Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0355/03554.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 24KB | 364 lines

$Unique_ID{COW03554}
$Pretitle{442}
$Title{Switzerland
5. The Living Conditions at Local, Cantonal and National Level}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Rene Levy}
$Affiliation{Arts Coucil of Switzerland}
$Subject{cantons
switzerland
canton
population
social
differences
towns
local
swiss
inhabitants}
$Date{1986}
$Log{Watch Maker*0355401.scf
}
Country:     Switzerland
Book:        The Social Structure of Switzerland Outline of a Society
Author:      Rene Levy
Affiliation: Arts Coucil of Switzerland
Date:        1986

5. The Living Conditions at Local, Cantonal and National Level

[See Watch Maker: Courtesy Embassy of Switzerland, Washington DC.]

a) The Different Levels of Social Organisation

     We have already referred several times to the differences which exist
between various regions of Switzerland, although we were dealing principally
with the conditions in which the individual lives and the differences involved
in the organisation of specific social sectors. This further point of view
concerns the simple but decisive fact that people live in a particular place
and that social structures often correspond to a certain geographical area.
The various social sectors we have looked at so far can be found in any
geographical location, although they may be of varying importance. No village
is an arbitrarily composed part of Swiss society, but rather a partial society
in its own right which is linked to other villages and towns through diverse
connections and exchanges.

     After the family and the immediate surroundings of home, the town or
village is for most people the next more or less complete environment,
complete in the sense that most activities can be carried out within its
limits. This is also a characteristic of the region or the canton and even
more so of the country as a whole. However, in most cases a person's immediate
area of experience is smaller than the latter.

     We have already mentioned the political and administrative arrangement of
boroughs, cantons and the federal state in Switzerland. There are provisions
concerning autonomy and differences, but there is also inequality and
dependence. We shall now attempt to complete this picture because the
differences and features of dependence are not limited to the way in which the
administration is organised. They are also of consequence to the inhabitants,
for it is not only their living conditions which are affected, but far more
that they see themselves partly through the characteristics of their home and
their local environment.

b) Local Communities: Urban and Rural

     There have always been social differences between the places different
people live in. For many centuries people as well as places have specialised
in different branches of the economy and at the same time there has been trade
between specialised localities. The most important difference is to be seen
between urban and rural areas: in the country agriculture has always been
predominant and handicrafts, trade, political administration and to a certain
extent the higher clergy have always been concentrated in the towns. This
explains the basic reasons why towns have always dominated their rural
surroundings. This dominance existed in Switzerland until the French armies
marched in under Napoleon and he set up the Swiss Republic at the beginning of
the 19th century. There were repeated riots by the farmers, who were brutally
suppressed. The social structure of the towns was restricted by the guilds to
such an extent that industrialisation made more progress at first in rural
areas. This was one of the reasons why for a long time no larger towns
developed, while the economic structure and thus also the social structure of
many rural communities were going through a period of change. This led to
close contact and strong mutual dependence between a small or medium-sized
village and the most important local factory, while the factory owner became
quasi a local lord-of-the-manor, without holding any political position. Thus
for a long time the majority of the factory workers lived within a narrow,
paternal atmosphere with strict social control and a relatively close
relationship between the factory owner and the employees, a relationship which
resembled more that of the patriarchal family (father and children: the father
giving his children orders, but also being responsible for their well-being)
than that of a large firm with its contrasting employer/employee camps.

     Larger towns and agglomerations only came into being in Switzerland in
the 20th century. But even today the population is less concentrated in large
urban centres than is the case in most other industrialised countries and many
developing countries. Around 1875 there were 12 towns in Switzerland with more
than 10,000 inhabitants, and less than a tenth of the total population lived
in these 12 places. About half of the inhabitants of Switzerland were then
living in villages with a population of between 1,000 and 5,000. One hundred
years later there were 92 towns with a population of over 10,000 and 43% of
the total population were living in them. The rest of the population was
distributed among the other 2,960 boroughs, of which about half have a
population of under 500. Today a third of the total population of Switzerland
lives in the seven agglomerations having over 100,000 inhabitants.

     This century there have been very different trends in development on a
local scale. Between 1910 and 1960 the proportion of mainly farming boroughs
fell from 61% to 25%, the proportion dependent on farming and commerce rose
from 26% to 48%, the proportion of principally industrial boroughs rose from
12% to 19% and the proportion of towns with mixed economies or specialising in
the services sector rose from 1% to 6%. The proportion of boroughs orientated
mainly towards tourism stayed about the same at around 1%.

     An especially important development is the fact that many people now live
in one borough and work in another. In 1910 only 9% of those gainfully
employed worked outside their home borough, whereas this figure had risen to
31% by 1970. The main reasons for this development are that residential areas
are being displaced by offices and shops and accommodation in towns is
becoming much more expensive. The result is the development of dormitory
towns. In 1950 only 3% of all boroughs came under this heading, whereas by
1970 it included 15%. Such boroughs have their own particular problems
connected, on the one hand, with the fact that they only really represent
"home", at least in their preliminary phase of development, for their
non-working residents, i.e. for married women and children, while the
bread-winners mostly spend their working-day in another place, normally in the
nearest town. This separation of the place of residence and the place of work
causes many new problems, from increased commuter traffic to problems of
political influence and allegiance: commuters belong politically to the
borough in which they live, which means that they cannot vote on local matters
in the place in which they actually spend most of their waking hours. On the
other hand, they are hardly affected by the problems of the borough in which
they live and where they have the right to vote.

     In contrast to their daily commuting, Swiss people are less inclined to
leave their native community for good than people in other highly
industrialised countries. Nevertheless, there are some important migratory
trends. These trends are basically away from the purely agricultural areas in
the economically poorer regions, towards the medium-sized, industrialised
towns and from there, sometimes even directly, to the agglomerations. Within
the latter, there is an increasing trend away from the centre towards the
suburbs, i.e. a tendency towards a commuter existence and the creation of
dormitory towns.

     There is a great difference in wealth between the 3,000 odd boroughs in
Switzerland, or rather between their inhabitants. This can be seen