1. 1 Parallel communities? The Segmentation of Migrants’ Social Capital Mario Diani (University of Trento) Sponsored by:

2. 2 My talk will address three issues a) How much and with whom do ethnic & migrant organizations (EMOs) link b) What is the structure of the EMO organizational field c) What are the implications for the relationship between organizational social capital and the cohesion of civil society

3. 3 Four cities and eleven groups Barcelona: 100 EMOs interviewed (Moroccan, Ecuadorian, Andeans) Budapest: 51 EMOs interviewed (Ethnic Hungarians, Chinese, Muslims) Geneva: 48 EMOs interviewed (Italians and Kosovars) Milan: 46 EMOs interviewed (Egyptians, Filipinos, Ecuadorians)

4. 4 How much do they connect? Barcelona: 3.8 major partners (could name 10) Budapest: 3.9 (Ethnic Hungarians more active) Geneva: 3 Milan: 2.4 (Egyptians more active) Differences across cities but not significant differences between groups

5. 5 To whom? (Bonding or bridging?) Barcelona: 1.9 mentions for each actor (198). Autochtonous below the average Budapest: 1.4 (139 mentioned) Ethnic Hungarians more central than other groups Autochtonous below the average Geneva: 1.2 (114 mentioned) Autochtonous above the average Milan: 1 (105 mentioned) Autochtonous above the average

6. 6 Patterns I

7. 7 Barcelona (density 0.019)

8. 8 Budapest (density 0.028)

9. 9 Geneva (0.026)

10. 10 Milan (density 0.028)

11. 11 Patterns II Geneva, Milan: Fewer ties in general but more ties to autochtonous  Network integration Barcelona, Budapest: More ties in general but less ties to autochtonous  Network segmentation

12. 12 Provisional remarks a) High involvement in organizational alliances (many major partners)  greater segmentation of organizational fields (ties concentrated within ethnic & migrant groups) b) Low involvement in organizational alliances (fewer major partners)  greater integration of organizational fields (with key role for autochtonous organizations) c) Social capital does not always yield cohesion