neighborhoods, communities, and collective goods and bads beate völker dept. of sociology, utrecht...
TRANSCRIPT
Neighborhoods, communities, and collective goods and bads
Beate VölkerDept. of Sociology, Utrecht University,
The Netherlands
Today’s message:
1. Communities in Dutch neighborhoods exist, but they consist of weak relationships, which are nevertheless often connected.
2. The association between community and social/physical order is only indirect: the mechanism is informal control.
3. Context effects of social diversity on trust and participation are weak and not robust. Relational similarity and structural embeddedness are much more important.
2
3
Why sociological research in neighborhoods?
• Shift from ‘ascribed’ to ‘achieved’ also within networks?
• Assumption: trend towards less cohesion and community implies less contacts among neighbors
• People cannot avoid neighbors – what does come out of these opportunities for contact?
• Social integration depends largely on having weak ties more than on ties to family or close friends
Ongoing research projects/interests of BV
• Community and solidarity behavior in neighborhoods
• Economic and social conditions for individual well being in neighborhoods
• Community failure: social and physical disorder in neighborhoods (1)
• Community failure: Troublesome neighborhood relations (2)
• Trust and collective good production neighborhoods
44
• Community and solidarity behavior in neighborhoods
• Economic and social conditions for individual well being in neighborhoods
• Community failure: social and physical disorder in neighborhoods (1)
• Community failure: Troublesome neighborhood relations (2)
• Trust and collective good production neighborhoods
5
Ongoing research projects/interests of BV
5
6
What is a neighborhood?
• Geographical area
• Administrative area – zip code
• What people consider to be a neighborhood
• Neighbors who interact with each other more than with other people (who live also close by)
7
Neighborhoods in the SSND (the Survey of the Social Networks of the Dutch)
• Sample of 160 neighborhoods in 40 municipalities taking urbanization and region into account
• Neighborhood: 5-position zip code area (i.e. 230 addresses on average) this resembles the route of a postman
• 6-8 respondents in each neighborhood• Neighborhood characteristics partially via respondents,
partially via national bureau of statistics (CBS, ‘wijken en buurten’)
• Analyses: multilevel analyses: respondents nested in neighborhoods
The Survey of the Social Networks of the Dutch (SSND) – municipalities where we collected data -
8
9
Facilities in the neighborhood
1. Supermarket2. Butcher3. Bakery4. Green grocery5. Fish grocery6. Cinema7. Shop for building equipment 8. Shop for clothes9. Market for fresh vegetables
etc.10. Flowery shop11. Snack bar12. Physician/general practitioner13. Police station 14. Church15. Garage/gas station
16. Sport field17. Cafe18. Restaurant19. Day care center20. Neighborhood center21. School 22. Park23. Swimming center24. Sport- or fitness center25. Post office26. Bus station27. Train station28. Theatre, opera, concert hall29. Public library30. Playground
10
Who are neighbors? Exchange method: name generating questions –
partially standard, partially focused on own research interests; step 1:
• How did you get your current job?
• Who do you ask for advice concerning matters at your job? Whom do you give advice concerning these matters?
• With who do you have a problem?
• Who is your boss?
• Who did help you get your current home?
• Who has the keys to your house?
• Who do you ask for helping with odd jobs in/around your house?
• With whom do you discuss personal matters?
• Who are your direct neighbors?
Neighbors enter the network in two ways: via name generating questions and via the direct question
11
Characteristics of network members and the relation between network member and
respondent (= step 2)
• Characteristics of Alter:– Sex, age, education, occupation, religion, family situation – role relation with ego
• Characteristics of relationship Ego-Alter: – Intensity, trust, liking– Duration of relationship– Where met first, where meeting currently– Frequency of contact– Geographical distance
12
What are activities among neighbors and what is the quality of neighbor
relationships?• Neighbors who are directly delineated do only
rarely have any additional function• Neighbors are in particular important for odd
jobs, one does visiting neighbors and they are also sometimes member in ones core discussion network
• Segregation between working and dwelling, private and public: one rarely discusses work matters with neighbors
• Neighbor relations belong to the weakest relationships in ones network
13
Network-neighbors
Direct neighbors
All other relationships
Job 2.4 0.2 2.7
Advice (giving) 1.5 0.3 13.4
Advice (asking) 2.4 0.2 16.6
Work matters 0.3 0.1 3.6
Cooperation 1.5 0.4 13.5
Taking care of house 7.4 1.4 2.5
Odd jobs 37.9 16.9 12.5
Key 32.2 19.3 10.5
Visiting 37.9 12.2 34.7
Core discussion 13.3 2.9 22.6
Activities among neighbors…
Source: SSND, 2000, example: of all network neighbor relationships, 2.4 are mentioned being important for getting a job
14
Network neighbors
Direct neighbors
All other relations
Strength (1-5) 3.9 (.85 3.4 (1.0) 4.3 (.94)
Trust (1-5) 4.1 (.96) 3.7 (1.1) 4.4 (.94)
Strength of neighbor relationships in the Netherlands
15
Network neighbors
Direct neighbors
All other relations
Strength (1-5) 3.9 (.85 3.4 (1.0) 4.3 (.94)
Trust (1-5) 4.1 (.96) 3.7 (1.1) 4.4 (.94)
Strength of neighbor relationships in the Netherlands
16
Network neighbors
Direct neighbors
All other relations
Strength (1-5) 3.9 (.85 3.4 (1.0) 4.3 (.94)
Trust (1-5) 4.1 (.96) 3.7 (1.1) 4.4 (.94)
Strength of neighbor relationships in the Netherlands
70% of the direct neighbors – which is asked for directly – do not have any other relational function besides being just direct neighbors!
17
Local communities in the Netherlands
18
When does a community exist?
- If people realize a number of important goals within the same group of other
- This does not imply that one needs many relationships for experiencing a community
- But is does imply that a community offers something for the individual and not the other way around
- Hence: community= joint production of wellbeing
- Note: this is very efficient!
19
Conditions for the creation of local communities
• Chance to meet (e.g. much facilities)
• ‘Mating’ motivation – social capital
• Interdependency
• Few alternatives
20
Meeting opportunities – opportunities of joint production
• ‘No mating without meeting’ (Lois Verbrugge)• Depending on
– Time spent in the neighborhood– Degree to which one is bounded to the
neighborhood (e.g. because of having young children)
– Places and facilities enforce meeting (places, parks with benches, shops etc.)
– Synchronic rhythms of life (e.g. when do you and your neighbor leave your house?)
– Residential stability – probably on both, micro and macro level
21
‘Mating motivation’- Social capital –
motivation of joint production (i)
• Depending on– Shadow of the future (e.g. the intention to stay in
the neighborhood)– Shadow of the past (investments in specific
others in the neighborhood)– Resources (e.g. education, social status of ‘ego’
and ‘alter’)– Similarity concerning relevant characteristics,
e.g. social and marital status, family situation
22
Alternatives motivation of joint production (ii)
• A neighborhood is not the only setting where one can achieve his or her goals, also at work or in a voluntary club important goals can be realized.
• Not only relational alternatives are of importance here but also material property can constitute an alternative for starting relationships (in the neighborhood) e.g. one can derive status from having a luxury car.
23
Interdependencies -ease of joint production
• Different forms of dependencies:– Structural: network embeddedness– Cognitive: common frame of reference, e.g.
belonging to the same culture, religion or: neighborhood
– Functional: dependency on others for achieving a goal, e.g. writing a petition, making an arrangement on parking cars etc.
– Note: dependency is highest if these different forms coincide in the same relationships
24
Measurement of Wellbeing/Community
Combination of items in a Cobb Douglas function:
Community= stimulation2*comfort2*status2*affection2
• Cobb Douglas function (a production function in economics) allows to model diminishing returns of scale. If all exponents are equal to 1, there are constant returns to scale. If they are smaller than 1, returns are diminishing. It also allows to model substitution effects, i.e.: one does not have status but lots of affection and therefore experiences community.
25
Local communities (1): goal achievement
Goal Item example Complete agreement
Partial agreement
Disagreement
Stimulation In this neighborhood are a lot of things going on
19.9 19.2 60.9
Comfort I feel safe here 93.1 6.1 0.8
Affection Contacts in this neighborhood are generally good
88.0 6.7 5.2
Status I enjoy respect in this neighborhood
63.9 28.7 7.4
26
Local community (2): Combination of goals
Comfort Affection Status Stimulation %
1 goal X 75.9X 14.8
X 5.6 X 3.7
2 goals X X 73.9X X 12.4
X X 7.2X X 5.2
X X 1.3
3 goals X X X 87.9
X X X 11.1X X X 1.0
27
Local communities (3) Multilevel AnalysisCommunity
Meeting opportunitiesResidential stabilityFacilities in the neighborhoodChildren in householdInterdependenciesCollective action/common activitiesContact among direct neighborsR knows who resides in neighborhood
Mating motivation (social capital)EducationHomogeneity: incomeIntention to leaveAlternatives Network members outside neighborhoodExplained variance : neighborhood levelIndividual level
Note: in this analysis it is controlled for sex, age cohort, being married, length of residence, urbanism and number of foreigners in the neighborhood
28
Local communities (3) Multilevel AnalysisCommunity
Meeting opportunitiesResidential stability .079 (.031)**Facilities in the neighborhood .011 (.004)**Children in household .126 (.061)*InterdependenciesCollective action/common activities .050 (.011)**Contact among direct neighbors .127 (.050)*R knows who resides in neighborhood .194 (.036)**
Mating motivation (social capital)Education -.037 (.012)**Homogeneity: income .075 (.028)**Intention to leave -.152 (.032)**Alternatives Network members outside neighborhood -.003 (.001)**Explained variance : neighborhood level 55%Individual level 26%
Note: in this analysis it is controlled for sex, age cohort, being married, length of residence, urbanism and number of foreigners in the neighborhood
29
Conclusion, so far• Community in neighborhoods depends on a
number of conditions– In particular, interdependencies are very
important– Facilities, meeting opportunities do matter
also, facilities have not only an economic function but also a social one! Yet, there is a differential effect of meeting places, not all work in the same direction
– Residential stability is – as always - of importance, yet in the Netherlands this effect seems ot be smaller than, e.g. in the US
– Effect of relational alternatives is only weak
30
Furthermore:
– Relations with neighbors are weak, they belong to the weakest relationships individuals have
– It is not necessary to have many neighborhood relationships for developing a sense of community
– E.g., higher educated people have more relations with neighbors yet experience less community in their neighborhood
– Effects of urbanization and migrants vanishes, if controlled for (a.o.) education
31
Community failure?
Social and physical disorder in neighborhoods
32
• Studies and arguments by Sampson, e.g. Sampson et al. 1997, Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999
• Popular idea (in criminology): social order is a consequence of physical order: e.g. broken window hypothesis (Wilson & Kling, 1982)
• Sampson c.s. : the correlation between physical and social order is spurious, it is influenced by another common condition, i.e. social control. Networks and community are a condition for informal control
Background
33
• Social and physical order in the neighborhoods are collective goods.
• Who sanctions those who do not contribute to the production of collective goods?
• This is known as a second order collective good problem (Coleman, 1990, 266 en passim).
34
Model of assumptions on neighborhoods and social and
physical order
Meeting places Networks Community
Informal Control
Physical order
Social order
35
Analyses
• Description of all elements of the model
• Association between the different elements
• Multivariate multilevel regression model (controlling for age, sex, education, family situation)
36
Informal social control:Do you expect that people in your neighborhood do something,
if they observe the following in the neighborhood:
Yes, sure Probably yes Probably not
Definitely not
Children hanging around and skipping school
20.6 27.6 35.2 16.7
Adolescents spraying graffiti on the walls
4.2 6.9 31.6 57.3
Tough arguing 11.6 32.3 34.3 21.8
Burglary 1.6 4.7 26.4 67.4
Vandalizing cars of neighborhood inhabitant
1.4 3.2 22.9 72.5
37
Physical disorder(asked to the interviewers)
What do you thing about the neighborhood of the respondent?
Much/quite much disorder 9.0%
In between 37.6%
Tidy neighborhood 36.9%
Absolutely tidy neighborhood
16.4%
38
Social disorder:Is there sometimes vandalism in the
neighborhood?
Yes 26.8
No, at least not often 13.1
No, not that I noticed at any time 60.1
39
Note:
• Low income neighborhoods create more community
• No strong correlation between social and physical order: .30
• Ecometric analyses are partially done, no difference in conclusion
Meeting places Networks Community
Informal Control
Physical order
Social order
.225 (.102)** .083 (.029)** .399 (.072)**
.133 (.011)**
.200 (.034)**
Neighbors in network
Community Control Social order
Physical
Order
Meeting opportunities
Yes yes yes, different effects: green vs pubs!
yes Yes, much green space
Residential stability
yes yes yes yes yes
N of neighbors in network
--- no no no no
Community --- --- yes no no
Control --- --- --- yes yes
Most important conditions/associations (yes= significant association, while controlling for all other conditions)
40
41
Conclusion, so far
• Actual relations are not a necessary condition for community, as long as ties are not negative, weak ties are sufficient
• Conditions in neighborhoods and facilities/meeting opportunities are interesting conditions for relations, community, control as well as social/physical order
42
• The effect of pubs, snack bars etc. on social and physical disorder is much greater than the effect of migrants!
• Community has no direct effect on disorder, the effect is indirect via social control and interventions of residents
• Why? Possibly, because members of a community do not necessarily conform to general norms, community norms can be different from general social norms
Furthermore:
42
43
Policy measures should not focus on:• Creation of cohesion and strong ties in
neighborhoods
Rather, they should aim at:• Stimulating social control and intervening
on behalf of common goods in public places
Therefore:
43
Collective good production, trust and diversity in
neighborhoods- the turtle effect
Three important contributions by Putnam
• Putnam on ‘Making democracy work’ (1993).
• Putnam on ‘The strange disappearance of social capital in America’ (1995) and ‘Bowling alone’ (2000).
• Putnam (2007) on ‘Diversity and community in the twenty-first century’.
45
E pluribus unum
Three contributions of E pluribus unum – Shifting the problem from ‘bowling alone’ to ‘bowling
apart’. It matters who is bowling with whom!– New data allow for testing hypotheses on bridging
and bonding, which could not yet be tested in bowling alone
– Not only data on macro-phenomena but also micro level data in individual characteristics and behavior.
46
Bridging and bonding
Different forms of social capital:
Bridging and bonding ties to different others ties to similar others
Both might have different consequences for individual action.
Bridging and bonding show a positive correlation, according to Putnam
47
Claims of E Pluribus Unum (1)
1) Ethnic diversity will increase substantially in virtually all modern societies over the next several decades. Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is an important social asset.
48
Claim 2 and 3
2) In the short to medium run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital.
49
3) In the medium to long run, successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity and dampen the negative.
Evidence presented is merely on claim 2: the undesirable
consequences of diversity
Evidence (1)
51Source: Putnam (2007)
Evidence (2)
52Source: Putnam (2007)
Evidence (3)
53
Source: Putnam (2007)
Other evidence for claim 2
• Diversity leads to– Lower confidence in local government– Lower political efficacy– Lower frequency of registering to vote– Less expectations regarding collective action– Less likelihood of giving ot charity and volunteering– Less close friends and confidants– Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life– More tv watching
54
Putnams explanatory idea: ‘constrict theory’
• Diversity triggers anomie and isolation - not ingroup/outgroup division
• There is no positive correlation between ingroup favoritism and outgroup rejection, but a positive one between bridging and bonding
• Diversity leads to hunkering down, this is the turtle effect
55
• Analysis provides us with a number of alternative explanations (eg. age, education, sex, R’s race, ownership, incoem, satisfaction with income) all of them not mentioned by Putnam, yet empirically considerably more important than ethnic diversity in a given area!
56
Ana
lysi
s
57
Source: Putnam (2007)
Problems with Putnam’s arguments and analyses
• Turtle effect not analyzed! No analysis presenting trust against similar others!
• Macro/micro conclusions and micro/macro data – on which level are the hypotheses
• Herfindahl index knows problems
58
Microhypotheses in ‘e pluribus unum’ are not tested
• If Putnam would have tested the implicit hypotheses about bridging capital, he would have done the following:
• a) trust of Whites to: Whites, Blacks, Asians and Latin people,
• b) trust of Blacks in: Whites, Blacks, Asians and Latin people,
• c) trust of Asians in: Whites, Blacks, Asians and Latin people,
• d) trust of Latin people in: Whites, Blacks, Asians and people.
• Instead: he has chosen a general dependent variable, which is not testing any of these hypotheses.
59
Micro/macro implications of arguments
1. more ethnic homogeneity – more trust
This is not:
2. people of a certain ethnicity prefer to trust others who are ethnically similar to themselves (aggregation of 2 leads to 1 but 1 does not lead to 2)
60
Analyzing diversity
• Herfindahl index: 1-∑pi2
• IQV= index for qualitative variation:
1-∑pi2 /(1-1/k)
Where, k=n of categories and
p=proportion of observations in category i
Source: Agresti& Agresti 1977; Voas et al. 2002
61
Herfindahl Index• Imagine four groups with the following distribution
of social categories (in percent)
62
Category: Red Green Yellow Blue
Group 1 25 50 10 15
Group 2 10 15 50 25
Group 3 50 25 15 10
Group 4 10 15 25 50
Herfindahl Index…
• … is the same for every distribution, yet socially this matters a lot!
63
Category: Red Green Yellow Blue Herfindahl index
Group 1 25 50 10 15 .655
Group 2 10 15 50 25 .655
Group 3 50 25 15 10 .655
Group 4 10 15 25 50 .655
1-((.25*.25)+(.50*.50)+(.10*.10)+(.15*.15))
• Absolute group size in the population - resp. whether the number is on majority and or minority groups - is important and not taken into account in the index
• AND: it is important to which group an actor belongs, in order to determine whether a tie provides bridging or bonding social capital
How to proceed ? (1)
• Technically: – Do not use the index, but separate proportions– Include characteristics of ego as well as alter (who
trusts who)– Calculate cross level interaction effects: individuals
with a certain ethnicity in an area with a certain percentage of another ethnicity etc.
– Take more characteristics than ethnicity into account
65
How to proceed? (2)• Theoretically:
– Bridging and bonding are relative to group size and individual characteristics
– who puts trust in whom and how does this depend on context characteristics? E.g. do minority group members trust minority group members in areas where many majority group members live?
– Take into account that identities are multiple, cleavages need be salient and this depends on, e.g. goals, tasks, interdependency
66
Multiple identities, faultlines and earthquakes…• Lau and Murninghan (1998) argue that group conflict
becomes much more likely if a group shows more faultlines, that is, the coincidence of certain categories.
• E.g:
67
Member 1 Member 3 Member 3 Member 4
Group 1
White, male, salesperson, Age 50
White,Male, Sales personAge 55
BlackFemale,Staff memberAge 30
Black FemaleStaff memberAge 34
Group 2
White MaleManager, age 60
BlackFemaleManager, age 20
Black male Secretary, age 40
AsianFemaleSales, age 30
Group 1 knows more faultlines, but less diversity than group 2
Problem with own analyses• Majority of respondents is Dutch (93%)• Even more has mentioned only Dutch
neighbors• Therefore: similarity with regard to religion is
used.• However: religion not yet available as
neighborhood characteristic• Therefore: at the neighborhood level ethnicity
in combination with income is used
68
Fixed part Empty model M1 M2 M3Constant 3.751 (.037)** 3.774 (.036)** 3.790 (.033)** 3.790 (.033)**NEIGHBORHOODUrbanization .124 (.035)** .076 (.036)* .067 (.035)+Stability .144 (.074)+ .130 (.072)~Lowest income quintile -.066 (.101)Second lowest income quintile .054 (.101)% Moroccans in neighbourhood -.106 (.033)**
% Moroccans in lowest income quintile
.089 (.082)
% Moroccans in second lowest income quintile
-.204 (.084)**
69
Multilevel analysis: trust in neighbors (SSND 2000 and macrolevel information)
Note: it is controlled for respondent’s ethnicity
NEIGHBORHOOD
Urbanization .026 (.034) .024 (.034) .037 (.034) .035 (.034)Stability .038 (.073) -.036 .073) -.009 (.073) -.009 (.073)% Moroccans in lowest income quintile .050 (.080) .044 (.080) -.045 (L.085) -.036 (.086)% Moroccans in second lowest income quintile
-.166.062)** -.162 (.081)* -.082 (.086) -.091 (.087)
EGO
Sex (female) -.071 (.032)** -.062 (.032)+ -.040 (.033) -.040 (.033)Age .150 (.032)** .147 (.032)** .118 (.032)** .116 (.032)**Education -.083 (.031)** -.066 (.032)* -.060 (.030)* -.060 (.030)*Religion (no) -.102 (.032)** -.112 (.032)** -.091 (.033)** -.086 (.032)**Married .052 (.032)+ .043 (.032) .033 (.032) .022 (.032)ALTER
Married (alter) .047 (.024)* .065 (.024)** .065 (.024)**Same sex .002 (.022) -.006 (.022) -.007 (.022)Same education .087 (.023)** .067 (.024)** .065 (.023)**Same age (+/-3 years) .023 (.021) .020(.022) .017 (.022)same religion .137 (.054)** .154 (.055)** .155 (.055)**CONTACTS AMONG DIRECT NEIGHBORS .171 (031)** .200 (.036)**SAME RELIGION*CONTACTS -.119 (.058)*
Multilevel analysis: cont’ed
71
Interaction between similarity in religion and contact
Additional analyses: does contact among neighbors depend on similarity?
NO!
• Odds for contacts among direct neighbors, depending on (a.o.)– Educational similarity: 1.22– Religious similarity :1.048– Same age: 1.084– Same sex: 1.25
– Note: odds are highest for Catholics (1.5)!
72
Conclusion• Context effects on trust are weak• Most important are contacts among direct
neighbors. These contacts do not depend on similarity/diversity.
• Trust is predicted through individual characteristics - age and education, and through relational characteristics
• If context effects matter, however, segregation lines are more important than separate conditions
73
75http://www.bettertogether.org/150ways.htm
How to build social capital?
Ask neighbors for help and reciprocate Register to vote
and vote
Volunteer your special skills to an organization
Mentor someone of a different ethnic or religious group
Donate blood
Join a gardening club
Get to know your children's teachers
Get to know the clerks and salespeople at your local stores
Play cards with friends or neighbors
Join or start a babysitting cooperative
Participate in political campaigns
Have family dinners and read to your children
Stop and make sure the person on the side of the highway is OK
Hold a neighborhood barbecue
Say hello to strangers
Be real. Be humble. Acknowledge others' self-worth
Fix it even if you didn’t break it
Sing in a choir
Call an old friend
Avoid gossip Audition for community theater
Bake cookies for new neighbors or work colleagues
Hold a neighborhood barbecue
Hire young people for odd jobs