Sunbelt XXX, July 3 rd, Riva, Italy Integration in Social Networks as a form of Social Capital: Evidence from a survey on Social Cohesion Bram Vanhoutte & Marc Hooghe Centre for Political Science, KULeuven, Belgium

Outline Test of Normative Social Capital approach Which people have what networks? What kind of networks are related to social capital attitudes? Which kind of networks does participation in associational life foster?

Social Capital Structure (networks) + Content (attitudes/resources) (~De Toqueville, 1835; Durkheim, 1915) Not only beneficial for individuals, but also positive externalities on community level (Putnam, 1993) Many and diverse applications of social capital, but measurement of basic structural concept rather limited, e.g. participation in associations Wide range of informal relations have an impact on the individual, and networks produce different attitudes according to their composition, size and intensity

Social Capital Normative View (Putnam 2000) – Trust generated by participation in diverse networks But …. –To what extent participation reflects a more diverse network structure ? –Does participation foster bonding or bridging ties?

Bonding Social Ties Birds of a feather flock together (Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954) Bonding capital (~Social cohesion) –Strong ties between similar people –Emotional support networks –Thick trust generated by intensive regular contact Possible negative outcomes: exclusive groups, parochial norms, social control

Bridging Social Ties Connections between “different” people Bridging or Linking Capital –Weaker ties (Granovetter 1973) –Necessary for integration in diverse society of today –Mainly positive outcomes: lowers prejudice, widens perspective Identity Bridging: bridging culturally defined differences –Linked to normative approach to social capital (Putnam) Status Bridging: bridging socio-economical differences –Linked to resource approach to social capital (Lin)

Hypotheses H1: Young, male, higher educated have a larger close network and more network diversity. Women have more frequent contact with their close network H2: Generalized trust positively associated with all network measures. Ethnocentrism negatively associated with diverse networks. H3: Participation fosters (identity)bridging ties

Data and operationalisation Data: SCIF (Social Cohesion Indicators Flanders) –Survey, designed to allow multilevel research –Fieldwork April-July 2009, n=2080 –Egocentric network measures Dependant: 4 network measures –Close network size (Bonding) –Frequency of close network contact (Bonding) –Identity diversity of wider network (Bridging) –Status diversity of wider network (Bridging)

Flemish region, Belgium (pop. 6,000,000) SCIF-survey: 2080 respondents in 40 municipalities

Close network size Total network size is unreliable, and less interesting for social capital With how many people do you talk about intimate matters? –In your family –In your friends-circle Indicator is sum of these two items, since both family and friends to whom one talks about intimate matters can be considered close ties Size of close network can be seen as a measure for social support

Close network intensity Strong ties form through frequent contact, (Homans 1955) so frequency of contact is a good measure for the strength of bonding ties How often do you….?(never (0) – several times a week (5)) –Visit family –Invite friends Indicator is sum of both item frequencies. Family you visit and friends you invite at home can be considered close ties

Identity diversity Do you have a friend …? (Yes/No) –With a different religious orientation –With a different ethnic background –With a different sexual orientation –Of a different generation (at least 20 years of difference) –With different political ideas Using item response theory (Mokken-scaling) these items prove to be one coherent scale (H=.40) Most common diversity by political ideas and generations “Difficult” forms of diversity are religious orientation and ethnic background

Status diversity Use of position generator (Lin & Dumin 1986) With which occupations do you have contact in daily life? Do you know a … in your family ? Or among your friends ? Or among your acquaintances? –These questions were asked for a list of 20 occupations, varying in socio-economic status. We use the number of occupations of these 20 that respondents could access, which is a very parsimonous and simple measure for status diversity in one’s network

Social Capital Attitudes Generalized trust: –Can’t be carefull enough - Most people to be trusted? –Most people would try to abuse – would try to be honest –People think only about themselves – try to be helpfull Ethnocentrism: Did people coming to live here from other countries –Enrich or undermine cultural life ? –Made the economical situation better or worse? –Made the country a better or worse place to live?

Research Strategy A) Explain network measures by social background B) Explain attitudes by background and network measures C) Explain participation by by background and network measures

Results Networks & Background Close Network size Age (-) Education (+) Close Network Intensity Age (-) Female (++) Education (+) Identity Diversity Age (--) Male (+) Education (++) Status Diversity Age (--) Male (+) Living with partner (+) Education (++)

Results Networks & Background Bonding ties in line with expectations –Higher educated more social support –Older people less social support –Women more intensive contact, and more contact with family Possible influence of other variables (psychological) in bonding ties (low goodness of fit) Diversity of network influenced heavily by own background

Results Attitudes & Networks Generalised Trust Close Network Size (++) Close Network Intensity (+) Education (+) Ethnocentrism Close Network Size (--) Close Network Intensity (-) Identity Diversity (--) Participation (-) Age (+) Education (-)

Results Attitudes & Networks Generalised Trust is related to bonding, and not bridging ties Ethnocentrism next to identity bridging also influenced strongly by bonding Ties => Bonding of utmost importance for social capital attitudes, more than a diverse network

Results Participation Participation (general) Close Network Intensity (+) Status Diversity (+) Male (+) Education (+) Which associations do go together with a more diverse network in terms of identity? cultural, political, religious or philosophical associations. Other forms of participation more related to bridging socio- economic diversity

Conclusions Social background has strong effects on bridging networks, less on bonding Generalised trust depends more on bonding then bridging ties Ethnocentrism related to bonding, identity bridging, small additional effect from participation Participation related to more intensive close network ties and socioeconomic network diversity, not necessarily cultural diversity Attitudes do not seem to emerge from social networks in the expected way Participation more related to bonding ties and socio-economic diversity than cultural diversity