Living together apart.indd - Utrecht University Repository - Universiteit

Living together apart?

Living together apart.indd 1

21-4-2011 12:14:00

© Miranda Vervoort, The Hague 2011 scp publication 2011-18 Translation: Julian Ross, Carlisle, uk dtp: Textcetera, Den Haag Figures: Mantext, Moerkapelle Cover design: Bureau Stijlzorg, Utrecht Cover illustration: © Vance Vasu | Getty Images isbn 978 90 377 0552 2 nur 740 Distribution outside the Netherlands and Belgium: Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (usa) The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | scp Parnassusplein 5 2511 v x Den Haag The Netherlands Tel. +31 70 340 70 00 Fax +31 70 340 70 44 Website: www.scp.nl E-mail: [email protected]


University of Utrecht Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Department of Sociology/ic s P.O. Box 80140 3508 tc Utrecht The Netherlands

21-4-2011 12:14:00

Living together apart? Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts and language practices. Samen wonen, samen leven? Etnische concentratie in de buurt en sociale contacten en taalbeheersing en -gebruik van niet-westerse migranten. (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 17 juni 2011 des middags te 12.45 uur

door Miranda Henrica Maria Vervoort

geboren op 13 april 1984 te Sint-Oedenrode


21-4-2011 12:14:00

Promotor: Co-promotor:


Prof. dr. H.D. Flap Dr. J. Dagevos

21-4-2011 12:14:00

Manuscript committee:


Prof. dr. P. Scheepers (Radboud University Nijmegen) Prof. dr. P. Schnabel (Utrecht University / Netherlands Institute for Social Research) Prof. dr. F. van Tubergen (Utrecht University) Prof. dr. M. Verkuyten (Utrecht University) Prof. dr. B. Völker (Utrecht University)

21-4-2011 12:14:00


21-4-2011 12:14:00

content s

Contents Voorwoord

11

1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.5

Introduction Introduction Social contacts Theoretical background Research questions Language practices Theoretical background Research questions Data sources Outline of the book

13 14 17 17 17 21 21 21 23 25

2

The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts: three unresolved issues Introduction Theoretical background Ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups Ethnic composition of the neighbourhood Other neighbourhood characteristics Data and measures Dependent variables: social contacts Independent variables at the neighbourhood level Independent variables at the individual level Control variable for reversed causality Data analysis Multicollinearity Results Percentage of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood Percentage of co-ethnics in the neighbourhood Ethnic diversity The importance of the neighbourhood Conclusions and discussion Policy implications Notes

2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4 2.4.1 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 2.7

27 28 29 29 30 32 32 33 34 35 36 36 37 37 39 44 46 48 48 51 52

7


21-4-2011 12:14:00

li v ing to ge ther a pa r t?

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.5 3.5.1 3.6 4 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 5 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.4 5.5

Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social integration: weak and strong social ties examined Introduction Theory and hypotheses Data and measures Dependent variables Independent variables at the neighbourhood level Independent variables at the individual level Data analysis Selection bias Results Additional analyses Conclusions and discussion Notes

53 54 55 58 58 59 59 60 60 60 64 65 67

Social integration of ethnic minorities: a description and explanation of the trend in ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives in the Netherlands, 1998-2006 Introduction Theory and hypotheses Positive developments Opposing trends Data and measures Data sources Measures Data analysis Results Conclusions and discussion Notes

69 70 70 70 71 73 73 74 75 76 80 82

Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and majority and minority language: a study of first and second-generation immigrants Introduction Theory and hypotheses The mediating role of social contacts Ethnic minorities from the second generation Data and measures Dependent variables Mediating variables: Social contact with natives and co-ethnics Independent variables at the neighbourhood level Independent variables at the individual level Selection bias Data analysis Results

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 90 90 91 92 93

8


21-4-2011 12:14:00

content s

5.5.1 First generation 5.5.2 Second generation 5.6 Conclusions and discussion Notes

95 97 98 101

6

The effects of ethnic residential concentration and social contacts on ethnic minorities’ majority language proficiency. A panel study 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Theory and hypotheses 6.3 Data and measures 6.3.1 Data 6.3.2 Measures 6.4 Data analysis 6.5 Results 6.5.1 Additional analyses 6.6 Conclusions and discussion Notes

103 104 104 107 107 108 109 110 114 115 117

7 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4 7.5 7.5.1 7.5.2 7.6

119 120 120 120 121 126 126 126 127 130 131 131 131 132 133

Conclusions, discussion, and implications Introduction Social contacts Theoretical background Research questions and answers General conclusions Language practices Theoretical background Research questions and answers General conclusions Answer to the overarching research question Limitations and suggestions for future research Social contacts Language practices Policy implications

Appendices Appendix A – Additional table Chapter 2 Appendix B – Additional tables Chapter 3 Appendix C – Additional tables Chapter 5 Appendix D – Additional tables Chapter 6

135 136 137 139 146

9


21-4-2011 12:14:00


Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige samenvatting

151

References

165

Curriculum Vitae

173

ic s dissertation series

174

10


21-4-2011 12:14:00

vo orwo ord

Voorwoord Daar ligt het dan, mijn proefschrift. Al lijkt het misschien voor velen dat het schrijven ervan me gemakkelijk is afgegaan, mensen die dichter bij me staan weten dat er ook flink wat innerlijke strijd bij kwam kijken. Zonder de hulp en steun van anderen was het me dan ook nooit gelukt om tot dit resultaat te komen en daarom wil ik graag een aantal mensen bedanken. Te beginnen bij mijn begeleiders, Jaco Dagevos en Henk Flap. Jaco, ik ben je dankbaar voor alle moeite die je gedaan hebt om mijn project van de grond te krijgen. Mede dankzij een financiële bijdrage van het ministerie van v rom en de medewerking van Arjen Verweij kreeg je het voor elkaar dat mijn ideale promotietraject kon beginnen: een samenwerking tussen het Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau en de Universiteit Utrecht/ ics. Des te meer waardeer ik het dat je me ook in de laatste periode begrip en steun hebt geboden bij mijn beslissing de vier jaar niet vol te maken. Henk, ook jij hebt ertoe bijgedragen dat ik dit promotietraject kon starten. Zonder me te kennen gaf je jouw medewerking aan dit project en kwam ik terecht bij onderzoeksschool ics en vakgroep Sociologie in Utrecht. Ik heb je daar leren kennen als een ware wetenschapper. En misschien is het ook juist daarom dat je in eerste instantie maar moeilijk mijn twijfels over een wetenschappelijke carrière kon begrijpen. Ik wil je bedanken dat je me ondanks dat bent blijven ondersteunen zodat ik mijn proefschrift eerder kon afronden. Naast mijn begeleiders, ben ik mijn scp- en ics-collega’s dankbaar voor de gezelligheid en de goede feedback die ze me gegeven hebben. Al sloot ik me bij het scp vaak op in mijn kamer, een aantal collega’s hebben me er af en toe toch uit gekregen: Eefje, Eline, Iris, Laila, Mariëlle, Mérove, Mieke, Willem, en al mijn E&M-collega’s, dank! Van mijn ics-collega’s wil ik mijn jaargroepgenoten Anja, Dominik en Lieselotte in het bijzonder bedanken. Jullie hebben deze periode voor mij een stuk aangenamer gemaakt! Niet alleen met de vele koffiepauzes, hilarische stapavonden, het ‘Carsten-dansje’, en onze weekendjes weg, maar zeker ook vanwege het wederzijds respect dat er altijd is geweest. Mariëlle Bedaux en Mirjam Klein Wassink wil ik graag bedanken voor hun advies en aanmoediging. Ook buiten mijn werk om zijn er veel mensen geweest die op hun eigen manier hebben bijgedragen aan dit resultaat. De ‘v e-meisjes’, de ‘Pedagogiek-meiden’ en andere vriendinnen hebben naast advies, vooral ook de nodige afleiding gegeven met gezellige high teas, etentjes en stapavonden! Annika, jij hebt me er echt doorheen gesleept. Natuurlijk waren er de hysterische tripjes naar Antwerpen, Londen, Stockholm, New York en vele sushirestaurants. Maar misschien nog wel belangrijker waren de koffiepauzes en ontelbare e-mails, elke dag opnieuw, de ene keer met hysterische verhalen en grappen, maar net zo vaak ook met goede adviezen en aanmoedigingen om door te gaan. En ook al ben ik binnenkort 11


21-4-2011 12:14:00


niet meer ‘je mattie van de overkant’, ik ga er alles aan doen om ook jou erdoorheen te slepen. Pap en mam, het was me allemaal nooit gelukt zonder jullie. Jullie zijn er altijd voor mij geweest. Jullie onvoorwaardelijke steun heeft me de ruimte gegeven om me te ontwikkelen en mijn eigen keuzes te maken. En juist omdat jullie de academische wereld nauwelijks kennen, hebben jullie me geholpen te relativeren en te beseffen wat echt belangrijk is. Eric, broer, ook door jou heb ik leren relativeren. Mijn strijd is werkelijk niets vergeleken met de vele strijd die jij steeds weer hebt moeten leveren de afgelopen jaren. Je beseft niet half hoe trots ik op je ben. En dan tot slot Michiel. Wie had dat gedacht, dat ik mijn voorwoord met jou zou eindigen, terwijl jij een proefschrift over ‘integratie’ natuurlijk eigenlijk nauwelijks serieus kan nemen. Maar hoe ik me ook voelde, en hoe ver weg je soms ook was, dankzij jou wist ik steeds weer mijn rust te vinden. Zoals Tina het zou zeggen: “You’re simply the best!” Heerlijk dat we nu samen nieuwe avonturen tegemoet kunnen gaan!

12


21-4-2011 12:14:00

1 Introduction


21-4-2011 12:14:01


1.1

Introduction

Ethnic concentration in neighbourhoods is rising in several Western European countries, including the Netherlands (Drever, 2004; Kullberg, 2007; Phillips, 1998; Van Kempen & Van Weesep, 1998). Although the share of ethnic minority residents in the majority of Dutch neighbourhoods is still less than 10 per cent, the number of neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of ethnic minorities has risen in recent years. The percentage of Dutch neighbourhoods where ethnic minorities account for 25-50 per cent of the population increased from 2.3 per cent in 1998 to 4.1 per cent in 2010. Over the same period, the share of neighbourhoods where more than 50 per cent of residents have an ethnic minority background doubled from just 0.4 per cent in 1998 to 1.3 per cent in 2010 (Statistics Netherlands, 2010a). In parallel with the rise in ethnic residential concentration, attention has also grown for potential negative consequences of this concentration for the integration of ethnic minorities into Dutch society. On the one hand, research by Robert Putnam (2007) showing that ethnic diversity in neighbourhoods in the United States results in social isolation provoked a serious debate in the Dutch press about the consequences of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood for social cohesion in Dutch neighbourhoods (see e.g. de Volkskrant, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; nrc Handelsblad, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). On the other hand, crime and violence by young members of ethnic minorities in a number of ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods in the Netherlands (e.g. Oosterwei in Gouda, Kanaleneiland in Utrecht, and Schilderswijk in The Hague) prompted politicians to demand attention for the problems in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods and ways of preventing and reducing ‘segregation and ghettoization’ (e.g. Karabulut, 2008). These concerns about ethnic residential concentration and its presumed negative consequences were taken up by the Dutch government, as illustrated by several statements in a recent policy document from Eberhart van der Laan, former Dutch Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration and currently mayor of Amsterdam: Doing things together in the neighbourhood engenders a sense of collectiveness among residents; differences become less threatening and in fact scope is created for difference. Segregation hinders this. The exchange of knowledge about Dutch society and the need to become proficient in the Dutch language also seems to be eroded in segregated communities, whereas both are essential for the integration of new Dutch citizens […] The government recognizes the problems of segregation and residential concentration and takes these issues seriously. The Netherlands must not become a country of parallel communities, but a country with equal opportunities for everybody, in which everyone can participate as a full citizen and where people of diverse ethnic and social backgrounds can come together and learn about each other’s backgrounds (Van der Laan, 2009; p.11-12; own translation). These statements show clearly the Dutch government has concerns about ethnic concentration in neighbourhoods, which is expected to hinder social contact between 14


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

residents with different backgrounds and the need to become proficient in the Dutch language, both of which are considered essential for the integration of new Dutch citizens. Previous studies has confirmed that social contact between ethnic minorities and natives is important for ethnic minorities’ integration in several respects (Heath, Rothon, & Kilpi, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). For example, this contact is found to ameliorate negative intergroup attitudes (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). It can also help ethnic minorities to learn and use the majority language (e.g. Espinosa & Massey, 1997), become acquainted with the norms and values of the host country (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1988) and obtain the information and advice they need to find a job (Lin, 1999). By contrast, a large amount of social contact with co-ethnics is often thought to constrain ethnic minorities’ integration in the host society. While some researchers highlight the potential benefits of social contact with co-ethnics in terms of social and emotional support and opportunities for an ‘ethnic career’ (e.g. Wilson & Portes, 1980), many argue that there are negative consequences for integration when ethnic minorities have predominantly social contact with co-ethnics, for example by reducing the need and the opportunities to learn and use the majority language (Chiswick & Miller, 2001). Moreover, ethnic minorities and their family and friends generally have fewer resources than natives (Völker, Pinkster, & Flap, 2008), and although informal contacts with other co-ethnics in the neighbourhood can lead to work, these employment opportunities often seem to constrain social mobility (Pinkster, 2007; Wiley, 1967). As regards ethnic minorities’ proficiency in the majority language, previous studies showed that it is an important determinant for ethnic minorities’ economic integration; ethnic minorities with a better proficiency in the host country language are more likely to find a job and have higher earnings than their counterparts who have more difficulties with the majority language (e.g. Chiswick & Miller, 1995; Dagevos, 2007; Miller & Chiswick, 2010). Given that ethnic residential concentration is expected to affect ethnic minorities’ social contacts and their need to learn Dutch, attempts are made to reduce and prevent this concentration through housing policies. Examples of such policies, which aim to create a greater mix across income groups and ethnic groups, are urban renewal, social diversification programmes, and dispersal programmes (see Bolt, Phillips, & Van Kempen, 2010; Galster, 2007a; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007a; Veldboer, Kleinhans, & Duyvendak, 2002). While a great deal has already been spent on such neighbourhood policies, in reality too little is still known about the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ social contacts and language practices. In general, the scientific knowledge of the effects of ethnic residential concentration and the underlying mechanisms is relatively sparse. The main aim of the present study is therefore to contribute to the current body of knowledge on the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ integration in the Netherlands. Integration, which generally refers to the extent to which ethnic minorities become part of the host society, involves many different aspects, such as economic, social, and cultural (see e.g. Dagevos, Gijsberts, & Van 15


21-4-2011 12:14:01


Praag, 2003; Hagendoorn, Veenman, & Vollebergh, 2003). The focus in this dissertation is on ethnic minorities’ social contacts (i.e. social integration) and their language practices, which as stated earlier are considered essential for successful integration. With regard to language practices, both language proficiency and language use are studied. While majority language proficiency is argued to be an important determinant of ethnic minorities’ economic success (see e.g. Chiswick & Miller, 1995), majority language use is seen as an indicator of their cultural integration and ethnic identity (Alba, 1990; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009a). By studying ethnic residential concentration in relation to ethnic minorities’ social contacts and their language practices, this dissertation can hopefully bring a broader understanding of the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ integration, from which both the scientific field and policymakers can benefit. The first part of the dissertation focuses on the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ social contacts. Following a detailed examination of those effects, the focus in the second part of the dissertation turns to the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ language practices. In this part, we also aim to integrate the line of reasoning regarding the importance of ethnic minorities’ social contacts and study whether ethnic residential concentration hampers ethnic minorities’ majority language practices via their social contacts (see Figure 1.1). The overarching research question addressed in this dissertation is: Does ethnic residential concentration affect ethnic minorities’ social contacts and, via those social contacts, their language practices? Figure 1.1 Ethnic residential concentration, social contacts and language practices

ethnic residential concentration

language practices

social contacts

The next section (1.2) discusses the theoretical background and unresolved research questions on the effect of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ social contacts. The theoretical background and research questions concerning the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices are then introduced (1.3). The unresolved research questions form the basis for the empirical chapters of this dissertation, which are introduced in the outline of the book (1.5), following the description of the data sources (1.4). 16


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

1.2 Social contacts 1.2.1 Theoretical background Three main mechanisms are suggested by which ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood could affect ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minorities. First, the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood influences the opportunities to meet and interact with natives, co-ethnics, and people from other ethnic minority groups. There can be no mating without meeting (Verbrugge, 1979). In neighbourhoods with a high percentage of ethnic minorities (i.e. a low percentage of natives), the statistical chance of meeting natives is lower, which may be assumed to result in less social contact with natives. At the same time, in neighbourhoods with a high percentage of ethnic minorities, the chance of meeting co-ethnics and persons from other ethnic minority groups is greater, which will result in more social contact with co-ethnics and persons from other ethnic minority groups. Second, natives in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods are probably less willing to engage in social contact with ethnic minorities. According to ethnic competition theory natives feel threatened if the number of ethnic minorities is higher (see i.e. Blalock, 1967; Coenders, Gijsberts, & Scheepers, 2004). This is likely to result in a lower willingness on the part of natives in neighbourhoods with higher percentages of ethnic minorities to engage in contact with ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities in such neighbourhoods are therefore thought to have fewer opportunities for social contact with natives and are more likely to have social contact with co-ethnics and other ethnic minorities. Finally, ethnic residential concentration might affect ethnic minorities’ social contacts because of the greater presence and influence of ‘third parties’, such as family and the ethnic community (Galster, 2008; Kalmijn, 1998; Portes, 1998), which are expected to discourage and sanction social contact with natives and other ethnic minorities, and encourage social contact with co-ethnics. Based on this mechanism, it may be expected that ethnic minorities who live in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods have less social contact with natives and other ethnic minority groups, but more social contact with co-ethnics. 1.2.2 Research questions Social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups According to the three mechanisms described, ethnic residential concentration results in less social contact with natives, but more social contact with co-ethnics. Putnam (2007), however, questioned this assumption and argued in his ‘constrict theory’ that ethnic concentration and diversity are associated with feelings of insecurity and perceived threat which cause residents to ‘hunker down’, not only from out-group members, but from in-group members as well. In other words, ethnic concentration and diversity erode social contact with both natives and co-ethnics. To date, research has not studied social contact with natives and co-ethnics. Moreover, although the ethnic 17


21-4-2011 12:14:01


c omposition of the neighbourhood is also likely to affect ethnic minorities’ social contact with persons of a different ethnic minority background, we are not aware of any studies that have investigated the neighbourhood context in relation to this social contact. In addition, it is unclear which dimension of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood is the most important in explaining ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups. Although the arguments of meeting opportunities, ethnic competition theory, and ‘third parties’ point to the concentration of ethnic minorities or co-ethnics in particular, Putnam’s (2007) constrict theory is mainly concerned with ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood. Many ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods comprise residents from several different ethnic minority groups (see Gijsberts, Van der Meer, & Dagevos, 2008). According to Putnam (2007), it is not the concentration of ethnic minorities in general, but above all this great diversity in the ethnic background of residents that helps to shape their social contacts. To date, however, no research has systematically studied whether and to what extent different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood are indeed associated with ethnic minorities’ social contacts. Such a systematic study could, however, help us to understand the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts. To gain a better understanding of this relationship, the first research question is as follows: do different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood (i.e. the percentage of ethnic minorities, the percentage of co-ethnics, and the ethnic diversity index) affect ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minorities, and if so, how? (Q1) Other neighbourhood characteristics Ethnic minorities in the United States and most European countries are often concentrated in deprived areas (Heath et al., 2008) that are economically disadvantaged and show high rates of residential mobility. The same applies for the Netherlands, where many ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods are also economically disadvantaged (see Kullberg, Vervoort, & Dagevos, 2009). Most previous studies concerned with the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts have, however, disregarded these other neighbourhood conditions (e.g. Briggs, 2007; Esser, 1986; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b; Martinovic, Van Tubergen, & Maas, 2009a; Mesch, 2002; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007). But since previous neighbourhood research has shown that economic disadvantage and residential mobility in the neighbourhood make residents more fearful and result in less social contact in general (e.g. Wilson, 1987; for reviews, see Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Small & Newman, 2001), it is necessary to take these related and relevant neighbourhood characteristics into account and study whether there is still a relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minority residents’ social contacts after controlling for them. The second research question thus reads: does the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood still show a relationship with ethnic minorities’

18


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

social contacts after controlling for other neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. economic disadvantage)? (Q2) Weak and strong social ties A good deal of concern has been expressed about a possible negative relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, because of the expected importance of that contact for their further integration. However, the effect of this contact on their integration probably also depends on the strength of their social ties with natives. For example, according to Granovetter (1973) a weak social tie is most likely to provide the information needed to find a (better) job, whereas positive and strong social ties mainly affect ethnic minorities’ acceptance by (Pettigrew, 1997) and identification with the host country (Clément, Singh, & Gaudet, 2006). To evaluate the validity of a possible negative effect of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ further integration, it is therefore necessary to study whether ethnic residential concentration affects not only the likelihood of ethnic minorities’ having social ties with natives, but also the strength of those ties. Moreover, studying ethnic residential concentration in relation to the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives can provide a better insight into the effect of ethnic residential concentration. Based on the mechanism of meeting opportunities, no additional effect of ethnic concentration on the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives is expected, because once they have met, it is no longer the meeting opportunities, but people’s preferences that are probably most influential in whether a weak or strong social tie is formed. By contrast, following the ethnic competition and third parties arguments, it may be expected that ethnic concentration also constrains the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives. According to ethnic competition theories (e.g. Blalock, 1967; Coenders et al., 2004), natives in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods who feel threatened in the competition for scarce resources would probably be less willing to form a strong social tie with an ethnic minority person, to whom they give support and advice, than a weak social tie. According to the third parties argument, ethnic residential concentration would probably mainly constrain the formation of strong social ties with natives, as these ties more often meet with disapproval than weak ties (Gijsberts & Vervoort, 2007; Hagendoorn & Kleinpenning, 1991). Research to date has not compared the effects of ethnic residential concentration on social ties of different strength, nor directly studied ethnic residential concentration in relation to the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives. The question that therefore still remains is: does ethnic residential concentration constrain the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives? (Q3) Increase in ethnic residential concentration over time As stated earlier, ethnic residential concentration has increased over the years. Based on the idea that ethnic residential concentration hinders ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives, it may be expected that this increase in ethnic residential concentration 19


21-4-2011 12:14:01


has resulted in a decline in social contacts between ethnic minorities and natives over time. At the same time, however, several positive developments, such as improvements in ethnic minorities’ education level and socio-economic position, are also observed, which can be expected to have resulted in an increase in ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives over the years. So far, little is known about any trend in ethnic minorities’ social contacts with the native Dutch and the role of ethnic residential concentration in that trend. Therefore, the fourth question is: How have ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives developed over time, and has the rise in ethnic residential concentration affected this trend? (Q4) Diminishing importance of the neighbourhood context? In recent times, processes of individualisation and advances in transport and communication technology are thought to have reduced the importance of the neighbourhood context for people’s social life (Bolt, 2004; Zelinsky & Lee, 1998). Nowadays, work and school are probably more important settings for social contacts than the neighbourhood (Drever, 2004) and people are less likely to share their everyday life with their neighbours (Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007). Consequently, the neighbourhood context and thus the ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood would become less important in the study of ethnic minorities’ integration, and neighbourhood policies might become less effective over time if it appears that the neighbourhood and its ethnic composition indeed become less influential in residents’ social contacts. Hence, the research q uestion that follows from this is: Has the relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives become weaker over time? (Q5) Taken together, the first aim of the present dissertation is to obtain a more detailed understanding of the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts by addressing the research questions posed. By studying diverse dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and other neighbourhood characteristics in relation to social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minorities, examining a possible additional effect of ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood on the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives, and looking at the (possibly diminishing) role of ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood in the trend of these social contacts over time, this dissertation aims to contribute both theoretically and methodologically to the academic debate. By doing so, we also hope this dissertation will contribute to the societal debate about the (assumed) role of the neighbourhood context and the value of neighbourhood policies for ethnic minorities’ integration.

20


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

1.3

Language practices

1.3.1 Theoretical background Literature on the effect of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ majority language practices points to three possible mechanisms. First, it is argued that there is less exposure to the majority language in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods (e.g. Chiswick & Miller, 2001); there are fewer opportunities for contact with natives and to hear and speak the majority language (Stevens, 1992). Second, ethnic minorities living in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods probably have fewer incentives to learn and use the majority language, because there are greater opportunities to rely on their minority language by living and working in an ethnic community. Third, in ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods there is probably greater group pressure from family members and the ethnic community to use the minority language rather than the majority language (Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009a). Based on these mechanisms, we can thus expect that ethnic residential concentration results in lower majority language proficiency and less majority language use. 1.3.2 Research questions Majority language proficiency and majority language use Although there are already several studies concerning the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices, most previous studies focused only on the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and immigrants’ majority language proficiency (e.g. Chiswick, Lee, & Miller, 2004; Chiswick & Miller, 2001; Espinosa & Massey, 1997; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b; Hou & Beiser, 2006; Hwang & Xi, 2008; Lazear, 1999). However, whereas majority language proficiency is often seen as an indicator of economic integration (e.g. Chiswick & Miller, 1995), proficiency does not of itself necessarily imply cultural assimilation and identification with the host society (Espinosa & Massey, 1997). Instead, majority language use is probably a much stronger indicator for cultural integration and ethnic identity (Alba, 1990; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009a). To gain a better insight into the role of ethnic residential concentration in ethnic minorities’ cultural integration, an important question is: is there a relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and both immigrants’ majority language proficiency as well as their majority language use? (Q6) The mediating role of ethnic minorities’ social contacts The mechanisms proposed to explain the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ language practices (see Figure 1.1 and section 1.3.1) point to the importance of immigrants’ social contacts. Based on the mechanism of exposure, immigrants’ social contact with natives can be expected to be the most important mediating factor in that relationship. Ethnic residential concentration would then constrain the opportunities for contact with natives and to speak and hear the m ajority 21


21-4-2011 12:14:01


language (Stevens, 1992), which would constrain their majority language practices. The mechanism of incentives, however, points to a mediating role of immigrants’ social contact with co-ethnics; in more ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods the opportunities for social contact with co-ethnics are greater, increasing the possibilities to continue using the minority language and lowering the incentives to learn and become proficient in the majority language. Following the mechanism of group pressure, it is also expected that social contact with co-ethnics mediates the relationship between ethnic concentration and majority language use; more social contact with co-ethnics probably results in greater group pressure to use the minority language rather than the majority language (Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009a). To date, empirical tests of the mediating role of ethnic minorities’ social contacts are scarce (but see Chiswick & Miller, 1996; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b). A test of the mediating role of social contact with natives and coethnics would, however, contribute to the understanding of the suggested relationships between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices and the underlying mechanisms. The unresolved question that follows from this is therefore: do ethnic minorities’ social contacts mediate the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ majority language practices? (Q7) Second-generation minorities’ minority language proficiency The expectation that ethnic residential concentration hampers majority language proficiency probably does not hold for second-generation minorities. Ethnic minorities from the second generation undergo intensive exposure to the majority language by being raised and attending school in the host country (Hou & Beiser, 2006). As a result, they generally have far fewer problems with the majority language than first-generation immigrants (see e.g. Dagevos, Schellingerhout, & Vervoort, 2007). Whether or not they live in an ethnically concentrated neighbourhood is hence unlikely to play a significant role in the majority language proficiency of second-generation minorities. By contrast, living in an ethnically concentrated neighbourhood might create the possibility for second-generation minorities to learn a minority language. Ethnic residential concentration can be expected to result in greater exposure to the minority language and greater incentives and group pressure to use it (Linton, 2004; Lutz, 2006). To gain more understanding about a possible relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices and the scope of the mechanisms of exposure, incentives, and group pressure, the eighth research question is: is there a positive relationship between ethnic residential concentration and second-generation minorities’ minority language proficiency? (Q8) The question of causality Finally, the question of causality arises. Although we assume that ethnic residential concentration affects immigrants’ language proficiency via their social contacts, immigrants’ majority language proficiency can also be expected to influence their social contacts and the likelihood of settlement in a more ethnically concentrated neighbourhood (see e.g. Bauer, Epstein, & Gang, 2005; Lazear, 1999; Logan, Alba, & Zhang, 2002; Martinovic et al., 2009a; McConnell & Leclere, 2002; Mesch, 2002; South, Crowder, & 22


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

Chavez, 2005; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007; Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009b). As a result, cross-sectional analyses probably overestimate the effects and longitudinal analyses of panel data are required to better examine whether there are any causal effects of ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ social contacts on their majority language proficiency. Studies that make use of panel data (Chiswick et al., 2004; Martinovic et al., 2009a; South et al., 2005) are however still relatively scarce and are mainly based on data from A ustralia and the United States. Moreover, no research has so far examined longitudinally the assumed mediating role of immigrants’ social contacts in the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ majority language proficiency. Thus the question that still needs to be addressed is: is there a causal effect of ethnic residential concentration on immigrants’ majority language proficiency via their social contacts? (Q9) In sum, the second aim of the present dissertation is to increase the understanding of the (causal) relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices in the Netherlands. By studying both first and second-generation minorities’ language practices and testing whether ethnic minorities’ social contacts play a mediating role (see Figure 1.1), we hope to gain a better insight into the underlying mechanisms that could drive the assumed effects of ethnic residential concentration. 1.4 Data sources To study the questions raised we made use of other large-scale survey data from the Netherlands, which were designed to monitor the integration of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. First, data were drawn from the 2006 Survey of the Integration of Minorities (sim 2006), which is financed by the Dutch government and conducted under the direction of the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (scp). This survey focuses on the four largest non-Western ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, i.e. people of Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean background. sim 2006 is the first survey that is representative of members of these ethnic minority groups aged 15 years and older in the Netherlands. The data were collected using a two-step stratified random sampling method. First, a random sample of municipalities, proportionally allocated across three strata of municipality size, was selected for each ethnic group separately. Subsequently, within each selected municipality a random sample of individuals was approached and asked to participate. Face-to-face interviews were used. Migrants of Turkish and Moroccan origin who were aged over 15 when they arrived in the Netherlands were approached using bilingual interviewers as far as possible. The final sample consisted of 1,127 people of Turkish origin, 1,035 of Moroccan origin, 1,057 of Surinamese origin, and 997 of Antillean origin (for more detailed information on sim 2006, see Dagevos, Gijsberts, Kappelhof, & Vervoort, 2007). Second, data were used from the Living Conditions of Urban Ethnic Minorities survey (l a s2004), which was conducted by the scp in the 50 largest municipalities in the Netherlands in 2004/2005. This survey included the four largest non-Western ethnic 23


21-4-2011 12:14:01


minority groups in the Netherlands (of Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean origin). A random sample of each ethnic group was taken, stratified for municipality size. Face-to-face interviews and translated questionnaires and bilingual interviewers were used, where needed and possible. The final sample consisted of 945 Turks, 912 Moroccans, 759 Surinamese, and 807 Antilleans (for more information see scp/wodc/ cbs, 2005). The information at neighbourhood level was derived from record data from Statistics Netherlands (2010b) and was merged with the sim 2006 and l a s2004 data using the neighbourhood classification adopted by Statistics Netherlands. This is an improvement on most previous studies in the Netherlands, which tend to be based on the more frequently used four-digit postcode areas. While the latter are regarded as useful for mail delivery purposes, the division of neighbourhoods that we adopted is based on the neighbourhood boundaries as identified by local authorities themselves within their municipality, largely following the socio-geographical boundaries as well as the architectural style and historical period of the dwellings. These neighbourhoods are more likely to be perceived as neighbourhoods by their residents than the four-digit postcode area. Moreover, while there are approximately 4,000 four-digit postcode areas in the Netherlands, the neighbourhood division applied here enables approximately 10,000 neighbourhoods to be identified. For trend analyses (Q5, Q6), the sim 2006 and l a s2004 data were combined with data for 1998 and 2002 from a large-scale survey, the Social Position and Use of Provisions by ethnic minorities (i.e. sp va1998 and sp va 2002, see Martens, 1999; Groeneveld & Weijers-Martens, 2003). The sp va surveys, which were financed by the Dutch government and conducted under the joint direction of the Institute for Sociological-Economic Research (iseo) and scp, were based on household samples and were conducted in thirteen Dutch municipalities. They included an extensive questionnaire for the head of the household, while children living at home, partners, and others in the household were questioned by means of a more condensed questionnaire. This condensed questionnaire included all questions relevant for the trend analyses, so that all respondents from the households were included in the analyses. After selection of the respondents in l a s2004 and sim 2006 who lived in the thirteen municipalities of the sp va surveys, the combined datasets contained 21,761 individuals of whom 6,631 were of Turkish background, 5,764 Moroccan, 5,805 Surinamese and 3,561 Antillean, all aged between 15 and 65 years. Finally, for the longitudinal analyses (Q9) data for a group of respondents who participated in both sp va surveys, in 1998 and 2002, were used. Unfortunately, the condensed questionnaire for children living at home, partners, and others in the household did not include information on language practices. As a result, these analyses were restricted to the heads of the households. The final sample consisted of N = 683. For the trend and longitudinal analyses, we used four-digit postcode areas to classify neighbourhoods. Although postcode areas are quite broad and smaller neighbourhood units are preferable, information on such smaller neighbourhood units is lacking for the 1998 and 2002 surveys. In addition, the boundaries of those smaller neighbourhood units are less stable, which would also have presented problems for studying processes over time. 24


21-4-2011 12:14:01

introduc tion

1.5

Outline of the book

The research questions will be addressed in the following chapters (see Table 1.1 for a brief overview). The empirical chapters (Chapter 2-6) can be read independently if desired. These chapters represent empirical articles which have already been published or submitted to international journals, making a substantial degree of overlap between the theoretical sections of these chapters inevitable. Chapter 2 deals with research question 1 by focusing on the relationship between different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood (i.e. the percentage of ethnic minorities, the percentage of co-ethnics, and the ethnic diversity index) and ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups. In addition, this chapter addresses research question 2 by studying not just the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood, but also other neighbourhood characteristics, such as economic disadvantage in the neighbourhood, in relation to ethnic minorities’ social contacts. Chapter 3 continues the exploration of the relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives, but turns to research question 3, namely whether ethnic residential concentration constrains not only the likelihood of social ties with natives, but also the tie strength. The role of other neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. economic disadvantage) (Q2) is also examined in this chapter. Chapter 4 is also concerned with the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives. Here, the focus moves to the dynamics of this relationship by studying whether the effect of ethnic residential concentration has suppressed the development of ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives over time (Q4) and whether the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives has changed (i.e. Q5). In Chapter 5, the focus shifts to the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ language practices. Research questions 6, 7, and 8 are addressed in this chapter. It examines whether ethnic residential concentration is related to both immigrants’ majority language proficiency and use (Q6), whether secondgeneration minority language proficiency is also affected by the concentration of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood (Q8), and whether these relationships are mediated by social contacts (Q7). Chapters 2-5 are based on cross-sectional data analyses. However, as argued, it can be questioned whether and to what extent there is a causal relationship between ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ social contacts and their majority language proficiency (Q9). Chapter 6, the final empirical chapter, deals with this question by using panel data to study the effects of ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts on their majority language proficiency. The last chapter of the book, Chapter 7, discusses the answers to the research questions, the study’s limitations, some directions for future research, and policy implications.

25


21-4-2011 12:14:01


Table 1.1 Outline of the empirical chapters chapter main research questions

data sources

2

– Do different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neigh bourhood (i.e. the percentage of ethnic minorities, the percentage of co-ethnics, and the ethnic diversity index) affect ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minorities, and if so, how? (Q1) – Does the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood still show a relationship with ethnic minorities’ social contacts after controlling for other neighbourhood characteristics? (Q2)

sim2006

3

– Does the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood still show a relationship with ethnic minorities’ social contacts after controlling for other neighbourhood characteristics? (Q2) – Does ethnic residential concentration constrain the strength of ethnic minorities’ social ties with natives? (Q3)

las2004

4

– How have ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives developed over time, and has the rise in ethnic residential concentration affected this trend? (Q4) – Has the relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts with natives become weaker over time? (Q5)

sim2006 las2004 spva2002 spva1998

5

– Is there a relationship between ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and both immigrants’ majority language proficiency as well as their majority language use? (Q6) – Do ethnic minorities’ social contacts mediate the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and immigrants’ majority language practices? (Q7) – Is there a positive relationship between ethnic residential concentration and second-generation minorities’ minority language proficiency? (Q8)

sim2006

6

– Is there a causal effect of ethnic residential concentration on immigrants’ majority language proficiency via their social contacts? (Q9)

spva-panel (spva1998spva2002)

26


21-4-2011 12:14:02

2 The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts: three unresolved issues

This chapter is co-authored by Henk Flap and Jaco Dagevos. A slightly different version of this chapter is published as: ‘Vervoort, M., Flap, H., & Dagevos, J. (2010). The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts: Three unresolved issues. European Sociological Review, doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq029.’


21-4-2011 12:14:02


2.1

Introduction

Most ethnic minorities tend to settle in neighbourhoods where co-ethnics are already present in large numbers (see Bolt, Van Kempen, & Van Ham, 2008), resulting in ethnic residential concentration. Recently, the phenomenon of ethnic residential concentration has received a good deal of attention from both politicians and social scientists, with an emphasis on its assumed negative consequences for the integration of ethnic minorities (see e.g. Bolt Özüekren, & Philips, 2010; Drever, 2004; Fong & Isajiw, 2000; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b; Mesch, 2002; Musterd & Ostendorf, 2009; Sigelman, Bledsoe, Welch, & Combs, 1996; Smets & Den Uyl, 2008; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007). The most significant assumption is that ethnic residential concentration hinders the social integration of ethnic minorities, i.e. the extent to which ethnic minorities have social contact with the native population. This is seen as problematic particularly because social contact with natives is thought to be conducive to the successful integration of ethnic minorities in the host society in several other respects, such as economically, culturally and in terms of their acceptance (Heath, Rothon, & Kilpi, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). It is moreover often implicitly assumed that ethnic residential concentration also leads to more social contact with co-ethnics, another factor which could hinder their integration in the host society. While some observers highlight the potential benefits of social contact with co-ethnics in terms of social and emotional support and opportunities for an ‘ethnic career’ (e.g. Wilson & Portes, 1980), others argue that there are negative consequences for integration when members of ethnic minorities stay mainly within their own ethnic group. In general, ethnic minorities have fewer resources and less access to the resources of family and friends than natives (Völker, Pinkster, & Flap, 2008), and although informal contacts with other co-ethnics in the neighbourhood can lead to work, these employment opportunities often seem to constrain social mobility (Pinkster, 2007; Wiley, 1967). Moreover, it is suggested that a high frequency of social contact with co-ethnics and a shared experience of adversity in the host society can result in deviating norms and values with regard to work and the host society in general (Portes, 1998). Such processes are thought to present a further block to the economic and cultural integration of ethnic minorities. Based on the assumption that ethnic residential concentration constrains the (social) integration of ethnic minorities, many Western European governments are today making widespread and large-scale investments in the physical restructuring of neighbourhoods in a bid to create more socially and ethnically mixed neighbourhoods (Galster, 2007b; Veldboer, Kleinhuis, & Duyvendak, 2002). There are still several unresolved issues in this area, however. First, most of the research in this field has to date not studied the effects of ethnic residential concentration on ethnic minorities’ social contact with co-ethnics and with other ethnic minority groups. Second, earlier studies did not differentiate between different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood (e.g. percentage of ethnic minorities, percentage of co-ethnics, and ethnic diversity); and third, other relevant and often closely related neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. residential mobility and economic disadvantage) were neglected in most earlier studies of ethnic minorities’ social contacts. 28


21-4-2011 12:14:02

the e thnic comp o sition of the neighb our ho od a nd e thnic minor ities’ s o ci a l contac t s: thr ee unr es olv ed issues

If policymakers aim to improve the (social) integration of ethnic minorities through neighbourhood interventions, they will need to gain a better understanding of these issues. The present study therefore seeks to contribute to the theory and add to previous research by being one of the first studies to investigate whether and how the ethnic composition of a neighbourhood affects ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, coethnics and other ethnic minority groups, looking at different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and taking other neighbourhood characteristics into account. 2.2 Theoretical background 2.2.1 Ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups The first unsolved issue stems from the implicit assumption of many studies of an inverse relationship between ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives and their social contact with co-ethnics, i.e. that someone with much social contact with coethnics has little social contact with natives. Accordingly, it is assumed that ethnic residential concentration not only results in less social contact with natives, but also in more social contact with co-ethnics. However, some scholars (e.g. Dagevos & Gijsberts, 2008; Putnam, 2000; Van Craen, Vancluysen, & Ackaert, 2007) have questioned whether in-group and out-group contact do in reality show such an inverse relationship. Findings by Van Craen and colleagues (2007), for example, showed for Belgium that people of Turkish and Moroccan origin who had more co-ethnic friends also had more friends in the native population. Questions can also be raised as to whether neighbourhood characteristics such as ethnic concentration and ethnic diversity really are associated with less contact with natives and more contact with co-ethnics, as is often implicitly assumed; or, as recently suggested by Putnam (2007), whether ethnic concentration and diversity erode social contact with both natives and co-ethnics. To date, however, previous studies have often measured ethnic minorities’ social contacts using a one-dimensional scale, with ‘having social contact mainly with c o-ethnics’ and ‘having social contact mainly with natives’ as its poles (e.g. Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007). Others looked only at contact with natives (e.g. Esser, 1986; Drever, 2004; Martinovic, Van Tubergen, & Maas, 2009a; Mesch, 2002) or were only concerned with social contact in general (e.g. Letki, 2008; Putnam, 2007; Small, 2007). Moreover, although the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood is also likely to affect ethnic minorities’ social contact with persons of a different ethnic minority background, we are not aware of any studies that have investigated the neighbourhood context in relation to this social contact. The first aim of the present study is to build on previous research by investigating social contact with natives and social contact with co-ethnics with two separate scales, in order 29


21-4-2011 12:14:02


to gain a better understanding of the extent to which social contact with co-ethnics and with natives are indeed inversely related and whether and how the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood affects ethnic minorities’ social contact with both natives and co-ethnics. In addition, this will be one of the first studies to explore the extent to which the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood also affects ethnic minorities’ social contact with other ethnic minority groups. 2.2.2 Ethnic composition of the neighbourhood A second unresolved issue concerns the question of which dimension of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood is the most important in explaining ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics and other ethnic minority groups. We will explore the different mechanisms suggested to explain the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and these contacts, and will formulate hypotheses based on them, differentiating between the percentage of ethnic minorities, the percentage of co-ethnics and the ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood. First, a supply-side perspective (e.g. Blau, 1977; Fischer, Jackson, Stueve, & Gerson, 1977) stresses that the social context in which people participate influences their networks by shaping the ‘pool’ from which they have to select their contacts. In other words, the choice of one’s social contacts is constrained by the opportunities provided by the social context to meet and interact with others. There can be no mating without meeting (Verbrugge, 1979). The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood is therefore thought to influence the opportunities for members of ethnic minorities to have social contact with natives, co-ethnics and people from other ethnic minority groups. In neighbourhoods with a high percentage of ethnic minorities (i.e. a low percentage of natives), the statistical chance of meeting natives is lower, which may be assumed to result in less social contact with natives. At the same time, in neighbourhoods with a high percentage of ethnic minorities, the chance of meeting co-ethnics and persons from other ethnic minority groups is greater, which will result in more social contact with co-ethnics and persons from other ethnic minority groups. A second explanation for a relationship between ethnic concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts stems from ethnic competition theory. Besides meeting opportunities, the willingness of natives to engage in social contact with ethnic minorities is also expected to influence ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minority groups. According to ethnic competition theory, natives feel threatened when the number of ethnic minorities is high (Blalock, 1967; Coenders, Gijsberts, & Scheepers, 2004). This is likely to result in a lower willingness on the part of natives in neighbourhoods with higher percentages of ethnic minorities to engage in contact with ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods containing high percentages of ethnic minorities are therefore thought to have fewer opportunities for social contact with natives and are more likely to have social contact mainly with coethnics and other ethnic minorities.

30


21-4-2011 12:14:02


Based both on the idea of meeting opportunities and ethnic competition theory, we therefore hypothesize that: The higher the percentage of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood, the less social contact ethnic minorities have with natives (H1a), the more social contact ethnic minorities have with co-ethnics (H1b), and the more social contact ethnic minorities have with other ethnic minorities (H1c). A third way in which the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood might influence ethnic minorities’ social contacts is through the influence of ‘third parties’ (Kalmijn, 1998): others who can encourage or discourage contacts within and outside people’s own ethnic group. The greater presence of people’s own group can create demands for conformity and group solidarity (Galster, 2008; Portes, 1998). In neighbourhoods with high percentages of co-ethnics, these other co-ethnics, for example family members and the ethnic community are more likely to be able to impose the norms of the country of origin and discourage or even sanction contact with other ethnic groups. A higher percentage of co-ethnics in the neighbourhood is therefore thought to result in less social contact with natives and other ethnic minority groups, but in more social contact with co-ethnics. These notions give rise to the hypothesis that: The higher the percentage of co-ethnics in the neighbourhood, the less social contact ethnic minorities have with natives (H2a), the more social contact ethnic minorities have with coethnics (H2b), and the less social contact ethnic minorities have with other ethnic minorities (H2c). Whereas the mechanisms proposed thus far are all concerned with the concentration of ethnic minorities, or co-ethnics in particular, Putnam’s (2007) constrict theory is mainly concerned with ethnic diversity. Many ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods comprise residents from several different ethnic minority groups (see Gijsberts, Van der Meer, & Dagevos, 2008). According to Putnam (2007), it is not the concentration of ethnic minorities in general, but above all this great diversity in the ethnic background of residents that helps shape their social contacts. In line with ethnic competition theory, the constrict theory is concerned with feelings of insecurity and perceived threat that result in less social contact. However, according to the constrict theory it is the ethnic diversity rather than the ethnic concentration in a neighbourhood that causes residents to ‘hunker down’, to use Putnam’s terminology. Moreover, ethnic diversity would not trigger a distinction between the in-group and out-group, but rather social isolation in general. The ‘hunkering down’ of residents in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods would not only result in less contact with natives, but also less contact with co-ethnics and other ethnic minority groups. The hypothesis derived from the constrict theory reads as follows: The more ethnically diverse the neighbourhood is, the less social contact ethnic minorities have with natives (H3a), the less social contact ethnic minorities have with co-ethnics (H3b), and the less social contact ethnic minorities have with other ethnic minorities (H3c).

31


21-4-2011 12:14:02


As outlined above, different mechanisms are proposed to explain the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts. Each of these mechanisms focus on different dimensions of the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood. To date, however, no research has studied systematically whether and to what extent these different dimensions do indeed relate to ethnic minorities’ social contacts. The second aim of the present study is therefore to examine both ethnic concentration (i.e. the percentage of ethnic minorities and the percentage of coethnics) and ethnic diversity (i.e. the Herfindahl-index) in the neighbourhood in relation to ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics and other ethnic minorities. 2.2.3 Other neighbourhood characteristics Finally, a third unresolved issue in the research on ethnic minorities’ social contacts concerns the question of whether any relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minority residents’ social contacts is a spurious one, resulting from the fact that ethnic minorities in the United States and most European countries are often concentrated in deprived areas (Heath et al., 2008) that are economically disadvantaged and show high rates of residential mobility. Whereas previous neighbourhood research based on the social disorganization theory has already shown that economic disadvantage and residential mobility in the neighbourhood make residents more fearful and result in less social contact in general (e.g. Wilson, 1987; for reviews, see Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Small & Newman, 2001), many studies concerned with the relationship between ethnic residential concentration and ethnic minorities’ social contacts have to date disregarded these neighbourhood conditions (e.g. Briggs, 2007; Esser, 1986; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007b; Martinovic et al., 2009a; Mesch, 2002; Van der Laan Bouma-Doff, 2007). It is however necessary to take these neighbourhood conditions into account to partial out their relative effects (see also Gijsberts, et al., 2008; Laurence, 2009; Tolsma, Van der Meer, & Gesthuizen, 2009) and study the extent to which the relationship between the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts still exists after controlling for them; that is the third aim of our study. To sum up, research on ethnic residential concentration and diversity and ethnic minorities’ social contacts still suffers from several drawbacks. The present study aims to contribute by disentangling the relationship between ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics and other ethnic minorities, and studying the extent to which the ethnic composition of the neighbourhood (i.e. percentage of ethnic minorities, percentage of co-ethnics and ethnic diversity) is related to ethnic minorities’ social contact with natives, co-ethnics, and other ethnic minorities, taking relevant neighbourhood conditions into account (i.e. economic disadvantage and residential mobility). 2.3 Data and measures To test our hypotheses we will use a large-scale survey in the Netherlands, the 2006 Survey of the Integration Minorities (sim 2006), which focuses on the four larg32


21-4-2011 12:14:02


est non-western ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, i.e. people of Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean background. sim 2006 is the first survey that is representative of the population of these ethnic minority groups aged 15 years and older in the Netherlands. The data were collected using a two-step stratified random sampling method. First, a random sample of municipalities, proportionally allocated across three strata of municipality size, was conducted for each ethnic group separately. Subsequently, within each selected municipality a random sample of individuals was approached and asked to participate. Face-to-face interviews were used. Migrants of Turkish and Moroccan origin who were aged over 15 years when they arrived in the Netherlands were approached using bilingual interviewers as far as possible. The final sample consisted of 1,127 people of Turkish origin, 1,035 of Moroccan origin, 1,057 Surinamese migrants and 997 of Antillean origin (for more detailed information on sim 2006, see Dagevos, Gijsberts, Kappelhof, & Vervoort, 2007). Information at neighbourhood level was derived from record data from Statistics Netherlands (2010b), which we were able to merge with the sim 2006 survey by using the neighbourhood classification adopted by Statistics Netherlands. This is an improvement on most previous studies in the Netherlands, which tend to be based on the more frequently used four-digit postcode areas. While these four-digit postcode areas are regarded as useful areas for mail delivery purposes, the division of neighbourhoods we adopted is based on the neighbourhood boundaries as identified by local authorities themselves within their municipality, largely following the socio-geographical boundaries as well as the architectural style and period of the dwellings. These neighbourhoods are more likely to be perceived as neighbourhoods by their residents than the four-digit postcode area. Moreover, while there are approximately 4,000 four-digit postcode areas in the Netherlands, the neighbourhood division applied here enables approximately 10,000 neighbourhoods to be identified. Based on this division, our sample contained 1,462 neighbourhoods. 2.3.1 Dependent variables: social contacts For our analyses, information is used about the frequency of ethnic minorities’ social contact with co-ethnics and natives. Respondents were asked how frequently they have contact with native neighbours, co-ethnic neighbours, native friends, and co-ethnic friends.1 The possible responses were arranged on a scale from 1 to 5, ranging from ‘less than once a year’, ‘a couple of times a year’, ‘every month’, ‘every week’ to ‘every day’. These questions were analysed simultaneously using multivariate multilevel analyses, with a high score representing more frequent social contact. We have only one measure for contact with other ethnic minority groups; respondents are asked whether they never, sometimes or often have contact during their leisure time with members of other ethnic minority groups. The responses to this question were analysed separately using normal multilevel analysis, again with a high score representing more frequent social contact.

33


21-4-2011 12:14:02


2.3.2 Independent variables at the neighbourhood level Ethnic composition of the neighbourhood. At the level of the neighbourhood, we have record information about the percentage of non-Western ethnic minorities as a whole and the percentages of each ethnic group (Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean origin, other non-Western ethnic minorities, Western ethnic minorities, natives) separately. Using this information, for each respondent the percentage of co-ethnics in the neighbourhood is calculated. In addition, the percentages of each ethnic group are used to construct the Herfindahl index (i.e. 1 – Herfindahl Index) for ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood. This is a measure of the chance that two randomly chosen residents in the neighbourhood will have a different ethnic background.2 Although we are aware of some difficulties with this measure (see Voas, Crockett, & Olsen, 2002), we decided to use this measure so as to be able to compare our results with other recent studies on ethnic diversity and social cohesion (e.g. Letki, 2008; Putnam, 2007; Small, 2007; Tolsma et al., 2009). For the Dutch case, the measures of ethnic concentration and ethnic diversity appeared to be highly correlated; see Table 2.1. Owing to problems of multicollinearity, we were unable to include all the ethnic composition measures simultaneously in one model. We therefore performed separate analyses with (i) the percentage of non-Western ethnic minorities, (ii) the percentage of co-ethnics, and (iii) ethnic diversity. Economic disadvantage. For economic disadvantage, an index is constructed by combining record data from Statistics Netherlands on the percentage of low-income residents, average income and the percentage of residents in the neighbourhood in receipt of social security benefit (similar to e.g. Wittebrood & Van Dijk, 2007). These indicators together formed one factor that explained 78% of variance. The scale proved to be reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. We standardized the indicators and reversed the distribution of the average income in order to achieve an index on which a high score means that the economic disadvantage in the neighbourhood is high. Subsequently, we calculated the mean on these indicators for each neighbourhood. Residential mobility. Drawing on record data from Statistics Netherlands, we also derived information about the residential mobility in the neighbourhood in 2006, defined as the number of home moves in the neighbourhood per 1,000 residents, calculated as the sum total of persons who moved within the neighbourhood, plus half of the number of settlers in the neighbourhood, plus half the number who moved out of the neighbourhood in 2006, divided by the total number of residents in the neighbourhood (a method also used by others, see e.g. Tolsma et al., 2009).

34


21-4-2011 12:14:03


Table 2.1 Correlations between neighbourhood characteristics percentage of non-western ethnic minorities percentage of co-ethnics ethnic diversity economic disadvantage residential mobility

.74 .91 .65 .40

percentage of co-ethnics

ethnic diversity

economic disadvantage

.64 .47 .29

.62 .48

.36

All correlations are significant at p