Abstract
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.
Highlights
In seven years, over 100 studies have investigated the constrict proposition, the claim that ethnically heterogeneous environments undermine pro-social attitudes and behaviours of the residents within them, ties between ethnic groups but even ties within ethnic groups
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 ; (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
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
Summary
Over 100 studies have investigated the constrict proposition, the claim that ethnically heterogeneous environments undermine pro-social attitudes and behaviours of the residents within them, ties between ethnic groups but even ties within ethnic groups. Recent review articles (Portes and Vickstrom 2011; Schaeffer 2014; Van der Meer and Tolsma 2014) have shed some light on the resulting ‘cacophony of empirical findings’. Van der Meer and Tolsma (2014) conclude that ethnic heterogeneity does not consistently erode all aspects of social cohesion.. While the inconsistent evidence led Portes and Vickstrom (2011) to conclude that the scientific and political fuss is unwarranted, this conclusion may be premature: these metastudies illustrate the lack of systematic understanding of the conditions under which ethnically heterogeneous environments affect social cohesion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
