Local social capital and geographical mobility

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIn the North of Europe, club membership is higher than in the South, but the frequency of contacts with friends, relatives and neighbors is lower. We link this fact to another one: the low geographical mobility rates in the South of Europe relative to the North.To interpret these facts, we build a model of local social capital and mobility. Investing in local ties is rational when workers do not expect to move to another region. We find that observationally close individuals may take different paths characterized by high local social capital, low mobility and high unemployment, vs. low social capital, high propensity to move and higher employment probability. Employment protection reinforces the accumulation of local social capital and thus reduces mobility.European data supports the theory: within a country and at the individual level, more social capital is associated with lower mobility.

Fertility expectations and residential mobility in Britain

“…The importance of social ties outside the household for geographical mobility has long been recognized (e.g., McGinnis 1968). More recently the term 'local social capital' (Kan 2007) has been used to refer to household resources that arise from social ties or networks, for example, the number of close friends living locally (Belot and Ermisch 2009), having someone nearby to turn to in an emergency (Kan 2007), contact with neighbours, and membership of local clubs (David, Janiak, and Wasmer 2010). The existence of such local networks has been found to deter moves, especially longer-distance moves (Kan 2007;Belot and Ermisch 2009;David, Janiak, and Wasmer 2010).…”

Local social engagement, satisfaction, and embeddedness in the Netherlands: which effects matter and for whom?

“…In contrast, our approach explicitly acknowledges the contiguity of a territory by considering the possible spatial spillover effects associated with neighbouring areas, at the level both of neighbourhoods and of municipalities. Thus, our approach reduces problems of scale and aggregation bias (Twigg et al, 2010 However, even when taking account of any additional geographical interaction and spillover effects, it is still the case that the local area effects are expected to be more pronounced than those associated with the neighbouring areas, because being geographically further away reduces social linkages and increases the maintenance cost of social capital (David et al, 2010). The literature suggests that if individuals perceive themselves as being strongly attached to a neighbourhood (eg, if they live in the neighbourhood and, especially, if they spend most of their working or social time in this neighbourhood), they will invest in local social capital, because the returns from these local ties are relatively high (David et al, 2010;Tolsma et al, 2009;Volker et al, 2007).…”

“…Thus, our approach reduces problems of scale and aggregation bias (Twigg et al, 2010 However, even when taking account of any additional geographical interaction and spillover effects, it is still the case that the local area effects are expected to be more pronounced than those associated with the neighbouring areas, because being geographically further away reduces social linkages and increases the maintenance cost of social capital (David et al, 2010). The literature suggests that if individuals perceive themselves as being strongly attached to a neighbourhood (eg, if they live in the neighbourhood and, especially, if they spend most of their working or social time in this neighbourhood), they will invest in local social capital, because the returns from these local ties are relatively high (David et al, 2010;Tolsma et al, 2009;Volker et al, 2007). Generally, physical distance and travel costs reduce social connections (Glaeser et al, 2002;Putnam, 2000), and smaller areas come closer to what people may perceive as their neighbourhood than larger areas (van Ham and Manley, 2010).…”

A Strategic Political-Culture Basis for Developing the Socioeconomic Welfare of Disadvantaged Urban Communities: General Review and Policy Framework

“…The rising trend of culture-based studies is clearly reflected in the urban subfield (Putnam, 1993(Putnam, , 2000Fukuyama, 2000, Bockmeyer, 2000, Middleton et al, 2005, Easterly et al, 2006, Logan & Molotch, 2007, Andrews, 2009, Quentin et al, 2010, Rosdill, 2010& 2011, Grodach, 2012& Buchbinder et al, 2015. These studies share the common argument that the best way to understand local economy is by observing the political culture of urban communities that embody those abstract resources that translate into economic values (e.g., exchange value, potential growth, employment structure, poverty, etc.…”