Social Capital and A ttitudes towards Immigrants: a cross-cultural comparison of Austria and the United Kingdom using s

1. Social Capital and Attitudes towards Immigrants: a cross-cultural comparison of Austria and the United Kingdom using structural equation modelling Natalia Waechter Austrian Institute for Youth Research Sameer Hosany Royal Holloway, University of London Prachi Srivastava Centre for International Education, University of Sussex QMSS 2007, Prague, 22 June 2007

2. Overview Paper • Introduction and Problem Statement • Contextual Background • State of the art: attitudes towards immigrants and migration • Social capital theory • Active social and political participation • Data, measures and method • Results • Discussion and further direction

3. Problem Statement & Overview Study • While immigration has increasingly appeared in the political debate, there is little understanding on actual attitudes towards immigration • Aim of the study: analysis of attitudes of citizens towards immigrants in Austria and the UK by applying social capital theory, in particular active civic or voluntary participation

4. Contextual Background • Austria and UK: both countries have a history of immigration, similar number of residents born abroad • Austria: traditionally high voluntary participation in civic organizations; immigrants from former Yugoslavia, Turkey, and other EU states. • UK: traditionally low voluntary participation in civic organizations; immigrants from India, Pakistan, Germany, and the Caribbean.

5. State of the Art: Attitudes Towards Immigrants • From early to mid-1990s general trend in european countries: rise of anti-immigrant sentiment • As the percentage of non-EU foreigners increases by 1%, those saying that immigration is a big problem increases on average by 9.9%“. • 44% of UK respondents and 31% of Austrian respondents state that there are „too many“ non-EU people living in their country • Attitudes towards immigrants is influenced by the perceptions of the national labor market as well as by the personal employment situation and educational attainment (socio-economic status).

6. Social capital theory • Bourdieu: Social capital as „the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition“. • Strong ties (with people who are homogenous, e.g. family) that promote “bonding social capital” versus • Weak ties (e.g. colleagues, associates) that promote “bridging social capital” that can bridge ties across different social groups

7. Active social and political participation • How does social capital, in the sense of active participation in civic/voluntary organizations, influence attitudes towards immigrants? • Assumption that people who are actively involved in civic organizations and who have social ties in those organizations are likely to have empathic, tolerant, and open-minded views, and thus are expected to have positive attitudes towards immigrants. • Expectation of influence of SES on the relationship between active participation and attitudes towards immigrants

8. Data, Measures and Method • Data from the ESS 2002-2003 for UK and Austria (Round 1); • ESS is a new academically-driven, conceptually well-anchored and methodologically rigorous social survey; • 2 main reasons to choose Round 1 data: • Round 1 has more questions on immigration (contains an immigration module); • Round 2 does not have the right questions on civic participation.

9. Sample • The ESS employs a random sampling procedure of residents aged above 15 years old and the minimum ‘effective’ sample size was 1,500 in each of the participating countries; • Austria: N=2162; • UK N=1992.

10. Measures • All measures were derived from the ESS questionnaire • Socio-economic status (SEM); active participation and open-mindedness towards immigrants.

11. Socio-economic Status • Education was measured in terms of number of years as opposed to the highest level of education achieved. • The statement was “How many years of full-time education have you completed?”

12. Income • Income was measured in terms of household total net income; • “if you add up the income from all sources, which letter describes your household's total net income?” • However, due to variations in income levels, initial categories were recoded in order to be consistent and comparable across the two countries.

13. Income • Five new categories were created for annual household income. • Austria: 1=less than €18000; 2=€18000 to under €3000; 3=€30000 to under €36000; 4=36000 to under €60000; and 5=€60000 or more. • UK: 1=less than £19 870; 2=£19870-£23840; 3=£23840-£39740; 4=£39740-£59600; and 5=£59600 and above

14. Active Participation • Consist of participation, volunteering and having friends in a number social/civic organisation (e.g. sports club, organization for human rights, trade union). • Derived from E1-E12 (ESS questionnaire) - “Did you participate in any of these organisations?” (Participation); - “Did you volunteer in any of these organisations?” (Volunteer); - “Do you have personal friends from these organizations?” (Friends).

15. Open-mindedness towards immigrants - “Average wages and salaries are generally brought down by people coming to live and work here” (Wages); - “If people who have come to live and work here are unemployed for a long period, they should be made to leave” (Unemployment); - “People who have come to live here should be given the same rights as everyone else” (Rights); - “If people who have come to live here commit any crime, they should be made to leave” (Crime); - “It is better for a country if almost everyone share the same customs and traditions” (Customs). • All statements were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1=Agree Strongly and 5=Disagree Strongly.

16. Results Preliminary Results • Reliability analysis for the latent constructs: • Active participation – Austria: =0.62; UK sample: =0.75; • Open-mindedness towards immigrants – Austria: =0.70; UK sample: =0.71;

17. Education Education Income Income Voluntary Voluntary Participation Participation Friends Friends 0.76 0.76 0.28 0.57 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.90 0.79 0.87 Open-mindedness Open-mindedness Active Participation Active Participation Socio-Economic Status Socio-Economic Status 0.49 0.31 0.15 0.09 0.37 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.67 0.88 0.48 0.69 0.87 0.62 0.56 0.40 Wages Wages Unemployment Unemployment Rights Rights Crime Crime Customs Customs Integrative Model: Multi-Group Analysis Figure 1. Integrative model for Austria Figure 2. Integrative model for UK 2(64) = 305.35, p<0.001

18. Other fit indices • 2 statistics are dependent of sample size (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985; Bollen, 1989; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1989); • GFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.97; IFI=0.97; • The standardised RMR = 0.044; RMSEA = 0.054 (both below the recommended cut-off value of 0.08); • The values of GFI, NFI, CFI, and IFI are all higher than the recommended level of 0.90, suggesting that the model provides a strong representation of the hypothesised relationships.

19. Conclusions Organizations in which respondents participate are not really socially heterogeneous. Active participation in organizations with members from more diverse social backgrounds might lead to more open-mindedness towards immigrants.

20. THANK YOU