1. Ravi Pendakur (University of Ottawa) And Fernando Mata (Dept of Canadian Heritage) Social Capital Formation & Diversity: Impacts of Individual & Place Related Characteristics

2. Issue Academics from Canada, the United States, and Europe have suggested that increased diversity hampers our ability to build social capital (see, for example, Putnam 2007; Portes 1998; Alesina and Ferrara 2002; Marschall and Stolle 2002). –Cities with high proportions of minorities have lower levels of social capital than cities that are relatively homogenous. –If they are correct, Canada is faced with a challenge because immigration intake will increase diversity, particularly in large cities Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

3. Goal Assess the degree to which the characteristics of individuals and the cities in which they live may affect scores on three domains underlying social capital: –trust, –interaction and –Participation in organizations These dimensions fall across both bridging and bonding social capital –Trust in others is attitudinal. –Interaction is behavioural and generally bonding –Participation in organizations is behavioural and more likely to be bridging Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

4. Overall findings o Trust o Diversity + o City size – o % visible minorities = o Interaction o Diversity = o City size – o % visible minorities – o Participation o Diversity + o City size – o % visible minorities = Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

5. Data pooled sample of the Canadian Social Capital and Well- Being Surveys (SCWB) of 1999 and 2002. –oversample of CTs in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver with high proportions of minorities –Oversample of Aboriginal persons living in the Prairie provinces. –6,616 cases 29% European (not British or French) 15% visible minority 3% Aboriginal 19% immigrant Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

6. Descriptives Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

7. Method We use these data to measure the impact of individual and municipal characteristics on levels of social capital but: –There is no variable called social capital on the dataset – it is unobserved. So we use a method which allows us to interpret social capital to be a construct of its parts (trust, interaction and participation). –We then look at the impact of individual and municipal characteristics on this construct. Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

8. Method For the economists in the audience: –We employ Multiple Indicators-Multiple Causes (MIMIC) multivariate models MIMIC models are structural equation models consisting of both observed and unobserved (latent) exogenous and endogenous variables (Muthen,1997) Using MIMIC models we can estimate measurement and structural parameters simultaneously In its multilevel form, they allow us to correct for unobserved heterogeneity (i.e. clustering of individuals within cities) –Fitting of MIMIC models to data was the last stage of analysis following exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

9. Model Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity Individual characteristics: Age, Schooling, Marital status, Employment status, Immigrant status, Ethnicity Contextual characteristics: Size of city (log) Level of diversity % visible minorities TIP Trust: Wallet questions Interaction with friends family & neighbours Membership in organizations

10. Social capital is not a single construct Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis suggest that the social capital related variables divide into 3 broad constructs: Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity TrustInteractionParticipation Wallet questions Returned by: Speak to:Membership in: neighbourfriendsReligious org local clerkfamilyEthnic policeneighboursService strangerPolitical Youth cultural health

11. Trust Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

12. Interaction Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

13. Participation Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

14. Conclusions Social capital does not appear to be a single construct. Rather we find 3 constructs that vary largely independently. No matter how you cut it, big cities are bad for social capital formation. Not necessarily the case for diversity: –As diversity increases, trust in others and participation in organizations increases. –Interaction with others is somewhat negatively affected by diversity – as the proportion of visible minorities increases, interaction with others decreases. Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity

15. Conclusions 2 Being a minority is correlated with lower levels of trust in others. Levels of interaction and participation for European, South Asian and Aboriginal groups are about the same as for those with British origins (the most active group), and higher than those reporting French origins. So: we will hedge our bets. Contextual level diversity does not appear to be a threat to social capital formation. However if we want to continue to work together we should find ways to incorporate minorities and allow trust, in particular to grow. Pendakur & Mata. Social capital formation and diversity