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

Abstract

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.

Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust

“…Once one takes into account that whites have higher levels of trust than Latinos and blacks, and that diverse neighborhoods have fewer whites, the supposedly negative effect of ethnic diversity disappears. Similar ethnoracial compositional effects have also been found in Europe [ 15 – 17 ].…”

“…Our results thus suggest that social cohesion in Germany, is related not only to individual and household characteristics, but also to characteristics of the immediate neighborhood (cp. [ 17 ]).…”

Social norm enforcement in ethnically diverse communities

“…One prominent argument in this debate holds that individuals face difficulty in sanctioning antisocial behavior across ethnic lines, leading to lower levels of trust and cooperation in ethnically diverse communities ( 5 – 8 ). However, to date, evidence for this proposition is drawn mainly from the small-group context ( 6 , 7 ) in which coethnicity overlaps with social networks that help individuals to identify defectors and communicate reputational information ( 5 , 9 , 10 ). By contrast, surprisingly little is known about how ethnicity influences social norm enforcement in anonymous encounters which characterize many interactions in complex Western societies ( 4 , 11 , 12 ).…”

The Effects of Neighbourhood Disorder on Life Satisfaction of Ethnic Majority and Minority Group Members: Evidence From 12 Central-Eastern European Countries

“…Group identity and sense of belonging have been identified as relevant correlates of well-being (for a review, see Smith & Silva, 2011), and they are more likely to develop in the context of the socialising influences of in-group members. Moreover, in-group members are an important source of social and psychological support, especially among minority groups (Almeida, Molnar, Kawachi, & Subramanian, 2009), and thus an individual surrounded by mostly ethnic outgroup members is likely to feel worse than when surrounded by in-group members (see also Koopmans & Schaeffer, 2015). Research on the determinants of social interaction and social identity shows strong evidence for the principle of homophily, i.e., the preference for affiliation and contact with people who are similar in terms of key characteristics, such as ethnicity.…”

“…For example, studies of different political participation rates among members of ethnic minorities and the majority population demonstrate that as the concentration of a given ethnic group in a local area increases, its members are more likely to become politically involved (Fieldhouse & Cutts, 2008a, 2008b. Similarly, Koopmans and Schaeffer (2015) showed that the neighbourhood in-group share was positively associated with higher levels of trust, efficacy and overall neighbourhood cohesion. In relation to well-being, however, research has been scarce and with mixed findings.…”