Neighborhood Collective Efficacy and Dimensions of Diversity: A Multilevel Analysis

Abstract

Collective efficacy is becoming an increasingly important concept within the social and health sciences as researchers question how the social environment of a neighborhood influences a host of individual psychological, behavioral, and health outcomes. We investigate whether ethnic as well as other dimensions of neighborhood-level diversity are associated with collective efficacy. Survey data are used to capture perceptions of neighborhood cooperation and social cohesion for 26 344 survey respondents in southeast Pennsylvania; US Census data are used to capture neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and residential mobility, as well as diversity along a range of dimensions, including ethnicity, birthplace, household type, occupation, income, and educational attainment. Multilevel modeling is employed to test the association of various dimensions of neighborhood diversity with individual-level perceptions of neighborhood cooperation and social cohesion, while controlling for individual and other neighborhood-level variables. Results suggest that low collective efficacy is associated with diversity in cultural characteristics such as ethnicity, birthplace, and household type. We ascribe these findings to patterns of neighborhood transition, or churning, where high rates of neighborhood in-migration and out-migration act to weaken collective efficacy. Diversity, both in educational attainment and in income, however, are associated with high neighborhood collective efficacy, and are not related to neighborhood churning.

Neighbourhood cohesion under the influx of migrants in Shanghai

“…Furthermore, a multilevel model allows the exploration of both individual and neighbourhood variances (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). Previous studies researching contextual determinants have also adopted the multilevel approach due to these substantial advantages (Mennis et al, 2013;Tselios et al, 2015). Our study's purpose is to explore how the share of migrant concentration and neighbourhood deprivation therefore calls for a multilevel approach.…”

“…Kearns (2001: 2128) suggest that such ingredients include shared sense of morality and common purpose, social control and social order, social solidarity, social interaction within communities or families, and a sense of belonging to the locality. Whilst Kearns and Forrest (2000) believe that the domains of social cohesion are associated with different geographic scales, many studies focused on the neighbourhood level as an important arena for measuring social cohesion (Mennis et al, 2013;Twigg et al, 2010). To avoid ambiguities, our study uses the expression of neighbourhood cohesion to refer only to cohesion at the neighbourhood level.…”

“…The current debate on neighbourhood cohesion revolves around whether it is residential diversity or neighbourhood deprivation or both that lead to its decline (Mennis et al, 2013;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010). Increased competition for limited public resources and fears of being discriminated against or being exploited are the main reasons why residents in poor neighbourhoods feel less cohesive (Gijsberts et al, 2012;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003).…”

“…However, similar to multiethnic societies, it is important to take into account the often intertwined factors of migrant concentration and neighbourhood poverty (Mennis et al, 2013;Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010) since in Shanghai migrants often live in low-income settlements. The retreat of the state as a service provider meant that numerous work-unit-owned estates deteriorated due to lack of housing maintenance (Wu et al, 2010).…”

“…Housing reforms and the subsequent proliferation of private commodity estates are said to have significantly altered interpersonal relations as neighbourhood-based ties are diminishing (Hazelzet and Wissink, 2012;Wu and Logan, 2016;Yip, 2012). In the Global North, low-income neighbourhoods and areas with many minority residents have traditionally been associated with weaker neighbourhood cohesion although there is no clear consensus on their respective effects (Gijsberts et al, 2012;Mennis et al, 2013;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010). Migrant-dominated neighbourhoods and migrant enclaves are also forming in many Chinese cities due to the privatisation of housing and hukou restrictions preventing migrants from accessing public housing (Liao and Wong, 2015;Li and Wu, 2008).…”