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 15 th 2008

Department of Political and Social Sciences 2 Outline Putnam’s article Theory and hypotheses Measurement Results Discussion

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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),

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences Neighborhood diversity  Diversity neighbors It is likely that diversity in the neighborhood affects the diversity of direct neigbors 12

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences Conceptual model 14

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 17 H = -(  E i 2 ) n i=1 Herfindahl Index of Ethnic Diversity Where E i 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= -( )= Last, index is standardized in range -1 till 0.

Department of Political and Social Sciences Results: 13 municipalities 18

Department of Political and Social Sciences 19 Trust in neighbors

Department of Political and Social Sciences 20 Trust in neighbors (Continued)

Department of Political and Social Sciences 21 Inter-ethnic trust

Department of Political and Social Sciences 22 Inter-ethnic trust (continued)

Department of Political and Social Sciences 23 Ethnic diversity of the neighbors

Department of Political and Social Sciences 24 Ethnic diversity of the neighbors (Continued)

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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

Department of Political and Social Sciences 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