Community and Civil Society Returns of Multi-generation Cohousing in Germany

Abstract

Multi-generation cohousing and community developments have been promoted for more than a decade in Germany. They are confronted with rising expectations of success regarding their effects on the health, care, and well-being of their residents, as well as on local civil society. This article analyses their impact on residents and associational life by surveying eight German developments. The empirical findings underline the relevance of an informal sphere between communities and civil society for welfare and quality of life. However, relevant questions concerning their future funding and their relationship to local civil society merit further discussion and analysis.

Keywords:

• Civil society
• volunteering
• cohousing
• elderly care
• social capital

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a survey conducted by the Centre for Social Investment (CSI) at Heidelberg University in collaboration with the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim chaired by Volker Then (CSI). We like to thank Peter Westerheide, Sarah Borgloh, and Gunnar Lang (ZEW) who were part of the research team. We also thank the four organizations—the Stiftung Liebenau, the Evangelisches Johanneswerk Bielefeld, the Bremer Heimstiftung, and the Caritas Betriebsführungs- und Trägergesellschaft Cologne—who initiated the study. It was conceptualized in close co-operation with those four organizations and surveying responses were strongly encouraged by their staff while the academic work remained totally independent. The empirical findings have been published in a German language report (Netzwerk Soziales neu gestalten, 2009) without theoretical and state of research reflection, and without interpretation of results in the wider policy and civil society context. Finally, we have to thank Carolyn Cordery from Wellington University (NZ) and two anonymous reviewers for their comments, and the participants of the panel on civic engagement at ARNOVA's 40th Annual Conference 2011 in Toronto for valuable feedback and controversial discussions.

Notes

See also http://www.cohousing.org, the American Cohousing Association website.

Since it is not possible to compare people in an empirically observable situation with the same people in a hypothetical situation, in which they are not treated with the intervention under study—in this case: living in one of the model projects—propensity score matching has become a common econometric technique to compare individuals in different situations but with similar statistical attributes due to a selection of relevant variables. Because usually there are no perfect matches, i.e. cases with identical characteristics, a radius is defined and cases of the programme group are attached to control group cases whose scores lie in that radius. For this study, these statistical ‘twins’ were computed by estimating four Probit models (R 2 between 18% and 20%) based on the differentiation between the whole sample and people aged 50 and older, and on two assumptions regarding the independent variable of the propensity scores (scenarios 1 and 2).