The Effect of Ethnic Diversity and Community Disadvantage on Social Cohesion: A Multi-Level Analysis of Social Capital and Interethnic Relations in UK Communities

Abstract

A number of studies have found a negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social capital and assumed from this a harmful effect of diversity on social cohesion. This article suggests that social cohesion must be treated as a multifaceted concept and any analysis into the relationship between diversity and social capital needs to be complemented by an analysis of diversity's effect on 'relations between ethnic groups'. Our results show that while increasing diversity does have a negative impact on social capital, it simultaneously improves perceptions of, and relations between, ethnic groups. Furthermore, we find that forming 'bridging' ties in diverse environments plays a significant role in the positive relationship between diversity and tolerance, and that the presence of 'bridging' ties can also reduce the negative impact of diversity on social capital. However, while our results show that diversity has both positive and negative effects on social cohesion, we find that it is disadvantage which has the most detrimental impact, undermining both social capital and interethnic relations. We also find evidence that using a more sensitive measure of diversity (creating an area typology based on the proportional size, number, and type of ethnic groups in an area) reveals that living in different structures of diversity may lead to different social cohesion outcomes.

Diversity and social cohesion: the case of Jane-Finch, a highly diverse lower-income Toronto neighbourhood

“…Detailed elaborations of the concept have often included the breaking down of cohesion into its constituent elements, most commonly outlined as social contacts and social networks, social solidarity, social order, shared values and norms, place attachment and a shared identity (Forrest and Kearns 2001;Tasan-Kok et al 2013;Letki 2008). Moreover, some scholars have emphasised the conceptual and operational similarities between social cohesion and social capital, and some have used the two concepts interchangeably as a result (Letki 2008;Laurence 2009;Osberg 2003). Focusing on social capital, these studies tend to place more emphasis on social networks, trust and participation in associations in their understanding of cohesion (see also Putnam 1995Putnam , 2001.…”

“…Nevertheless, the literature on social capital and cohesion does not consider all social ties to have a positive impact on social cohesion. Laurence (2009) emphasises that, much like common values, social networks and social capital are politicised concepts, given the delineations between good and bad ties in relation to social cohesion in neighbourhoods. Building on Putnam's (2001) framework of bonding and bridging ties, Laurence further contends that bonding ties among racial minority groups are often seen as threatening to the creation and maintenance of cohesion, while bridging ties across groups are perceived as beneficial and non-threatening.…”

“…The relationship between diversity and social cohesion is rather complex, depending on prior conditions and experiential, historical and personal factors at both the individual and group levels (Laurence and Bentley 2015;Livingston, Bailey, and Kearns 2010). The complexity of the relationship thus casts doubts on the generalisability of either of the two theoretical strands (Schaeffer 2014;Laurence 2009;Van der Meer and Tolsma 2014;Ahmadi and Tasan-Kok 2015). Underlying factors such as socio-economic inequality, neighbourhood status and institutionalised discrimination play important roles in defining the relationship between diversity and social cohesion (see, e.g., Letki 2008;Li, Pickles, and Savage 2005;Oliver and Mandelberg 2000;Oliver and Wong 2003).…”

Minority Embeddedness and Economic Integration: Is Diversity or Homogeneity Associated with Better Employment Outcomes?

“…Conflict can be expected to be greater in deprived areas-the fewer the resources to be redistributed, the greater the competition. The literature from the US finds some support for these ideas (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002;Putnam, 2007); however, the data from the UK suggests a much more moderate effect of diversity which usually disappears once controls for deprivation and economic competition are introduced at the community level (Demireva & Heath, 2014;Laurence, 2011;Laurence & Heath, 2008;Letki, 2008;Sturgis, Brunton-Smith, Read, & Allum, 2011). It appears that, at least in Britain, it is deprivation that undermines the social glue rather than diversity.…”

“…The possible negative effect of socio-economic disadvantage will also be examined through looking at the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)-economic cleavages are strong predictors of societal disintegration and may signal higher rates of competition (Laurence, 2011;Sturgis et al, 2011). We use IMD 2010 which is an official measure of small areas.…”