department of political and social sciences 1 ethnic diversity in neighborhoods and individual trust...

Department of Political and Social Sciences

1

Ethnic diversity in neighborhoods and individual trust of immigrants and

natives:A replication of Putnam (2007) in a West-

European country.

BRAM LANCEE & JAAP DRONKERS

Presentation conference on theoretical perspectives on social cohesion and social capital, May 15th 2008


2

Outline

• Putnam’s article • Theory and hypotheses• Measurement• Results• Discussion


Putnam (2007)*

• Putnam claims that (in the short run) ethnic diversity reduces solidarity and social capital.

• Residents in ethnically diverse neighborhoods tend to ‘hunker’ down.

• Trust in one’s neighbors is lower, community cooperation is more rare, friends fewer.

*Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.

3


Objective of this research

• Replicate Putnam’s study as closely as possible in the European context.

• Improving the measurement. • Further disentangle the effect of ethnic diversity

in the neighborhood by including the ethnic diversity of direct neighbors.

4


Diversity and Trust

• Societies are becoming more and more ethnically heterogeneous;

• Social capital (of which trust is a part) is generally assumed (and found) to have positive effects.

• There is a public debate about the role of ethnic minorities in social cohesion;

• Hence, the question if and how ethnic diversity affects trust is an important one.

5


Contact and conflict theory• Contact theory: more diversity, more inter-ethnic

tolerance.• Conflict theory: diversity fosters out-group

distrust and in-group solidarity.• Putnam: constrict theory: ethnic diversity

reduces both in-group and out-group trust.

6


‘Constrict theory’

• Implicit argument:

social context more ethnically diverse More people ‘unlike’ you Less people to identify with ‘Hunker’ down, less trust.

7


Ethnic Diversity Trust

• Perhaps in Europe relation different, due to better welfare state, less inequality?

• Putnam: in US, effect is short term.• US = ‘old’ immigration country, Europe rather

‘new’.• If effect is short term, we certainly expect to find it

in the European context.

8


Hypotheses (1/3)

H1 ‘Ethnic diversity in the neighborhood negatively affects individual social trust, both for immigrant and native residents, independently of the ethnic diversity of ego’s neighbors.’

9


Neighbors Diversity Trust

• If effect neighborhood diversity trust exists, an effect of the ethnicity of the direct neighbors on trust is also likely.

• Diversity of the neighbours is a sub-neighborhood level of measurement, less abstract than the neighborhood level.

10


Hypotheses (2/3)

H2 ‘Having neighbors that are ethnically different negatively affects individual social trust, both for immigrant and native residents, independently of the ethnic diversity of the neighborhood.’

11


Neighborhood diversityDiversity neighbors

• It is likely that diversity in the neighborhood affects the diversity of direct neigbors

12


Hypotheses (3/3)

H3 ‘Ethnic diversity in the neighborhood increases the likelihood of having neighbors that are ethnically different.’

• If H2 and H3 are confirmed, ethnic diversity can have an indirect effect on trust, even if H1 is rejected.

13


Conceptual model

14


Measurement: Data

• Data for the Netherlands• Individual level: SPVA 1998 (Social Position and

Facilities Use of Ethnic Minorities). • Zip code level and municipality level: Central

Bureau of Statistics, the Netherlands.• Matching four digit zip code of respondent with

neighborhood as defined by CBS.

15


Trust: three DV’s

• Scale ‘trust in neighbours’ (containing 8 items on the quality and frequency of contact with the neighbors)

• Scale ’trust in neighborhood’. (containing 4 items on the quality and frequency of contact with the neighbors)

• Scale inter-ethnic trust. (Containing two items on opinion on ethnic background of partner and friends of children)

• Psychometric characteristics of scales are the same for the five ethnic groups.

16


17

H = -( Ei2)

n

i=1

Herfindahl Index of Ethnic Diversity

•Where Ei is the fraction of ethnic group i in the

neighbourhood population, and n is the number of ethnic groups.•In a neighbourhood with two ethnic groups of both 50%, H= -(0.52 +0.52)=-0.50.•Last, index is standardized in range -1 till 0.


Results: 13 municipalities

18


19

Trust in neighbors


20

Trust in neighbors(Continued)


21

Inter-ethnic trust


22

Inter-ethnic trust (continued)


23

Ethnic diversity of the neighbors


24

Ethnic diversity of the neighbors(Continued)


Summary (1/2)

• Ethnic diversity in the neighborhood also in an European context negatively affects trust in neighbors/neighborhood

• Ethnic diversity of the neighbors neg. affects trust.

• Ethnic diversity does not affect inter-ethnic trust• The above is not different for immigrant and

native residents.

25


Summary (2/2)

• Ethnic diversity partly explains likelihood of neighbors being ethnically different: immigrants live more often next to someone that is ethnically different.

• For the native Dutch: diversity does increase the likelihood of neighbors being ethnically different

26


Discussion

• Distinguishing in different types of trust is useful, it yields different results.

• Different results for different types of trust may hint at language diversity in the neighborhood as alternative explanan of trust.

• Policies promoting ethnically diverse neighborhoods might result in less trust in the neighborhood.

27

department of political and social sciences 1 ethnic diversity in neighborhoods and individual trust...

Documents

social sciences diversity

social sciences putnam

department of political

social sciences hypotheses

individual social trust

effect of ethnic diversity

social context

social sciences objective