![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Interest in the concept of social cohesion has waxed and waned since Durkheim's foundation studies at the end of the 19th century, with the greatest interest being in times of fundamental economic, social and political change. The term is used in at least two different ways: firstly, in a policy context, to indicate the aims of, and rationale for, certain public policy actions; and secondly, as an analytical construct to explain social, political and sometimes economic changes. This article focuses on the first of these and traces the recent usage of social cohesion, spanning its take-up and influence within the Canadian policy environment, through to its usage (or otherwise) across liberal welfare regimes such as the UK, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and contrasting these experiences with its application in European institutions. The differential usage across these geopolitical settings is highlighted. Drawing upon Esping-Andersen's welfare state typology, and an explicit acknowledgement of national differences in relation to ethnic and cultural diversity, various explanations for these differences are discussed and their policy consequences explored.
Notes
1. This research was funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, a non-political and not-for-profit national research institute. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. The article was stimulated by research which examined the linkages between housing and social cohesion (Hulse & Stone, Citation2006).
2. ‘Mutual obligation’ is a policy term used in Australia to describe the set of obligations and activities required of persons in receipt of government provided income support payments. These include job search, training and community activity such as caring and volunteering.
3. The percentages of foreign born residents in 2000–2001 was 23 per cent in Australia, 19.5 per cent in New Zealand and 19.3 per cent in Canada. In Europe, only Luxembourg (32.6 per cent) and Switzerland (22.4 per cent) had such high percentages. Of the liberal welfare countries, percentages were significantly lower in the US (12.3 per cent) and UK (8.3 per cent) (OECD, Citation2006, p. 23).