Outline

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

2. Outline • Putnam’s article • Theory and hypotheses • Measurement • Results • Discussion

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. ‘Constrict theory’ • Implicit argument: social context more ethnically diverse  More people ‘unlike’ you  Less people to identify with  ‘Hunker’ down, less trust.

8. 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.

9. 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.’

10. 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.

11. 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.’

12. Neighborhood diversityDiversity neighbors • It is likely that diversity in the neighborhood affects the diversity of direct neigbors

13. 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.

14. Conceptual model

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Herfindahl Index of Ethnic Diversity n H = -(  Ei2) i=1 • Where Eiis 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.

18. Results: 13 municipalities

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)

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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.