

2.1.1 – Political transformations

9The current fiscal crises and huge economic disparities contest the role of the European Union as an efficient community of states. While European integration at the macro-level, due to collective crises intervention efforts still aims to progress, the identification with the European Union at the micro-level lags behind. EU-scepticism is on the rise in many European countries because the aims of political institutions and the perceptions of the citizens drift more and more apart (see Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2013). Disenchantment with politics is growing, because processes of decision making in the EU cannot be controlled by national governments or by citizens. The futility of politics is also interpreted at a more general level, as a growing helplessness and increasing powerlessness in relation to the dominance of the financial markets, which strongly stimulates the impression of an institutional crisis affecting Europe.

2.1.2 – Rising social inequalities and regional disparities

10Time comparisons using the GINI-Index as one classical measurement of income inequalities confirm that inequalities were growing in most of the European Union Member states over the last three decades (see Fredriksen, 2012). This is mainly caused by rapid income growth among the 10% highest income recipients, while the poorest 10% of the population are more and more losing ground. Reviewing the history of capitalism during the last decades Streek (2013) proposes that the capitalist class itself has triggered off the renaissance of market dominance. They succeeded in reestablishing neoliberalism since the 1980s, which leads to a gradual corrosion of the modern comforts of the welfare state (see Streek, 2013, p. 44). Therefore privatization, deregulation and technological progress have given profit mainly to higher classes. Citizens on the top of the social stratum perceived new chances to develop their skills and may still interpret trends of flexibilization (e.g. Sennett, 1998; Bröckling, 2007) as an opportunity while the lower classes are confronted with precarious work and unemployment and are often considered as the losers of modernization (e.g. Spier, 2010).

11Despite the central aim of the EU cohesion policy to reduce regional discrepancies, inequalities between European member states have also started to rise again particularly after the Eastern European Enlargement in 2004 (see Fredriksen, 2012, p. 18). The financial crises and its aftermath have dramatically increased the divergence between Northern and Central European states and peripheral Southern and Eastern European countries. The South of Europe was particularly hit by the crises and seems to be unable to cope with high public debt (see European Commission, 2013, p. 17). According to Bach (2008) the political efforts to establish the European monetary union are a crucial factor explaining the increasing regional disparities within the Euro-zone. Political acting was subordinated under the rules of economy, while the citizens got exposed to the dynamics of the market. After the crises all economic-political interventions of the EU are concentrated to save the Euro. Due to the rigid guidelines for budgetary policy there is little national scope left to support the highly affected labor markets in Southern Europe and to maintain social benefits for the vulnerable groups.

12The economic tensions Europe is facing today create more and more the impression among the public that decades of social progress have come to an end and the platform of wealth has been reached. The growing inequality (in turn related to the neo-liberal policies that accompany this process) therefore leads to strong fears of social descent, affecting increasingly the squeezed middle classes in European societies.

2.1.3 – Cultural developments: activating vulnerabilities and insecurities

13The efforts to combat global threats such as the financial crises has led on the one hand to the establishment of transnational risk communities but on the other hand to a transnationalization of fears (e.g. Beck, 2003; Bauman, 2008). According to Bauman (1999) a key feature of post modernity is the ambivalence of freedom. European societies have created a population in which the desire and quest for individual freedom is widespread and deemed legitimate. Therefore a broad spectrum of possibilities is offered but the predictability of life is declining and the responsibility for decision making is assigned to the individual (e.g. Schroer, 2000). People get disoriented and experience a lack of freedom (as a paradoxical consequence of high autonomy) because they are forced to make decisions and to incur debts but have no real opportunities for advancement within society. Some authors insist that strategies to cope with these insecurities depend primarily on the life situation and on socio-structural characteristics. Castel (1995) has introduced the concept of vulnerability, which refers to people who experience a loss of belonging to society and a lack of resources. Besides the zone of disaffiliation, referring to people being excluded in society, also the middle class is more and more affected by precarization (Castel, 2009). Others authors (e.g. Ehrenberg, 1998; Rosa, 2005) claim that widespread transformations in the economic, political and cultural sphere result in a serious overstress-syndrome and lead to a general malaise of late modernity (e.g. Ehrenberg, 2010). Both approaches highlight the cultural consequences of neoliberal capitalism. In line with the new spirit of capitalism (Boltanski, Chiapello, 1999) authors who emphasize vulnerability and precarization provide a social critique on capitalism while the latter authors emphasizing alienation and fatigue try to elaborate an artistic critique of the side-effects of capitalism on late modern life.

2.2 – Defining key features of societal crises states

14The analysis of transformations, inequalities and insecurities has shown that European citizens are confronted with various tensions, which may lead to potential negative outcomes for social integration. Therefore it is necessary to use a broad concept of societal well-being which encompasses all different dimensions. The approach of the Bielefeld research group in Germany, led by Heitmeyer (e.g. 1997), tries to systematize contemporary restrictions in objective living conditions and subjective crises feelings and provides a sophisticated concept to frame processes of disintegration. Three main problems must be solved in order to ensure social integration. Integration on the structural level (individual-functional system integration) is guaranteed through adequate access to job, housing or consumer markets. Communicative-interactive social integration calls for adherence to basic democratic principles. A well-functioning welfare state guarantees certain norms such as justice and solidarity and should provide opportunities to participate in the political discourse and decision-making process. The cultural expressive social integration refers to emotional relationships between people. Social cohesion is fulfilled if individuals experience social recognition by their social environment and if there is a high level of social trust between different societal groups. According to Anhut and Heitmeyer (2000) mismatches of these integration challenges appear at all three levels and can be analysed as crises states at the national level and crises perceptions at the individual level.

  • Economic difficulties within nation states (e.g. a rise in unemployment or high poverty rates) can be seen as a sign of a crisis of social structure. On the individual level, these crisis states are accompanied by expressing lower freedom and insecurities at work and a fear of social decline together with feelings of relative deprivation.
  • The crisis of regulation refers to the political level. Disintegration processes manifest themselves in low levels of voting, political participation and societal engagement. On the subjective level these processes go hand in hand with a low level of political trust and clear signs of dissatisfaction with societal developments.
  • Insecurities, resulting from global or individual threats can influence the social climate in society. In times when flexible orientations are claimed social relationships get fragile and may result in a lack of solidarity (see Heitmeyer, Endrikat, 2008). These findings refer to the well-known individualization theory (e.g. Beck, 1986; Giddens, 1990) where it is still an unsolved question how the release of the individuals leads to new forms of social embeddedness. Theories of social recognition (e.g. Honneth, 2010), social capital (e.g. Putnam, 2000) and eroding community values (e.g. Etzioni, 1998) are well-known theoretical approaches addressing the challenge of reintegration in contemporary societies.

2.3 – One key consequence of malaise – a rise in ethnocentrism?

15After establishing this framework of societal crises states according to Heitmeyer (1997) the phenomenon of cultural diversity should be emphasized because it is perceived as one of the major threats in many European societies today [4]. The immigration theme leads – particularly in Western Europe – to polarizing attitudes. As often mentioned, ethnocentrism is clearly related to the need for conformity (e.g. already argued by Stouffer, 1955) and authoritarianism (e.g. Scheepers, Felling, Peters, 1992). The educational level is often identified as one key determinant of prejudice but only a few studies address the question, what causal mechanism are responsible for this often confirmed relationship (e.g. Schaefer, 1996). In a new study Meeussen, de Vroome and Hooghe (2013) found out that cognitive skills seem to be relevant to cope with social complexity and to feel more secure in different interaction settings. Specific groups of society may thus remain progressively orientated towards these challenges, while the deniers of contemporary societal transformations may shift their values in a defensive direction. As Oesterreich (1996) already mentioned, a modern concept of authoritarianism should view those tendencies as a flight into security and should give the societal dimension of authoritarian attitudes a higher value. Therefore identifying certain features of a lack in societal well-being such as feelings of deprivation, dissatisfaction and distrust may facilitate identifying certain links from societal crises perceptions to ethnocentrism. A decrease of solidarity between societal groups and ethnic prejudice towards certain immigrant groups represent clearly observable trends at least in some European states. It seems that the defensive reactions towards rapid transformations result in an increased commitment to one’s own nation and lead to a renaissance of values preserving order, opting for a strong leadership and denying egalitarianism and tolerance. These unilateral worldviews may relieve the individual’s burden, but can lead to severe consequences for European societies threatening social cohesion [5]. The main aim of this article is to operationalize those vague perceptions of insecurities and discontent as structural, regulative and cohesive crises states and to test their relevance with regard to ethnocentrism.

2.4 – The link from theoretical perspectives to a multidimensional measurement

16To summarize this comprehensive approach of causes, contemporary characteristics and potential consequences of contemporary crises states and crises perceptions in European societies a second model is presented illustrating mainly the theory-driven operationalization strategy.

17In the first column of the figure, the causes of potential restrictions in objective living conditions and effects on social well-being are illustrated. All three levels refer to current societal developments in Europe. Transformations represent the temporal dimension, inequalities mirror the structural perspective and insecurities reflect cultural developments in European societies. Besides the macro-level, the key features of societal crises states (according to the theory of Anhut, Heitmeyer, 2000) have demonstrated the need to take national conditions under consideration. Different welfare-state arrangements, historical conditions, political actions and also the media coverage function as interfaces and can increase or decrease obvious or perceived crises developments in society.

18Considering the micro-level, the operationalization of societal well-being follows the conception of Glatzer (2008). He suggests that objective living conditions should be combined with subjective attitudes of the citizens to guarantee a broad and multidimensional measurement of quality of life in contemporary European societies. Restrictions in living conditions can be measured on a political level analysing political participation, on a structural level with indicators such as socioeconomic status, education, unemployment or class affiliation and on the cultural level analysing factors affecting social inclusion. These indicators of a precarious position in society may be connected to feelings of discontent, which are represented in the multidimensional construct of crises perceptions (such as political disenchantment, negative work experiences or social distrust). In general the figure tries to systematize the link from theoretical perspectives to a multidimensional measurement of societal well-being and from the macro-level of contemporary European developments to the micro-level of well-being experiences of European citizens.

Figure 2

Theoretical model of societal transformations, crises states and individual well-being

Figure 2

Theoretical model of societal transformations, crises states and individual well-being

3 – Research design and operationalization of key variables

3.1 – Sample characteristics

19The cross-national measurement of societal well-being and ethnocentrism is based on the data of the European Social Survey. The European Social Survey started as a biannual survey in the year 2002, the data of the fifth wave was released in October 2011. It is currently seen as the leading cross-national survey in Europe to measure political and social attitudes of citizens. The data quality fulfils the highest standards in survey research which is demonstrated by high efforts of documentation (see www.europeansocialsurvey.org), a high number of participating countries in Europe (from 22 countries in the first wave up to 30 countries in the fourth wave), large probability samples for each country (minimum sample size is 1500), equal survey modes (e.g. face-to-face interviews), and a high target response rate (70% but rarely fulfilled) (e.g. Lynn et al., 2007). Several theoretical constructs which are measured in the survey are based on a multiplicity of indicators with high reliability coefficients.

3.2 – Research questions

20With regard to the theoretical model, the empirical approach focuses on the micro-explanations of societal crises states. The main strength of the approach is the comprehensive measurement of objective living conditions, feelings of societal well-being vs. malaise and perceptions of an ethnic threat. Three main research questions highlight the main direction of the empirical analysis of the article:

  • Is it possible to develop a cross-culturally valid measurement of societal well-being vs. malaise based on European survey data?
  • Is there an increase of societal crises perceptions based on the new measurement over the last years in Europe and which differences occur between European countries?
  • Which predictors of well-being (objective living conditions and subjective feelings) are able to explain ethnocentrism and which differences occur between major European regions?

21The empirical analysis of the first research question is based on the data of the fourth wave (2008). It was decided to select only empirical indicators which are available in all time points of the survey. Therefore, the new measurement allows analysing the evolution of crises perceptions in several European states. The country means of a general indicator of societal well-being over time, including four survey waves (from 2004 to 2010) were computed for all European nations, which participated at least in one survey wave. The third research question is again analysed based on the dataset of ESS round 4 (2008). Separate multiple regressions in seven major European regions (Southern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Western Europe, Central Eastern Europe, Baltic states and South-eastern Europe) were computed to analyse the effect of objective living conditions and societal well-being on ethnocentrism in those regions.

3.3 – Indicators to measure living conditions, societal well-being and ethnocentrism

22The selection of indicators is based on the micro-level and separates objective living conditions from subjective judgements on societal well-being and perceptions of an ethnic threat (the dependent variable).

3.3.1 – Objective living conditions

23To measure contemporary living conditions and to differentiate between societal groups the concept of Heitmeyer (1997) and his three levels of integration are used.

  • The individual-functional system-integration aiming at resources for advancement in society (access to job, education, class position, income) was treated with the highest priority because it is assumed that the position in society is mainly responsible for critical attitudes towards society. Besides the control variables age, sex and country, several indicators were used to assess the structural position of the citizens. Besides education, income, social prestige, unemployment and feelings of poverty, the central indicator social class based on occupation is included in the analysis. Class is operationalized using the European Socio-economic classification (ESEC) based on ISCO 88 (e.g. Harrison, Rose, 2006).
  • The communicative-interactive social integration refers to democratic achievements in society. This level of social integration is only roughly measured with one indicator of participation (membership in associations) because the subjective dimension (political distrust and dissatisfaction with societal developments) is of main importance.
  • The cultural-expressive social integration is operationalized with the central indicator of social inclusion (friendships, intimate relationships and social support). Individual social inclusion is seen as a crucial factor of feelings of embeddedness, which manifest themselves particularly in feelings of trust (e.g. Putnam, 2000).

3.3.2 – Societal well-being and ethnocentrism

24The second part of the empirical analysis is the operationalization of malaise. Societal well-being vs. malaise is conceptualized as a second order factor, which is constituted by various feelings of uneasiness towards society. In line with Glatzer (2006, p. 171) well-being is operationalized using indicators of objective living conditions (see Table 1), classical general indicators of well-being (happiness and life satisfaction) and several additional factors which point out several aspects of crises perceptions (see Table 2). All constructs belonging to societal well-being are framed by the concept of structural, regulative and cohesive crises states based on the approach of Anhut and Heitmeyer (2000).

Table 1

Operationalization of objective living conditions (predictors in the regression analysis)

Table 1
Crisis level Predictors Indicators Control variables Socio-demographic predictors – Age of respondent (calculated) – Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) Structural crises states ESEC class scheme – Salariat class – Intermediate employees – small employers/self employed (+ agriculture) – lower sales and service – lower technical – routine workers Additional indicators – SIOPS-Scale (continuous variable, range 6 to 78) – Unemployment (0 = no, 1 = yes) – Income (12 categories) – Subjective Poverty (0 = no difficulties; 1 = difficulties with income) – Education in years Regulative crises states Political participation – Contacted politician or government official last 12 months – Worked in political party or action group last 12 months – Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months – (Index of societal engagement, 0 = no participation to 3 = political and societal participation) Cohesive crises states Social inclusion – How often socially meet with friends, relatives or colleagues (1 = at least weekly) – Anyone to discuss intimate and personal matters with (1 = yes) – Take part in social activities compared to others of same age (1 = at least same activities) – (Index of social inclusion, all items dichotomized, 0 = social exclusion to 3 = social inclusion) European major regions and countries Accounting for country differences – Western Europe (FR, GB, NL, BE) – Central Western Europe (CH, DE) – Southern Europe (PT, CY, GR, ES) – Northern Europe (SE, DK, NO, FI) – Central Eastern Europe (CZ, SK, SI, PL, HU) – Baltic States (EE, LV) – South-eastern Europe (BG, RU)

Operationalization of objective living conditions (predictors in the regression analysis)

Table 2

The Operationalization of societal crises perceptions and ethnocentrism with ESS indicators

Table 2
Crisis level Constructs Indicators General Well-being – How happy are you? – How satisfied with life as a whole (11-point scales from 0 = extremely unhappy, extremely dissatisfied to 10 = extremely happy, extremely satisfied) Structural crises states Freedom/Status at Work – Allowed to decide how daily work is organized – Allowed to influence policy decisions about activities of organization (11-point scales from 0 = no influence to 10 = complete control) Regulative crises states Political trust – Trust in parliament – Trust in politicians – Trust in political parties (11-point scales from 0 = no trust at all to 10 = complete trust) Satisfaction with societal development – Satisfaction with present state of economy – Satisfaction with national government – Satisfaction how democracy works in country (11-point scales from 0 = extremely dissatisfied to 10 = extremely satisfied) Cohesion crises states Personal trust – You can’t be too careful vs. most people can be trusted – Most people try to take advantage of you, or try to be fair – Most of the time people mostly looking out for themselves or try to be helpful (11-point scales from von 0 = left pole to 10 = right pole) Safety feelings regarding criminality – Feeling of safety of walking alone in local area after dark – How often worry about your home being burgled – How often worry about becoming a victim of violent crime (4-point scales from 1 = “very unsafe” or “all or most of the time” to 4 = “very safe” or “never”) Dependent variable Perceptions of an ethnic threat vs. approval of multicultural society – Immigration bad or good for country’s economy – Country’s cultural life undermined or enriched by immigrants – Immigrants make country worse or better place to live (11-point scales from von 0 = left pole to 10 = right pole)

The Operationalization of societal crises perceptions and ethnocentrism with ESS indicators

25The table demonstrates the multidimensional approach, which is used to measure social integration at a subjective level in European societies. In total, 16 indicators belonging to different constructs are included in the measurement. The theory of Anhut and Heitmeyer (2000) and their conception of different crises states are represented in the first order factors of the construct:

  • A cohesion crisis is operationalized with the concept of personal trust, which is measured with three classical items. Mutual trust between individuals is seen as a key influence factor to avoid insecurities (Kollock, 1994). In recent years, the impact of cultural diversity and crime on trust and societal cohesion has become a hotly debated topic in society (e.g. Ceobanu, 2011). Therefore safety feelings were included in the measurement to guarantee a broad conception of cohesive crises feelings.
  • The regulative crises states at the political level are measured with two first order constructs as well. Political trust represents a classical measurement where similar items are used in several cross-national surveys (e.g. European Values Study, World Values Survey). A central construct highlighting regulative crises states in society is the dissatisfaction with societal developments. Three central issues were operationalized: the satisfaction with the present state of economy, satisfaction with the political system and satisfaction with the way democracy works in the country.
  • A limitation of the complex measurement of societal well-being is the undifferentiated measurement of structural crises states. The European Social Survey offers no comprehensive item battery which measures concepts such as deprivation or a fear of loss of status. Only two indicators, which are regularly used in all waves and intend to measure independence and power at work, can be used for the study [6].
  • Indicators such as happiness and life satisfaction were also included and should be treated as general indicators of subjective well-being. They complete the multidimensional measurement of objective living conditions and subjective perceptions on societal functioning.
  • To answer the third research question and to explore the influences of the various indicators on ethnocentrism attitudes towards immigrants were operationalized as well. All three items form a short one-dimensional scale pointing to perceptions of an ethnic threat vs. approval of cultural diversity.

4 – Empirical findings

26The following empirical analysis evaluates the empirical conception of societal well-being, (see 4.1), characterizes the evolution of crises perceptions analyzing the country-wide means over time (see 4.2) and tries to find out with multiple sequential regression models (see Urban, Mayerl, 2011) which control variables (age, gender, country), restrictions in objective living conditions (level 2) or feelings of negative societal functioning (level 3) are mainly relevant to explain ethnocentrism in different European regions (see 4.3) [7].

4.1 – Evaluation: the empirical conception of societal well-being

27The structural equation model, conceptualizing societal well-being is in a first step illustrated for the German sample (based on ESS data 2008) [8]. The model (see Figure 3) can be seen as second-order model, because the lower order factors seem to be substantially correlated and there is a higher order factor (societal well-being), which is hypothesized to account for the relations among the lower order factors.

Figure 3

Confirmatory factor analysis of the construct “societal well-being” (German sample, ESS 2008)

Figure 3

Confirmatory factor analysis of the construct “societal well-being” (German sample, ESS 2008)

28If we start with the general fit indices which are seen in the lower right of the figure (regarding the German sample), the coefficients Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.044) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.97) are well below or above the necessary criteria (RMSEA<0.05 and CFI >0.90 respectively) (e.g. Hu, Bentler, 1999). The chi² remains too high to achieve an adequate model fit but this indicator is sensitive to large sample sizes and is therefore hardly used in cross-national survey research (e.g. Cheung, Rensfold, 2002).

29The solution of the first order factors measuring structural, regulative and cohesive crises states lead to high factor loadings and to a clear empirical distinction of the different levels [9]. All loadings of the indicators are above 0.5 which demonstrates a high-quality measurement of the latent variables. But the factor loadings are considerable lower with regard to societal well-being as a second-order factor. General well-being is closely related but security feelings, work relations or political trust are only weakly contributing to societal well-being while satisfaction with society or personal trust exert a stronger relation.

30This empirical conception of societal well-being is now evaluated testing the measurement invariance of this Second-order Factor Model applying Multi Group Confirmatory Factor analysis. Measurement invariance can be tested at different levels. The first step of equivalence testing is configural equivalence. This means that the same items should be belonging to the construct in every single country but the factor loadings can differ. The second level of equivalence is achieved if the loadings of each item on the underlying first order factors can be considered as equal. In second order models it is necessary to test for the factor loadings on the higher order factors as well. Therefore full metric invariance can only be reached, if all first and second order factors constrained as equal lead to a sufficient model fit of the data. If this stage of equivalence is achieved relations between the construct and other variables can be tested and it is allowed to use the multidimensional operationalization of societal well-being for regression analysis. However, the latent means of the latent variables can only be compared if scalar equivalence is fulfilled. To test for scalar equivalence the intercepts of the items and factors are constrained as equal (see Chen, Sousa, West, 2005). To assess and evaluate those different stages of equivalence various goodness of fit measures are used in literature [10]. To assess the fit of the five models, the changes in the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were analysed. According to Cheung and Rensfold (2002) a difference larger than 0.1 in the CFI value indicates a substantial change in model fit. Applying that rule at least metric invariance concerning the first and second order factors could be achieved with this model. This means that the factor loadings between factors and items are similar across different nations (Vandenberg, Lance, 2000). But there is a clear decrease of the CFI value in model 4 and model 5. It was not possible to reach scalar equivalence which is a necessary precondition to compare the latent means between countries.

Table 3

Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis based on 17 EU countries

Table 3
Model CFI RMSEA PCLOSE Chi² df 1. Configural invariance 0,973 0,010 1,000 7720 1890 2. Metric invariance (first order factors) 0,966 0,010 1,000 9292 2090 3. Metric invariance (second order factors) 0,965 0,010 1,000 9705 2190 4. Scalar invariance (first order factors) 0,906 0,016 1,000 22552 2390 5. Full scalar invariance 0,865 0,019 1,000 31251 2490

Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis based on 17 EU countries

4.2 – Characterizing societal functioning in Europe and current European trends

31The second part of the empirical analysis is an exploratory insight of contemporary trends of societal well-being in European countries. All 16 indicators measuring societal functioning were aggregated to compare the country means. Due to a lack of scalar invariance (see 4.1) the results should be seen just as an approximation of country characteristics and the mean values should be treated with caution. An exploratory factor analysis (n = 28) at the country level (Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation) (see Fabrigar et al., 1999) highlights a different structure of relations. 14 out of the 16 indicators form a coherent picture of social integration and a clear one factor solution with high item loadings emerged.

Table 4

Mean factor loadings on the country level (n = 28), PCA with Varimax Rotation

Table 4
Feelings of discontent vs. Societal well-being Mean trust in people,862 Mean view of people being fair,825 Mean country view of people being helpful,828 Mean trust in parliament,886 Mean country trust in politicians,940 Mean country trust in political parties,948 Mean country happiness,931 Mean country life-satisfaction,939 Mean country satisfaction with economy,911 Mean country satisfaction with government,858 Mean country satisfaction with democracy,967 Mean safety feelings,820 Mean autonomy at work,856 Mean decision power at work,770

Mean factor loadings on the country level (n = 28), PCA with Varimax Rotation

32Thus, the two indicators with a weak relationship with regard to the total scale (worries about criminality) were not integrated in the general index of crises perceptions vs. societal well-being [11]. The social-democratic welfare states and other wealthy European countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands occupy the first positions and can be grouped together as states with a rather high level of societal well-being. The European power states such as Germany, France, Great Britain or Spain are all located slightly above the EU-average. Feelings of discontent seem to emerge at various levels but still the socio-cultural climate is not threatened by major crises perceptions. Eastern European and Southern European states clearly rank below Western Europe. But the distribution of Eastern Europe cannot be considered as homogenous, there are major differences between the states. While Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland may approach the position of some Western European states in the future, Hungary, Portugal, Bulgaria and Greece are still exposed to high levels of malaise.

Figure 4

From societal well-being to societal crises perceptions – a ranking of European countries

Figure 4

From societal well-being to societal crises perceptions – a ranking of European countries

Source: ESS 2008, excluding Turkey and Israel

33Figure 5 to Figure 8 allow first assumptions of the evolution of crises perceptions from 2004 till 2010. The general indicator of societal well-being is constructed using the countrywide index of 14 items with 11-point scales in all five waves of the European Social Survey [12].

34The figure on the upper left shows the high level of social integration in Northern Europe because all mean values in all survey waves are above six on the 11-point scale. While societal well-being seems to increase in Sweden, there is a clear downward trend in Finland. Also in Denmark, the most recent data show a sharp decrease in societal functioning. Sweden has overtaken the other countries in the year 2010 and seems to occupy the leading position with regard to societal well-being in the aftermath of the economic crises.

Figure 5

Societal well-being in Northern Europe (different time points)

Figure 5

Societal well-being in Northern Europe (different time points)

35In Western Europe only Switzerland and the Netherlands can approach the high position of societal well-being similar to Scandinavia. All other Western European countries rank behind and reach a mean value around five (see figure 6). Austria can be grouped together with Belgium and Great Britain. All three countries are located slightly above the average while the position of Germany and France reflect the middle of the scale. In Germany a positive trend towards societal well-being is seen over the years while the amount of crises perceptions seems to be slightly growing in France. The decrease of societal well-being in Ireland is a clear example, how economic difficulties can cause dramatic changes in citizen’s attitudes and how social integration and well-being is threatened by economic downturns.

Figure 6

Societal well-being in Western Europe (different time points)

Figure 6

Societal well-being in Western Europe (different time points)

36If we take a closer look at Southern Europe, Cyprus is still performing (at least till 2010) similarly to wealthy Western European Societies (such as Austria and Belgium). Otherwise the economic difficulties of Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal are clearly reflected in the data on societal well-being. Greece and Portugal began to struggle quite early with a high amount of crises perceptions, while Spain expresses a clear downward trend over the last years.

Figure 7

Societal well-being in Southern Europe (different time points)

Figure 7

Societal well-being in Southern Europe (different time points)

37Despite the economic crises, Eastern Europe can mainly be characterized by positive developments. A clear upward trend is visible in Estonia and Poland and also Hungary seems to recover from a high amount of crises perceptions in the year 2008. The financial crises had negative impacts on societal functioning in Slovenia and the Czech Republic while a low level of well-being seems to be persistent over all time points in Bulgaria. It is notable, however, that all Eastern European states (except Estonia in 2006 and 2010) rank below the scale middle which means that the majority of the citizens still rather express dissatisfaction towards the selected indicators of societal well-being (e.g. personal trust, political trust, satisfaction with societal developments).

Figure 8

Societal well-being in Eastern Europe (different time points)

Figure 8

Societal well-being in Eastern Europe (different time points)

4.3 – The influence of societal well-being on ethnocentrism

38The following analysis turns back to the Micro-level and tries to explore the link from societal crises states to ethnocentrism. The control variables (level 1) as well as living conditions (level 2) and subjective indicators of well-being (level 3) are used in a sequential regression analysis to predict certain perceptions of an ethnic threat within European societies.

39Due to the heterogeneous picture of societal well-being in Europe it is an imperative to take cross-national differences adequately into account. To achieve a comprehensive view on European societies it was decided to compute separate regressions for seven European major regions (Northern Europe, Central Western Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Central Eastern EU States, Baltic States and Southeastern Europe). All countries were integrated as dummy variables together with age and gender to control for socio-demographic and country-specific effects. At the second level the predictors of objective living conditions (see table 1) were introduced in the model. The structural level is represented by class (the ESEC class scheme), education, income, unemployment and prestige (the SIOPS scale). The regulative level is represented with the indicator political engagement and cohesion is measured with an indicator of social inclusion (see section 3.1). In a third step, the six first order factors of the construct societal well-being (general well-being, freedom/power at work, satisfaction with society, political and personal trust and safety feelings) were integrated in the model to assess the relevance of the subjective evaluations of society on ethnocentrism (see 3.2).

Table 5

Results of the OLS-regressions with regard to personal trust

Table 5
Levels Predictors Southern Europe (ES, PT, GR, CY) Western Europe (FR, GB, NL, BE) Northern Europe (NO, SE, FI, DK) Central Western Europe (CH, DE) Central Eastern EU States (PL, CZ, SK, SI, HU) Baltic States (EE, LV) Southeastern Europe (BG, RU) Model summary Model 1: Controls r² 15,4 4,6 3,0 1,7 11,3 3,6 0,6 Model 2: controls / living conditions r² 18,5 13,2 15,0 13,3 14,6 4,1 1.4 Model 3: adding societal well-being r² 25,1 25,0 24,8 22,8 22,4 10,5 4,7 Controls Male vs. female -,10 (-,02)* n.s.,14 (,04)** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Age n.s. -,01 (-,12)*** -,01 (-,06)*** -,00 (-,04)* -,01 (-,06)*** -,02 (-,15)*** n.s. Countries CY n.s. ES 1,46 (,32)*** PT (1,84 (,38)*** NL,17 (,04)* FR,50 (,11)*** BE,41 (,09)*** SE,80 (,19)*** FI,64 (,16)*** DK n.s. CH n.s. CZ -,31 (-,07)*** PL 1,38 (,27)*** SI n.s. SK n.s. EE n.s. BG,25 (,06)* Structural level ESEC salariat n.s.,28 (,07)*** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Intermediate employees n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Small employers / self employed n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -,30 (-,04)* n.s. n.s. lower sales and service n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. lower technical n.s. n.s. -,24 (-,04)* n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. SIOPS-Scale,01 (,05)*,01 (,05)*,01 (,08)***,01 (,09)*** n.s. n.s. n.s. Unemployment n.s.,25 (,03)* n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Income (12 categories) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Education in years,06 (,13)***,07 (,14)***,08 (,18)***,09 (,17)***,05 (,08)*** n.s. n.s. Regulative level Political engagement,11 (,03)*,19 (,06)***,13 (,05)***,16 (,06)***,15 (,04)** n.s. n.s. Cohesive level Social inclusion n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.,06 (,03)* n.s.,10 (,04)* Attitudinal level General well-being,05 (,04)**,04 (,03)** n.s. n.s.,09 (,09)***,06 (,06)*,11 (,11)*** Freedom/status at work n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.,06 (,10)*** n.s.,06 (,09)*** Satisfaction society,15 (,14)***,14 (,13)*** n.s.,21 (,21)***,10 (,10)***,10 (,09)***,11 (,10)*** Political Trust,08 (,08)***,13 (,13)***,18 (,18)***,07 (,07)***,03 (,03)*,10 (,10)*** n.s. Personal Trust,12 (,10)***,16 (,14)***,18 (,15)***,13 (,12)***,15 (,15)***,13 (,12)***,05 (,05)* Safety feelings,28 (,10)***,36 (,12)***,29 (,09)***,32 (,10)***,22 (,07)*** n.s. n.s.

Results of the OLS-regressions with regard to personal trust

Notes: ESS data 2008 (weighted by design weight)
Dependent variable: perceiving an ethnic threat vs. approval of multicultural society (scale of three items)
P<0,05*, p<0,01**, p<0,001***, only significant unstandardized coefficients and standardized coefficients (in brackets) reported

40In total, the level of objective predictors contributes only little to the explanation of ethnocentrism. Education seems to be the most important factor in many European regions but also political engagement and social prestige have a small positive influence on attitudes towards immigrants. If we look at the third level, the indicators of societal well-being, various significant predictors can be found and the explained variance rises in several regions up to 25%. Satisfaction with society, personal trust and insecurity feelings concerning criminality particularly explain perceptions of an ethnic threat. Interestingly the effect of education and of crises perceptions is particularly high in Western European countries and Scandinavia. In Southern Europe the cross-country differences are quite strong with inhabitants from Portugal and Spain being far more tolerant than people from Greece or Cyprus. In the Baltic States and in Southeastern Europe, where crises perceptions are particularly high, the explanatory power of these factors on ethnocentrism is considerably lower. In those European major regions education, structural indicators and the attitudinal dimensions contribute only little to the explanation of ethnic prejudice.

5 – Discussion and Conclusions

41During the last years there has been a clear shift to move beyond GDP (see Conceicao, Bandura, 2008), to assess the progress of societies more based on quality of life and to include not only classical subjective measures such as happiness and life satisfaction but also indicators of societal well-being (see Glatzer, 2008; Harrison, Jowell, Sibley, 2011). In contemporary sociological debates on Europe there are claims as well to refer more strongly to the micro-level and to highlight future challenges of social integration (e.g. Bach, 2008; Vobruba, 2009). A vague sense of discomfort with current societal developments is growing in many European states and is affecting particularly lower social classes of society.

42The main aim of this article was to conceptualize and evaluate a multidimensional construct social malaise based on a multiplicity of indicators of well-established survey data using the European Social Survey. A main future challenge in cross-national research is to find comparable and equivalent indicators of societal well-being. The first results of the cross-national invariance test in this study seem to be promising because at least metric invariance (meaning the acceptance of a model with equal factor loadings across several European countries) could be achieved. Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis is a common method to test for cross-national equivalence (Bachleitner, Weichbold, Aschauer, Pausch, 2013) and can be easily used to detect if models fit the necessary requirements for cross-national data comparisons.

43With mean comparisons it was possible to provide an insight into the evolution of societal crises perceptions in European countries. The heterogeneous results suggest that there is no unidirectional track towards crises perceptions in Europe and that the nation state as an interface between societal challenges and impacts on societal functioning plays a crucial role. While gaps between Western and Eastern European states concerning social well-being either persist (with regard to Southeastern Europe) or seem to decrease (concerning Central Eastern Europe) there is a rise in crises feelings particularly in Southern Europe. A clear impact of economic crises states on societal functioning could be confirmed. These preliminary results demonstrate that societal causes (such as political transformations, economic inequalities and broad insecurities) have the potential to gradually erode societal functioning. If societal disturbances are not clearly visible yet, there is the danger to underestimate societal changes in countries trying to overcome certain crises states (see Streek, 2013, p. 14).

44This article can be seen as theoretically-based empirical approach to assess and evaluate the state of societal functioning in Europe and to directly link well-being with crucial future tendencies affecting societal cohesion. The empirical evaluation of the Structural Equation Model and the mean comparisons of societal well-being all over Europe in recent years clearly indicate that approaches, trying to explore feelings of uneasiness in European states and to link them to societal outcomes should be further developed. The regression analysis was a first step in that direction. The multidimensional concept of well-being encompassing restrictions in living conditions (objective level) and certain feelings of discontent (subjective level) were introduced in a sequential regression model to explain tendencies of ethnocentrism in several European regions. It is notable that particularly in Western Europe a low level of education together with feelings of malaise exert a high influence on perceptions of an ethnic threat while in the Baltic states and in Southeastern European countries, the explanatory power of those factors is quite low and other factors seem to be relevant to explain ethnocentrism in those countries (see Coenders, Scheepers, 2003; Hjerm, 2001). It seems that diverse attitudes of citizens (primarily in Western European states) lead, to a certain extent, to a polarization of values where societal threats (such as cultural diversity) are major sources of dissent. Cosmopolitan oriented individuals defend the European ideals of equality and tolerance while societal groups relying on their national identity and creating borders between ingroups and outgroups seem to gain importance as well. The rising gaps between social groups in European societies have to be considered as a future threat of social integration. If the current economic crisis in certain European states remains unsolved for disadvantaged groups, defensive solutions have the potential to challenge future developments and to gradually erode central European values and democratic achievements.

Annexe
Table 6

Correlation Matrix for German sample (see Figure 3)

Table 6
First order factors Indicators stflife happy trstprl trstplt trstprt stfeco stfgov stfdem ppltrst pplfair pplhlp aesfdrk brghmwr crvctwr wkdcorga iorgact well-being lifesatisfaction 1,000 happiness 0,671 1,000 political trust trust parliament 0,209 0,181 1,000 trust politicians 0,210 0,161 0,675 1,000 trust political parties 0,199 0,148 0,606 0,812 1,000 satisfaction society satisfaction economy 0,339 0,263 0,344 0,339 0,313 1,000 satisfaction government 0,304 0,229 0,573 0,576 0,526 0,525 1,000 satisfaction democracy 0,278 0,210 0,509 0,459 0,443 0,419 0,601 1,000 personal trust most people trusted 0,168 0,154 0,305 0,299 0,283 0,290 0,245 0,266 1,000 most people fair 0,222 0,190 0,244 0,253 0,245 0,214 0,244 0,231 0,441 1,000 most people helpful 0,187 0,165 0,237 0,255 0,247 0,237 0,244 0,222 0,416 0,464 1,000 security feelings safety_recode 0,092 0,081 0,137 0,088 0,078 0,141 0,092 0,153 0,225 0,118 0,090 1,000 worry burglary 0,066 0,046 0,028 0,044 0,060 0,041 0,016 0,078 0,144 0,112 0,062 0,341 1,000 worry victom violent crime 0,091 0,058 0,045 0,073 0,043 0,082 0,023 0,104 0,152 0,140 0,081 0,367 0,406 1,000 freedom/ status work free organization of work 0,185 0,184 0,072 0,046 0,029 0,085 0,060 0,022 0,105 0,123 0,070 0,136 0,043 0,094 1,000 influence on decisions 0,132 0,127 0,076 0,055 0,072 0,087 0,062 0,045 0,113 0,070 0,054 0,131 -0,013 0,085 0,592 1,000

Correlation Matrix for German sample (see Figure 3)

Standardized coefficients (Pearsons’s r)
Missing-procedure: Pairwise deletion
Variable names (see second column) and ESS code names for variables (see first row)
Source: ESS 2008

Notes

  • [1]
    The famous Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report was highly influential in this debate and has led to the implementation of various new national well-being concepts (e.g. the ONS concept of Great Britain, see Beaumont, 2011, p. 2). The report particularly emphasized that well-being is multidimensional and should be oriented towards new measures of quality of life (see Stiglitz et al., 2009).
  • [2]
    While societal well-being encompasses positive feelings towards society, the term malaise refers to feelings of discomfort. Social malaise, feelings of discontent or societal crises perceptions are used synonymously and reflect the counterpart of societal well-being.
  • [3]
    To clarify this logic of aggregation – in the terminology of Esser (1993) – it would be necessary to introduce a meso level of different national conditions because general feelings of vulnerability and ethnocentrism can be on the one hand mitigated by social policy and political actions. On the other hand the political and media discourse is able to drive the societal climate in certain directions. In the model at least a few general tendencies which get visible in contemporary Europe are illustrated such as increasing cleavages, right-wing populism or exclusionary ideologies towards certain scapegoats (e.g. Muslims).
  • [4]
    Particularly the Islamic population experience prejudice because they are seen as a backward culture, incompatible with the West. Islamophobia is used as exclusionary ideology by right-wing populists to unify their supporters all over Europe (e.g. Bartlett, Birdwell, Litter, 2011).
  • [5]
    Certain consequences due to a lack of social integration in European societies get already visible. In several countries a rise of right-wing populism at the political level can be observed and there is a latent danger of interethnic conflicts at the intercultural level. In countries directly exposed to the economical crises there is even the danger of social upheavals because of the high unemployment rates (particularly affecting the youth in Southern Europe).
  • [6]
    These indicators may characterise to some extent well-being at work but they are not ideal to measure structural crises perceptions. That is the reason why the structural aspect was given a higher value in the measurement of objective life circumstances (see Table 1).
  • [7]
    Because of highly differentiating 11-point scales it was decided to assume all indicators as metric, which allows to apply sophisticated statistical tools (such as structural equation modeling, mean comparisons and multiple sequential regression analysis).
  • [8]
    All computations were made with Amos (Version 20) based on SPSS data of the European Social Survey. The database of all countries is the correlation matrix (method of pairwise deletion). The loadings and coefficients are similar in all European countries which is a first sign of metric equivalence which is proven later with the method of MGCFA (see Table 3). The German sample is arbitrarily selected to potentially recompute the model (see correlation matrix in the annex of the contribution).
  • [9]
    Otherwise, some high error correlations between the factors appear. From a theoretical standpoint it can be argued that trust (on the personal and political level) correlates with a general satisfaction with societal developments.
  • [10]
    To compare the fit between models the chi² difference test is often used and should lead to insignificant changes between two models. On the other hand the chi² test is sensitive to large sample sizes and is not recommended for ESS-data.
  • [11]
    The country rankings were computed using the index variable of 14 items (see table 4). The values were standardized using z-transformations. That means that 0 represents the European mean value of all countries. Countries being on top of figure 4 can be regarded as rather functioning societies because they demonstrate a higher level of societal well-being. On the other hand nations located at the bottom of the figure are characterized by a higher amount of social malaise.
  • [12]
    To clarify the values in figure 5 to 8 a note for reading is provided: Table 4 has demonstrated that – on a country level (n = 28) – all indicators contribute with high loadings to one comprehensive factor of societal well-being. This dimension is illustrated in the figures and consists of 13 indicators which are available in all survey waves and have the same 11-point scale (ranging from 0 to 10). Due to a different four point scale the indicator “safety feelings” was excluded. Then the mean judgements of the citizens in each country on all remaining 13 indicators were computed maintaining the original scale from 0 to 10. The values in the figure can thus be seen as average values of societal well-being at a specific time-point. Country means below five (the middle of the scale) are a sign of societal crises perceptions (because people tend to indicate feelings of distrust and dissatisfaction) while mean values above five reflect rather positive judgements of the citizens.

Abstract

English

The European Union is struggling with economic challenges and pessimistic future scenarios have the potential to gradually influence societal functioning. Signs of disintegration processes and societal crises perceptions can be explained by contemporary societal conditions, namely rapid transformations (in the context of the European integration policy), rising inequalities within and between European member states and broad insecurities affecting social cohesion. The main aim of this article is to present a concept of how subjective crises feelings can be analyzed and measured in cross-national research based on survey data (using the database of the European Social Survey). The empirical part of the paper provides a first approach to a multidimensional operationalization of subjective evaluations on societal functioning. It is analyzed if the second order construct of societal well-being (including several first order factors) reflects a reliable measurement and can be seen as cross-culturally equivalent across Europe, how the extent of crises perceptions varies between European states and over time and if restrictions in objective living conditions and societal well-being are able to explain ethnocentrism as one potential critical outcome.

Keywords

  • crises perceptions
  • ethnocentrism
  • social integration
  • societal well-being
  • structural equation modelling

Outline

  1. 1 - Introduction
  2. 2 - A Macro-Micro-Macro explanation scheme
    1. 2.1 - The Causes of malaise
      1. 2.1.1 - Political transformations
      2. 2.1.2 - Rising social inequalities and regional disparities
      3. 2.1.3 - Cultural developments: activating vulnerabilities and insecurities
    3. 2.2 - Defining key features of societal crises states
    4. 2.3 - One key consequence of malaise – a rise in ethnocentrism?
    5. 2.4 - The link from theoretical perspectives to a multidimensional measurement
  4. 3 - Research design and operationalization of key variables
    1. 3.1 - Sample characteristics
    2. 3.2 - Research questions
    3. 3.3 - Indicators to measure living conditions, societal well-being and ethnocentrism
      1. 3.3.1 - Objective living conditions
      2. 3.3.2 - Societal well-being and ethnocentrism
  6. 4 - Empirical findings
    1. 4.1 - Evaluation: the empirical conception of societal well-being
    2. 4.2 - Characterizing societal functioning in Europe and current European trends
    3. 4.3 - The influence of societal well-being on ethnocentrism
  8. 5 - Discussion and Conclusions

References

References

  • Anhut R., Heitmeyer W., 2000, “Desintegration, Konflikt und Ethnisierung. Eine Problemanalyse und theoretische Rahmenkonzeption,” in Heitmeyer W., Anhut R. (eds.), Bedrohte Stadtgesellschaft, Weinheim/München, Juventa, pp. 17-75.
  • Bach M., 2008, Europa ohne Gesellschaft. Politische Soziologie der europäischen Integration, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag.
  • Bachleitner R., Weichbold M., Aschauer W., Pausch M., 2013, Methodik und Methodologie interkultureller Umfrageforschung. Zur Mehrdimensionalität der funktionalen Äquivalenz, Berlin, Springer-VS.
  • Bartlett J., Birdwell J., Littler M., 2011, The New Face of Digital Populism, London, Demos.
  • Bauman Z., 2008, Modus vivendi (dt. Flüchtige Zeiten. Leben in der Ungewissheit), Hamburg, Hamburger Verlag.
  • Beaumont J., 2011, Measuring National Well-being – Discussion Paper on Domains and Measures, Newport, Office for National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_240726.pdf, retrieved December 27th, 2013.
  • Beck U., 1986, Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  • Beck U., 2003, “Weltrisikogesellschaft revisited: Die terroristische Bedrohung,” in Hitzler R., Reicherts J. (eds.), Irritierte Ordnung. Die gesellschaftliche Verarbeitung von Terror, Konstanz, UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 275-299.
  • Boltanski L., Chiapello E., 1999, Le Nouvel Esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Gallimard.
  • Bröckling U., 2007, Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsfor, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  • Castel R., 1995, Les Métamorphoses de la question sociale: une chronique du salariat, Paris, Fayard.
  • Castel R., 2009, La Montée des incertitudes. Travail, protections, statut de l‘individu, Paris, Éditions du Seuil.
  • OnlineCeobanu A. M., 2011, “Usual Suspects? Public Views about Immigrants’ Impact on Crime in European Countries,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 52, pp. 114-131.
  • OnlineChen F. F., Sousa K. H., West S. G., 2005, “Testing Measurement Invariance of Second-Order Factor Models,” Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 3, pp. 471-492.
  • OnlineCheung G. W., Rensvold R. B., 2002, “Evaluating Goodness-of-fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance,” Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 2, pp. 233-255.
  • OnlineCoenders M., Scheepers P., 2003, “The Effect of Education on Nationalism and Ethnic Exclusionism: An International Comparison,” Political Psychology, 24, pp. 313-343.
  • Coleman J. S., 2001, Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie, München, Oldenbourg.
  • Conceicao P., Bandura, R., 2008, Measuring Subjective Well-being: A Summary Review of the Literature, New York, Office of Development Studies, http://web.undp.org/developmentstudies/docs/subjective_well-being_conceicao_bandura.pdf, retrieved November 25, 2012.
  • Durkheim É., 1967[1893], De la division du travail social, Paris, Puf, 8e éd.
  • Durkheim É., 1967[1897], Le Suicide: étude de sociologie, Paris, Puf, 2e éd.
  • OnlineEasterlin R. A., 1995, “Will Raising the Incomes of All Increase the Happiness of All?,” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 27, pp. 35-47.
  • Ehrenberg A., 1998, La Fatigue d‘être soi. Dépression et société, Paris, Odile Jacob.
  • Ehrenberg A., 2010, La Société du malaise, Paris, Odile Jacob.
  • OnlineElchardus M., De Keere, K, 2012, “Social Control and Institutional Trust: Reconsidering the Effect of Modernity on Social Malaise,” The Social Science Journal, 50, pp. 101-111.
  • Esser H., 1993, Soziologie. Allgemeine Grundlagen, Frankfurt am Main/New York, Campus.
  • Etzioni A., 1998, The Spirit of Community (dt. Die Entdeckung des Gemeinwesens: Ansprüche, Verantwortlichkeiten und das Programm des Kommunitarismus), Frankfurt am Main, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • European Commission, 2013, Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7315, retrieved at December 30th, 2013.
  • OnlineFabrigar L. R., Wegener D. T., Mac Callum R. C., Strahan E. J., 1999, “Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research,” Psychological Methods, 4, pp. 272-299.
  • Fligstein N., 2008, Euroclash: The EU, European Identity and the Future of Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Fredriksen K., 2012, “Income Inequality in the European Union,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, n° 952, OECD Publishing.
  • Glatzer W., Zapf W., 1984, Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden, Frankfurt am Main, Campus.
  • OnlineGlatzer W., 2006, “Quality of Life in the European Union and the United States of America: Evidence from Comprehensive Indices,” Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, pp. 169-188.
  • Glatzer W., 2008, “Well-being: Perception and Measurement,” in Council of Europe: Well-being for All. Concepts and Tools for Social Cohesion, pp. 99-118, http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/Trends/Trends-20_en.pdf, retrieved on December 27th, 2013.
  • Giddens A., 1990, Konsequenzen der Moderne, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.
  • Habermas J., 1981, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Bd. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.
  • OnlineHaller M., 2008, European Integration as an Elite Process: The Failure of a Dream?, New York, Routledge.
  • Harrison E., Rose D., 2006, The European Socio-economic Classification, User Guide, http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/esec/guide/docs/UserGuide.pdf, retrieved November 3, 2011.
  • Harrison E., Jowell R., Sibley E., 2011, “Developing Indicators of Societal Progress,” Ask Research and Methods, 20, 1, pp. 59-80, http://askresearchandmethods.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ask-20_2011-archiv-59_80_harrison-et-al.pdf, retrieved September 24, 2013.
  • Heitmeyer W., 1997, Was treibt die Gesellschaft auseinander? Band 2, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  • Heitmeyer W., 2008, “Einführung in die Problematik gesellschaftlicher Integration und Desintegration,” in Imbusch P., Heitmeyer W. (eds.), Integration–Desintegration. Ein Reader zur Ordnungsproblematik moderner Gesellschaften, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag, pp. 11-16.
  • Heitmeyer W., Endrikat K., 2008, “Die Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Folgen für “Überflüssige“und “Nutzlose“” in Heitmeyer W. (ed.), Deutsche Zustände, Band 6, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, pp. 55-72.
  • OnlineHjerm M., 2001, “Education, Xenophobia and Nationalism: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27, pp. 37-60.
  • Honnett A., 1994, Desintegration. Bruchstücke einer soziologischen Zeitdiagnose, Frankfurt, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • Honneth A., 2010, Das Ich im Wir. Studien zur Anerkennungstheorie, Berlin, Suhrkamp.
  • OnlineHu L. T., Bentler, P. M., 1999, “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling, 6, pp. 1–55.
  • OnlineHuppert F. A. et al., 2009, “Measuring Well-being Across Europe: Description of the ESS Well-being Module and Preliminary Findings,” Social Indicators Research, 91, pp. 301-315.
  • OnlineKollock P., 1994, “The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust,” American Journal of Sociology, 100, 2, pp. 313-345.
  • Lockwood D., 1971, “Sozialintegration und Systemintegration,” in Zapf W. (ed.), Theorien des sozialen Wandels, Köln/Berlin, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, pp. 124-137.
  • Luhmann N., 1984, Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.
  • Lynn P. et al., 2007, “Methods for Achieving Equivalence of Samples in Cross-National Surveys: The European Social Survey Experience” Journal of Official Statistics, 23, 1, pp. 107-124.
  • Medical Encyclopedia Medline Plus, Term Malaise, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003089.htm, retrieved March 26, 2014.
  • OnlineMeussen C., de Vroome T., Hooghe M., 2013, “How does Education have an Impact on Ethnocentrism? A Structural Equation Analysis of Cognitive, Occupational Status and Network Mechanisms.” Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 5, pp. 507-522.
  • OECD, 2011 (ed.), Divided We Stand. Why Inequality Keeps Rising, OECD Publishing.
  • Oesterreich D., 1996, Flucht in die Sicherheit. Zur Theorie des Autoritarismus und der autoritären Reaktion, Opladen, Leske und Budrich.
  • Oxford Dictionaries Online. Definition malaise, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/malaise, retrieved March 26, 2014.
  • Parsons T., 2003[1973], Das System moderner Gesellschaften (orig. The System of Modern Societies), Weinheim, Juventa.
  • Pew Global Attitudes Project (ed.), The New Sick Man of Europe: the European Union. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/05/Pew-Research-Center-Global-Attitudes-Project-European-Union-Report-FINAL-FOR-PRINT-May-13-2013.pdf, retrieved September 30, 2013.
  • Putnam R. D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon & Schuster.
  • Rosa H., 2005, Beschleunigung. Die Veränderungen der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  • OnlineSchaefer R. T., 1996, “Education and Prejudice: Unraveling the Relationship,” The Sociological Quarterly, 37, 1, pp. 1-16.
  • Scheepers P., Felling A., Peters J., 1992, “Anomie, Authoritarianism and Ethnocentrism. Update of a Classical Theme and Empirical Test,” Politics and the Individual, 2, 1, pp. 43-59.
  • Schroer M., 2000, Das Individuum in der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
  • Sennett R., 1998, The Corrosion of Character, (dt. Der flexible Mensch), Berlin, Berliner Verlag.
  • Spier T., 2010, Modernisierungsverlierer? Die Wählerschaft rechtspopulistischer Parteien in Westeuropa, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag.
  • Stiglitz J. et al., 2009, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf, retrieved May 4, 2013.
  • Stouffer S. A., 1955, Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties, New York, Wiley.
  • Streek W., 2013, Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des Kapitalismus, Berlin, Suhrkamp.
  • Udehn L., 2001, Methodogical Individualism. Background, History and Meaning, London/New York, Routledge.
  • Urban D., Mayerl J., 2011, Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag, 3rd edition.
  • OnlineVandenberg R. J., Lance, C. E., 2000, “A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research,” Organizational Research Methods, 3, 1, pp. 4-69.
  • Vobruba G., 2005, Die Dynamik Europas, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag.
  • Vobruba G., 2009, Die Gesellschaft der Leute. Kritik und Gestaltung der sozialen Verhältnisse, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag.

Author

Wolfgang Aschauer
wolfgang.aschauer@sbg.ac.at
This is the latest publication of the author on cairn.
Uploaded on Cairn-int.info on 27/09/2018
Cite
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour P.U.F. © P.U.F.. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Il est interdit, sauf accord préalable et écrit de l’éditeur, de reproduire (notamment par photocopie) partiellement ou totalement le présent article, de le stocker dans une banque de données ou de le communiquer au public sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit.
keyboard_arrow_up
Chargement
Loading... Please wait