Dimensions of Social Cohesion in a Transitional Society: The Case of Ukraine

Abstract

Focusing on the local community level, this study draws on representative survey data to examine how Ukrainians perceive social cohesion on the basis of objective and subjective criteria. Building on Chan et al.'s operationalisation of social cohesion, we use factor analysis to identify four dimensions of social cohesion: social engagement, connectedness, civic participation and intergroup concordance. Although we find no differences in assessments between the various regions of the country, social cohesion appears stronger in voluntarily formed amalgamated territorial communities compared to other territorial units. We discuss how and why Ukraine differs from other societies as to social cohesion features.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See, Social Cohesion and Reconciliation Index (SCORE), available at: https://use.scoreforpeace.org/en/ukraine/2019-Schools-0, accessed 1 July 2021.

2 ‘Identychnist’ hromadyan Ukrainy v novykh umovakh: stan, tendentsii, regional’ni osoblyvosti’, Natsional’na bezpeka i oborona, Razumkov Centre, 3–4, 2016, available at: https://razumkov.org.ua/uploads/journal/ukr/NSD161-162_2016_ukr.pdf, accessed 23 February 2021.

3 See, for example, Putnam (2007).

4 ‘Pro dobrovilne obiednannia terytorialnykh hromad’, adopted 5 February 2015, available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19#Text, accessed 1 October 2022.

5 Ukraine is currently ranked number 74 amongst all states on the Human Development Index. See, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-human-development-index-ranking, accessed 10 February 2021.

6 Ukraine is currently ranked number 117 (of 180) on the Corruption Perception Index. See, https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ukraine, accessed 10 February 2021.

7 The self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as Crimea, were not included in the survey.

8 For details see Baliichuk (2020).

9 There are about 110 million potential mobile telephone numbers in Ukraine, of which about 55 million are in use. For the national survey, the opinion poll agency first generated 104,000 telephone numbers. However, only about 21,000 answered the phone, of whom 2,106 were willing to participate and completed the survey.

10 As there had been no census since 2001 and a larger share of Ukrainian citizens are now more likely to identify as ethnic Ukrainians (Arel 2018) (also, the survey did not include Crimea and the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, where the share of ethnic Ukrainians is lower than elsewhere), it is hard to estimate the size of this overrepresentation. We therefore decided not to use weighting for the different ethnic groups. The self-reported ethnic distribution in the sample was as follows: Ukrainians 87%, Russians 6%, other ethnicity 4%, mixed ethnicity 3%.

11 Four indices were computed, all with a Chronbach's alpha of 0.6 or higher. ‘Trust in institutions’: Chronbach's alpha 0.76; ‘Identification with place of living’: Chronbach's alpha 0.71 (‘European identity’ did not correlate with the other items in the battery and was therefore removed); ‘Interpersonal trust’: Chronbach's alpha 0.70; and ‘Low conflict between groups’ (ethnic groups, language groups, IDPs): Chronbach's alpha 0.80. Including ‘between rich and poor’ would have reduced the Chronbach's alpha, and it was retained as a separate variable.

12 Further regression analysis (not shown here) showed a positive effect on the belonging dimension of supporting the recent decentralisation reform where the establishment of ATCs was the main element.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway, NORRUSS+ Programme, under grant no. 287620. The research for the article was conducted when Filippova and Deineko were both affiliated with V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University in Ukraine.

Notes on contributors

Aadne Aasland

Aadne Aasland, Senior Researcher, The Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), OsloMet—Oslo Metropolitan University, Pb 4, St Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]

Olga Filippova

Olga Filippova, Project Researcher, Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu P.O. Box 111, FI-80101, Finland; Associate Professor, School of Sociology, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine. Email: [email protected]

Oleksandra Deineko

Oleksandra Deineko, Guest Researcher, The Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR), OsloMet—Oslo Metropolitan University, Pb 4, St Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway; Associate Professor, School of Sociology, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine. Email: [email protected]