Does Diversity Damage Social Capital? A Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Diversity and Social Capital in the US and Britain

Fieldhouse, Edward; Cutts, David

doi:10.1017/s0008423910000065

Cited by 107 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both strategies have been used in those, relatively few, studies that do not disregard members of minority groups altogether. Some of these studies report a weaker (Putnam, 2007;Stolle et al, 2008; similarly an earlier analysis of the data used in this paper, see Koopmans and Schaeffer, 2016), others no significant relation between diversity and social cohesion measures among minority members (Bakker & Dekker, 2012;Fieldhouse & Cutts, 2010). But while such analyses acknowledge the possibility of effect heterogeneity between majority and minority respondents, they still disregard another ambiguity of diversity indices.…”

Section: In-group Share and Relational Out-group Entropy Or Why Intesupporting

confidence: 49%

Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size

Koopmans

Schaeffer

2015

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethnic diversity is typically measured by the well-known Hirschman-Herfindahl Index. This paper discusses the merits of an alternative approach, which is in our view better suited to tease out why and how ethnic diversity matters. The approach consists of two elements. First, all existing diversity indices are nonrelational. From the viewpoint of theoretical accounts that attribute negative diversity effects to in-group favoritism and out-group threat, it should however matter whether, given a certain level of overall diversity, an individual belongs to a minority group or to the dominant majority. We therefore decompose diversity by distinguishing the in-group share from the diversity of ethnic out-groups. Second, we show how generalized entropy measures can be used to test which of diversity's two basic dimensions matters most: the variety of groups, or the unequal distribution (balance) of the population over groups. These measures allow us to test different theoretical explanations against each other, because they imply different expectations regarding the effects of in-group size, out-group variety, and balance. We apply these ideas in an analysis of various social cohesion measures across 55 German localities and show that both in-group size and out-group diversity matter. For the native majority as well as for persons of immigration background, the variety component of diversity seems to be more decisive than has formerly been acknowledged. These findings provide little support for group threat and in-group favoritism as the decisive mechanisms behind negative diversity effects, and are most in line with the predictions of theories that emphasize coordination problems, asymmetric preferences, and network closure.

show abstract

Section: In-group Share and Relational Out-group Entropy Or Why Intesupporting

confidence: 49%

Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size

Koopmans

Schaeffer

2015

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is particularly the case in the UK. Whilst many British studies stress the relatively weaker effects of community diversity on social capital compared to levels of deprivation, each still observe that, on the whole, living in more diverse communities has a significant negative relationship with attitudes towards one's neighbours, especially trust in neighbours (Bécares et al, 2011;Fieldhouse & Cutts, 2010;Laurence, 2011;Letki, 2008;Sturgis et al, 2011;Twigg et al, 2010). Based on the similarity of these findings to Putnam's (2007) neighbourhood trust finding we might conclude that in Great Britain higher ethnic diversity undermines social capital.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Issues With the Current Literaturementioning

confidence: 89%

“Hunkering Down or Hunkering Away?” The Effect of Community Ethnic Diversity on Residents' Social Networks

Laurence

2013

Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identify two issues with the current literature suggesting that community ethnic diversity undermines social capital: (1) studies predominantly use attitudinal indicators of social capital; and (2) these attitudinal indicators are neighbourhood specific. We suggest the "size" of, and "frequency of interaction" within, individuals' social networks form more valid indicators of social capital. Thus it remains unknown: (1) whether diversity undermines individuals' social connectivity or only attitudes towards neighbours; or (2) whether diversity undermines individuals' total levels of social connectivity or only neighbourhood connectivity. We demonstrate that diversity negatively predicts both local trust and local social connectivity. However, diversity does not negatively predict individuals' total levels of connectivity. From a social connectivity perspective, diversity may undermine local social capital yet exert little effect on individuals' total levels of social capital. Instead, individuals in diverse communities possess equally sized (and active) but less neighbourhood-centric networks. However, this appears dependent on the ability to maintain dispersed social networks: less mobile individuals (e.g. the elderly) report both lower local and lower total social capital in diverse communities.

show abstract

“…And one must concede that this is a reasonable summary, insofar as it relates to studies that have examined the association between ethnic heterogeneity at some level of geographical aggregation and the expressed attitudes and behaviours of individual residents. For, while some scholars have found positive (Marschall and Stolle 2004;Mata 2012) or non-significant (Aizlewood andPendakur 2005;Leigh 2006;Soroka, Johnston, and Banting 2007;) effects of diversity on generalized trust, the large majority of studies have found significant negative associations between diversity and measures of prosocial attitudes (Knack and Keefer 1997;Pennant 2005;Putnam 2007;Letki 2008;Fieldhouse and Cutts 2010;Becares et al Ethnic andRacial Studies 1289 2011). And, although the magnitude of the relationship appears to vary across ethnic groups, the basic pattern of negative association between diversity and social capital is broadly consistent across North America and the European contexts in which it has been examined (Fieldhouse and Cutts 2010;Lancee and Dronkers 2011).…”

Section: Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion: Existing Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnic diversity, segregation and the social cohesion of neighbourhoods in London

Sturgis

Brunton‐Smith

Kuha

et al. 2013

Ethnic and Racial Studies

185

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether and how ethnic diversity affects the social cohesion of communities has become an increasingly prominent and contested topic of academic and political debate. In this paper we focus on a single city: London. As possibly the most ethnically diverse conurbation on the planet, London serves as a particularly suitable test-bed for theories about the effects of ethnic heterogeneity on prosocial attitudes. We find neighbourhood ethnic diversity in London to be positively related to the perceived social cohesion of neighbourhood residents, once the level of economic deprivation is accounted for. Ethnic segregation within neighbourhoods, on the other hand, is associated with lower levels of perceived social cohesion. Both effects are strongly moderated by the age of individual residents: diversity has a positive effect on social cohesion for young people but this effect dissipates in older age groups; the reverse pattern is found for ethnic segregation.

show abstract

Does Diversity Damage Social Capital? A Comparative Study of Neighbourhood Diversity and Social Capital in the US and Britain

Cited by 107 publications

References 42 publications

Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size

Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size

“Hunkering Down or Hunkering Away?” The Effect of Community Ethnic Diversity on Residents' Social Networks

Ethnic diversity, segregation and the social cohesion of neighbourhoods in London

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About