Social Diversity, Institutions and Trust: A Cross-National Analysis

Tsai, Ming-Chang; Laczko, Leslie S.; Bjørnskov, Christian

doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9670-z

Cited by 35 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present analysis can serve as a first indication that previous findings showing a negative correlation between diversity and generalized trust should perhaps be 4 Further analyses show that the findings are robust to alternative model specifications and the exclusion of outliers (not shown). Neither the degree of liberal democracy nor the religious tradition of a country changes the results substantially (Bjørnskov 2008;Delhey and Newton 2005;Tsai et al 2010;Delhey et al 2011). Linear hierarchical modeling also yields a positive relationship between ethnic diversity and outgroup trust.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust

Gundelach

2013

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies on ethnic diversity and social trust rely on the standard measure of generalized trust. This study complements existing work on this topic by examining the effect of diversity on trust toward outgroups. This innovation is motivated by two closely connected arguments: At first, most existent studies are conducted in the framework of intergroup contact and conflict theory. These theories directly allude to trust toward outgroups. Second, recent empirical studies show that the standard measure of generalized trust is much less generalized than theoretically assumed. Instead it is blurred by a great deal of particularized trust. Explicit outgroup trust therefore seems to be better suited to empirically testing the extent to which growing ethnic diversity influences trust toward people different from oneself. The cross-national analysis yields a positive relationship between diversity and outgroup trust, which is an interesting finding given the current debate dominated by conflict theoretical reasoning.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust

Gundelach

2013

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tsai et al 2011; Dinesen and Sønderskov 2015), it suffers from a range of conceptual issues for the purposes of this study (Glaeser et al 2000; Nannestad 2008; Reeskens 2013). Most notably, it is unclear in whom people place trust, as the item lacks a manifest alter.…”

Section: Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Losing Wallets, Retaining Trust? The Relationship Between Ethnic Heterogeneity and Trusting Coethnic and Non-coethnic Neighbours and Non-neighbours to Return a Lost Wallet

Tolsma

Meer

2016

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The constrict claim that ethnic heterogeneity drives down social trust has been empirically tested across the globe. Meta-analyses suggest that neighbourhood ethnic heterogeneity generally undermines ties within the neighbourhood (such as trust in neighbours), but concurrently has an inconsistent or even positive effect on interethnic ties (such as outgroup trust). While the composition of the living environment thus often seems to matter, when and where remain unclear. We contribute to the literature by: (1) scrutinizing the extent to which ethnic heterogeneity drives down trust in coethnic neighbours, non-coethnic neighbours, unknown neighbours and unknown non-neighbours similarly; (2) comparing effects of heterogeneity aggregated to geographical areas that vary in scale and type of boundary; and (3) assessing whether the impact of heterogeneity of the local area depends on the wider geographic context. We test our hypotheses on the Religion in Dutch Society 2011–2012 dataset, supplemented with uniquely detailed GIS-data of Statistics Netherlands. Our dependent variables are four different so-called wallet-items, which we model through spatial and multilevel regression techniques. We demonstrate that both trust in non-coethnic and coethnic neighbours are lower in heterogeneous environments. Trust in people outside the neighbourhood is not affected by local heterogeneity. Measures of heterogeneity aggregated to relatively large scales, such as, administrative municipalities and egohoods with a 4000 m radius, demonstrate the strongest negative relationships with our trust indicators.

show abstract

“…Model 1 also shows that market deregulations and universal socioeconomic provisions promote generalized trust. Overall, the terms in model 1 do an excellent job of accounting for variance in generalized trust (R 2 = .84) and tend to parallel prior results [19], [22], [42].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Moreover, studies using ridge regression [42] or hierarchical linear models (HLM) in which observations are clustered into higher-level units typically parallel studies using OLS regression [15], [16], [19], [43], [44], [45], [46].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Blessing and a Curse? Political Institutions in the Growth and Decay of Generalized Trust: A Cross-National Panel Analysis, 1980–2009

Robbins

2012

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research on social capital, studies that explore the relationship between political institutions and generalized trust–a key element of social capital–across time are sparse. To address this issue, we use various cross-national public-opinion data sets including the World Values Survey and employ pooled time-series OLS regression and fixed- and random-effects estimation techniques on an unbalanced panel of 74 countries and 248 observations spread over a 29-year time period. With these data and methods, we investigate the impact of five political-institutional factors–legal property rights, market regulations, labor market regulations, universality of socioeconomic provisions, and power-sharing capacity–on generalized trust. We find that generalized trust increases monotonically with the quality of property rights institutions, that labor market regulations increase generalized trust, and that power-sharing capacity of the state decreases generalized trust. While generalized trust increases as the government regulation of credit, business, and economic markets decreases and as the universality of socioeconomic provisions increases, both effects appear to be more sensitive to the countries included and the modeling techniques employed than the other political-institutional factors. In short, we find that political institutions simultaneously promote and undermine generalized trust.

show abstract

Social Diversity, Institutions and Trust: A Cross-National Analysis

Abstract: Social diversity, Interpersonal trust, Governance, Democracy,

Cited by 35 publications

References 39 publications

In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust

In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust

Losing Wallets, Retaining Trust? The Relationship Between Ethnic Heterogeneity and Trusting Coethnic and Non-coethnic Neighbours and Non-neighbours to Return a Lost Wallet

A Blessing and a Curse? Political Institutions in the Growth and Decay of Generalized Trust: A Cross-National Panel Analysis, 1980–2009

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About