CLASS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN EUROPE: A transnational analysis of the European Social Survey

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between class and social capital dimensions in Europe. How can we regard the influence of social conditions of life and class position on the production and reproduction of social capital? Sociology of class offers a considerable stock of perspectives ranging from the ‘classics’ (especially Marx and Engels 1969 [1848]; and Weber 1978 [1922]) to conflict theories (such as Dahrendorf 1959; Parkin 1971, 1979; or Wright 1997) and the contributions of Bourdieu (1985, 1986) and Giddens (1991). A discussion of authors who addressed the problem of social capital more directly (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993, 2000; Woolcock 2008) is also fruitful, in articulation with these theories.

The problematic articulation of relations between class and social capital discussed here is part of research into social classes at European level (Costa et al. 2002, 2009). More specifically, we are seeking to conduct a structural analysis to help identify social factors that foster some dimensions of social capital, such as trust, sociality and civic participation, especially with regard to social agents’ social position (class) and capital structure (economic, cultural and social resources). This structural analysis is based on Bourdieu's theoretical framework.

The conceptualisation and empirical results come from the European Social Survey (ESS 2008), which covered 26 European countries and a sample of 50,000 subjects and is the empirical support for a European-level transnational analysis.

This paper is structured as follows. It first reviews the theoretical aspects of social capital and class analysis in the study of the European transnational social space. Then it analyses the different dimensions of social capital and relates them to some independent variables such as social class, educational attainment, income, etc. Finally, we conduct a multivariate analysis of the social space of classes and social capital at European level.

Social capital can be defined as a socioeconomic value embedded in personal relationships and forged by social networks (such as sociability networks) to achieve mutual goals that favour a specific group of individuals (Shullerk et al.2000; Carmo 2010). The central idea behind the theory of social capital is the value of social networks, which enables regular contact between different social agents as a way of improving the social situation within the group or the community to which they belong (Putnam 1993, 2000).

In addition to social networks and relationships, the other factor that helps to generate social capital is trust. Without mutual trust it is not possible for individuals to create a stable platform of relationships, at least not medium or long-term ones. As Rothstein and Stolle say, ‘Social capital is about the generation of trust and norms of reciprocity that go beyond a particular group’ (2008: 276). It is therefore fundamental to promote the necessary conditions to achieve this kind of social stability. The role of political institutions is becoming more and more crucial in promoting the generalisation of mutual trust. So, it is not wrong to say that institutional and personal forms of trust are usually related to each other. These two dimensions of trust are normally used in studies that compare different countries by composing two distinct composite indexes (Halman and Luijkx 2006; Herreros 2009; Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). This approach is relatively appropriate when it comes to the issue of social inequalities. For instance, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) establish an interesting correlation between the level of trust within European countries and their different income inequality rates.

Trust, social networks and also civic participation are regarded as the main structural components of social capital. In fact, for Putman (1993, 2000) one of the most expressive indicators of the level of social capital within regions and countries depends on the associative capacity of its populations. ‘Official membership in formal organizations is only one facet of social capital, but it is usually regarded as a useful barometer of community involvement’ (Putman, 2000: 49). Nevertheless, we feel that most studies of social capital have neglected the importance of other structural factors like social inequalities and especially social classes and social strata.

In fact, the two sociologists behind this concept, Pierre Bourdieu (1980) and James Coleman (1990), did not neglect the function of these structural mechanisms in generating social capital. Although their approaches are different, both conceive social capital as an important resource resulting from the degree of inter-connectivity of relationships and social networks. Both authors consider social closure to be one of the main conditions for producing forms of social capital among individuals in the same social group or community. Social proximity is therefore an essential factor in endorsing social ties and networks as a way of facilitating social action to achieve the equivalent sort of resources and opportunities. In this sense, social closure can be regarded ‘as a process by which social collectivities seek to maximise rewards by restricting access to resources and opportunities to a limited circle of eligibles’ (Parkin 1971: 44).

Despite this definition, which is based on Weber's perspective, we can say that social closure has different meanings in both Coleman's and Bourdieu's analyses. While Coleman regards social closure as a public good that produces novel interactions and social relationships among the members of a singular group, for Bourdieu social closure represents a privileged good which excludes other groups from having the chance of obtaining the same type of social benefits.

Therefore, while on the one hand social capital is based on the persistence over time of the networks that feed on reciprocal relations based on the sharing of certain norms and values, on the other hand it produces different forms of appropriation and exclusion with regard to economic, cultural and social resources.

Thus, social capital is a resource that tends to be differently maximised according to different social class positions. In fact, as we are going to see throughout the analysis, not only access to but also the generation of some resources clearly depend on individuals’ positions in the social space. According to Bourdieu (1979), the notion of social space is based on a viewpoint that social relationships, which are intrinsically conflicting but relatively institutionalised, produce differentiated structural configurations resulting from mobilisation processes and distinct access to certain valuable or prestigious resources. The author believes that each individual corresponds to a given position in the social space, which is partly structured by an amount of objective conditions defined in terms of capital. These are unequally disseminated and possessed, meaning that not everyone has the same chances or social conditions to appropriate more valuable resources.

In social space and in social-position systems, the concept of social class has a capacity for instantiation that mediates between structure and action, not only because of its delimitation between class positions and classes of agents (Costa et al. 2009) but because of its intrinsic structural referencing, which identifies conditions of life, social processes and situations, attributes, leaderships and social practices. The importance of social mediations and focus on social protagonists (Costa 1999) are essential characteristics in the sociology of social classes today.

Class characterisation variables can be considered indicators of relational distribution in social positions. This means that social positions have certain relational configurations because, even though they constitute distinct, coexisting positions that are separate from each other, they are also defined by reference to the others (Bourdieu 1985).

The essential need to include other fundamental dimensions of class analysis as aspects of the structure of contemporary social relations has become a shared theoretic understanding (Silva 2003). The relational dimension is observed through an intertwined analysis of social positions as relative positions. A transnational analysis makes it possible to appraise and assess the differences and similarities between social classes in Europe in terms of greater or lesser possession of resources, power and opportunities. We have adopted a transnational perspective, which will make it possible to pinpoint structural inequalities between European social classes. Starting from a class analysis that covers both national (European) and transnational levels, it is possible to achieve an understanding of social capital from a sociological analysis that uses theoretic and methodological class analysis tools to explore the level of transnational analysis.

In fact, the first social class theories contained important national and transnational dimensions (Costa et al. 2002). Other scales of analysis, such as local or regional, have also contributed to class analysis, though the national – state level has been the main frame of reference for most research into social classes, at least as a geographical unit of empirical analysis.

In recent years, some large international comparative research programmes, such as those of Erikson and Goldthorpe (1993), Esping-Andersen (1993) and Wright (1997), have made valuable contributions. Studies of the European context by Portuguese authors (Costa et al. 2002; Almeida et al. 2006; Costa et al. 2009) using the European Social Survey, with simultaneous national and transnational articulation, illustrate a new level in class analysis, which is still taking its first steps.

An understanding of many contemporary social phenomena, such as the study of social classes, requires sociological analysis that articulates between levels of national and transnational analysis. Comparisons between countries still maintain their analytical validity, but the constitution of society also lends itself to transnational scales (Costa et al. 2009).

The analysis in this paper covers a multiplicity of social characterisation indicators, all of which can be obtained in the European Social Survey, such as the socio-professional indicator devised by Almeida, Costa and Machado (Costa et al. 2009, 2002; Almeida et al. 2006) and Bourdieu's theories, i.e., economic capital (indicator of income), cultural capital (educational attainment) and social capital. In the combination, articulation and comprehensiveness of all indicators, it is important to explore the structural and systemic effects between them and their differentiating variability.

Before addressing the empirical part, we will base our analysis on the most important indicators used in this study. The conceptualisation of social class is normally a complex problem, the parameters of which are not always properly clarified.

In the European Social Survey, the socio-professional indicators devised by Almeida, Costa and Machado are often used as a measure and are based on the variables ‘occupational status’ and ‘occupation’. Occupational status is in turn divided into three categories: (i) employer, (ii) self employed, and (iii) employee. Occupations are defined on the basis of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). The corresponding typology of class developed by Almeida, Costa and Machado (ACM) is a complementary alternative to the main proposals from international sociology, such as the French socio-professional categories (Desrosières and Thévenot 1988), the class schema developed by Robert Erikson and John H. Goldthorpe (1993), and Goldthorpe's (1980) and Erik Olin Wright's (1997) typology of class locations.

The ACM typology seeks to overcome artificial dichotomies between the Marxist and Weberian approaches and falls within the most important theoretic frameworks of the sociology of class and stratification of class locations. It is designed to cover economic/occupational and cultural/symbolic fields for an analysis of class in today's societies. It embraces the main structural processes that contemporary societies are going through, such as the reorganisation of the social division of labour, the impact of schooling, different socio-cultural standards, institutional configurations and different socio-political logics of collective action.

Using the ACM classification,¹ we find that in the European social structure (Table 1) routine employees make up the most numerous class in Europe (29.4 percent). They are followed by industrial workers, at 26.5 percent, and then professionals and managers, at 26.4 percent of the sample. Employers and executives represent 9.9 percent of Europeans, self-employed workers 4.8 percent and private professionals 3 percent.²

As mentioned earlier, levels of social capital are normally measured through three major dimensions: (i) trust, (ii) social networks, and (iii) civic participation (Field 2008). But it is not easy to measure each of them directly using the appropriate data and indicators. For example, it is very difficult to measure the way which people organise and produce their social networks. This requires specific data and methodologies that are not available in surveys like the European Social Survey. This is why we have defined three components based on the indicators used in ESS 2008, which are directly or indirectly related with social capital dimensions. An examination of the concept of social capital on the basis of the data in this survey enabled us to consider: trust (broken down into personal³ and institutional trust⁴ ), sociality practices (measured by informal sociality⁵ and participation in social activities⁶ ) and associational membership (divided into membership of trade unions or professional associations⁷ and membership of political parties⁸ ) (Figure 1).

If we consider the question of trust, it is clear that professionals and managers are those who have the highest levels of trust, followed by private professionals and employers and executives (Figure 2).⁹ After that, we find routine employees and self-employed workers. Industrial workers are those with the lowest mean values.

Personal trust and institutional trust follow a regular pattern when we compare the classes. Personal trust is higher than institutional trust in all of them. Both types of trust are higher among professionals and managers, employers and executives and private professionals, but are lower among self-employed workers, routine employees and industrial workers than in the better positioned classes in the social structure.

The different social classes show similar levels of informal sociality (Figure 3). Although there are some variations, it is not possible to conclude that there are any substantial differences. There is, however, a trend for the less privileged classes to show a higher percentage of low informal sociality.

We cannot draw the same conclusion with regard to participation in social activities (Figure 4). On a par with greater participation by employers, executives and private professionals, the curves of high and low participation diverge progressively from self-employed workers, routine employees and industrial workers. These are the classes with the lowest levels of participation in social activities.

Associational membership shows none of the polarising trend that we seem to find in trust and participation in social activities (with employers, executives, private professionals and professionals and managers on one side and self-employed workers, routine employees and industrial workers on the other). Professionals and managers are the class with the highest percentage of associational membership, the only one above 30 percent. Employers and executives are above 20 percent. Below 20 percent are industrial workers, routine employees, private professionals and self-employed workers, in this order.

Professional membership is higher among professionals and managers, employers and executives, industrial workers and lower among private professionals and self-employed workers.¹⁰ Political membership is much lower in all the classes than membership of professional associations or trade unions and hardly any routine employees or industrial workers are party militants (Figure 5).

The different classes show diverse levels of social capital. Employers and executives have higher degrees of trust and participation in social activities. Private professionals are characterised by higher participation in social activities and less associational membership. Professionals and managers are the most trusting class with the highest associational membership. Self-employed workers are those with the lowest membership of professional associations. Routine employees show less levels of trust. Industrial workers are those with the lowest levels of trust and participate the least in social activities, though they are the second highest class in terms of professional membership.

In this section we conduct a multiple-correspondence multivariate analysis to identify the dominant profiles in the social space of classes. One of the advantages of this method is the possibility of a graphic representation of the multiple connections between the categories making up the variables and the projection of the position of each object (individual) on a factorial plot. The configuration of the plot is the result of cross-referencing two factors (or dimensions) formed by the polarisation established by the levels of discrimination¹¹ of the different categories. Thus, people with similar response patterns tend to be positioned in coordinates close to the factorial plot, unlike others whose response patterns have a different statistical and sociological significance. Graphic proximity therefore indicates a certain statistical homogeneity (Carvalho 2008).

The social space of classes, resources and social capital can be divided into two dimensions¹² : one more positional (Dimension 1) and the other more societal (Dimension 2). Dimension 1 revolves around the distribution of resources and trust, while Dimension 2 is based on sociality practices and professional membership (Figure 6). The positional and societal dimensions of social space reveal the divisible, flexible nature of the possession of social capital.

The empirical results for Europe obtained in a multiple correspondence analysis show the existence of certain well-defined social configurations in the social space of classes and capital structure (Figure 7).

• •

  The configuration in Quadrant 3 is characterised mainly by appropriation of resources among professionals and managers, high school attainment, higher average income and high institutional and personal trust.

• •

  In a very different situation of partial deprivation of resources we find industrial workers with very low incomes and school attainment and poor social trust and low participation in social activities (Quadrant 4).

• •

  The more intense relational pattern in Quadrants 1 and 2 is characterised by higher informal sociality, medium participation in social activities and no membership of professional associations.

There is an interconnection between the different resources and the way in which their distribution is closely linked to social class positions with impacts on social capital dimensions. Economic and educational resources produce forms of capital mainly associated with levels of trust and associational membership. However, having more resources does not necessarily mean higher relational intensity, even though there are some differences in participation in social activities, especially when economic resources are considered.

A multivariate analysis of the data and their conjugation with a bivariate analysis clearly shows the relevance of the class effect on differentiated social capital. Among social agents, economic resources and educational attainment mainly produce forms of social capital related above all to levels of trust and associational membership. Nonetheless, possession of more resources does not necessarily mean greater societal intensity, even though there is some differentiation with regard to participation in social activities, especially when we consider possession of economic resources.

Among social agents who are partially lacking in resources, low economic resources and school attainment walk hand in hand with low social trust and low participation in social activities.

Our analysis shows a close relationship between some of the addressed dimensions: mainly between class and trust. Indeed the projection of the different variables on the factorial plan reveals a markedly stratified social space where the some components of social capital tend to be appropriated on the basis of class location. Differentiated economic, social and educational resources are not only not indifferent to social position but also reveal a close relationship with social agents’ class situation.

Particularly evident is the relationship between class and trust, which is expressed mainly in Dimension 1 of the factorial plan. It is curious to note the significant association between the perception of an environment of personal and institutional trust and a privileged social position. It is as if the latter constituted a fundamental condition for the existence of the former. In other words, according to the data, we can conclude that the issue of trust is a matter of class. There is a structural social closure expressed in the duality between the large social stratum of the dominated, which has low levels of institutional and personal trust, and the dominant social positions, in which there is more. In turn, the components of social capital that tend to escape this duality are those of a more societal nature, expressed, for example, in more intense sociality.

Renato Miguel Carmo is a Portuguese sociologist working at the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, University Institute of Lisbon (CIES-IUL). His research interest has been orientated to the subject of social and spatial inequalities. Issues such as social exclusion, territorial marginalization, spatial mobility and social capital have been at the core of his individual and collective research projects.

Nuno Nunes is a researcher at the Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology, University Institute of Lisbon (CIES-IUL). His research interest includes social inequalities, class analysis, collective action and social change.