Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2010
We use a multi-level modelling approach to estimate the effect of ethnic diversity on measures of generalized and strategic trust using data from a new survey in Britain with a sample size approaching 25,000 individuals. In addition to the ethnic diversity of neighbourhoods, we incorporate a range of indicators of the socio-economic characteristics of individuals and the areas in which they live. Our results show no effect of ethnic diversity on generalized trust. There is a statistically significant association between diversity and a measure of strategic trust, but in substantive terms, the effect is trivial and dwarfed by the effects of economic deprivation and the social connectedness of individuals.
1 Bobo, Lawrence, ‘Group Conflict, Prejudice, and the Paradox of Contemporary Racial Attitudes’, Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy (1988), pp. 85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Tajfel, Henri, Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.
2 Costa, Dora and Kahn, Matthew, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity: An Economist’s Perspective’, Perspectives on Politics, 1 (2003), 103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delhey, Jan and Newton, Kenneth, ‘Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?’ European Sociological Review, 21 (2005), 311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alesina, Alberto and La Ferrera, Eliana, ‘Who Trusts Others?’ Journal of Public Economics, 85 (2002), 207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodhart, David, ‘Too Diverse?’ Prospect, February (2004), 30–37Google Scholar.
3 Putnam, Robert D., ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2007), 137–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Stolle, Dietland, Soroka, Stuart N. and Johnston, Richard, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions’, Political Studies, 56 (2008), 57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’. It is important to note that, in Putnam’s account, the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity are argued to be evident only in the short to medium term; in the long run, the hunkering-down mechanism stops and inter-ethnic distrust dissipates. However, only anecdotal evidence is presented in support of this benign denouement, and therefore its status must be considered at present as little more than speculative.
6 For our purposes here, we include only studies that have directly investigated the association between area-level ethnic diversity and trust. Thus, we exclude studies that have approached the same substantive question but without using independently collected area-level measures of diversity (e.g. Nannestad, Peter, ‘What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If Anything?’ Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (2008), 413–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bahry, Donna et al. , ‘Ethnicity and Trust: Evidence from Russia’, American Political Science Review, 99 (2006), 521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’.
8 Stolle, Dietland and Morje Howard, Marc, ‘Civic Engagement and Civic Attitudes in Cross-National Perspective: Introduction to the Symposium’, Political Studies, 56 (2008), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Letki, Natalia, ‘Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Capital and Race in British Neighbourhoods’, Political Studies, 56 (2008), 99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Letki does, however, find a negative effect of ethnic diversity on a latent variable which she labels ‘neighbourhood attitudes’ that includes a ‘trust in neighbours’ item. However, this variable also incorporates three additional items relating to different aspects of neighbourhood perceptions, including social contact, which as we make clear in our later discussion of the theoretical mechanism through which diversity is argued to influence trust, should be considered separately.
10 Leigh, Andrew, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’, Economic Record, 82 (2006), 268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Hall, Peter A, ‘Social Capital in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 29 (1999), 417–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grenier, Paola and Wright, Karen, ‘Social Capital in Britain: Exploring the Hall Paradox’, Policy Studies, 27 (2006), 27–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stolle, Dietland and Hooghe, Marc, ‘Inaccurate, Exceptional, One-Sided or Irrelevant? The Debate About the Alleged Decline of Social Capital and Civic Engagement in Western Societies’, British Journal of Political Science, 35 (2005), 149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andersen, Robert, Curtis, James and Grabb, Edward, ‘Trends in Civic Association Activity in Four Democracies: The Special Case of Women in the United States’, American Sociological Review, 71 (2006), 376–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’, p. 144.
13 Turner, J. C. et al. , Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar.
14 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
15 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
16 Schuman, H. and Presser, S., Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context (New York: Academic Press, 1981)Google Scholar. Self-reported diversity measures are susceptible to the alternative explanation that those who are less trusting of ethnic out-groups over-estimate the level of ethnic heterogeneity in their neighbourhood, a possibility that can be discounted when using census-based measures of diversity merged with the survey micro-data.
17 Ross, Catherine, Mirowsky, John and Pribesh, Shana, ‘Powerlessness and the Amplification of Threat: Neighborhood Disadvantage, Disorder, and Mistrust’, American Sociological Review, 66 (2001), 568–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 569.
18 Marschall, Melissa and Stolle, Dietland, ‘Race and the City: Neighborhood Context and the Development of Generalized Trust’, Political Behavior, 26 (2004), 125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Alesina, Alberto and La Ferrera, Eliana, ‘Participation in Heterogeneous Communities’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (2000), 847–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity’.
20 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’; Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’; Soroka, Stuart, Helliwell, John F and Johnston, Richard, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’, Social Capital, Diversity, and the Welfare State (2007)Google Scholar.
21 Letki, ‘Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion?’; Anderson, Christopher and Paskeviciute, Aida, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society: A Comparative Case Study of Citizenship Behavior’, Journal of Politics, 68 (2006), 783–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alesina, Alberto and La Ferrera, Eliana, ‘Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance’ (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Reseach, 2004)Google Scholar; Leigh, Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press).
22 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’; Pennant, Rachel, ‘Diversity, Trust and Community Participation in England’ (London: Home Office, 2005)Google Scholar; Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
23 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’; Alesina and Ferrara, ‘Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance’.
24 Anderson and Paskeviciute, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society’; Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’.
25 Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity’.
26 Soroka, Helliwell and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’; Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
27 Knack, Stephan, ‘Groups, Growth and Trust: Cross-Country Evidence on the Olson and Putnam Hypotheses’, Public Choice, 117 (2003), 341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
29 Levi, Margaret, ‘Social and Un-Social Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s “Making Democracy Work”’, Politics and Society, 24 (1996), 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Newton, Kenneth, ‘Social and Political Trust’, The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 342–362Google Scholar.
30 Soroka, Helliwell and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’.
31 Yamagishi, Toshio, Cook, Karen S. and Watabe, Motoki, ‘Uncertainty, Trust and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan’, American Journal of Sociology, 104 (1998), 165–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Putnam (2000) makes the same distinction but labels the different types of trust as ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ respectively. Bowling Alone: ‘The collapse and revival of American Community’ (New York: Simon and Schuster).
33 Hardin, Russell, ‘Conceptions and Explanations of Trust’, in K. Cook, ed., Trust and Society (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001), pp. 3–39Google Scholar, Hardin, Russell, Trust (Cambridge: Polity, 2006)Google Scholar.
34 Delhey, Jan and Newton, Kenneth, ‘Who Trusts? The Origins of Social Trust in Seven Societies’, European Societies, 5 (2003), pp. 93–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Paxton, Pamela, ‘Not All Association Memberships Increase Trust: A Model of Generalized Trust in Thirty-One Countries’, Social Forces, 86 (2007), 47–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Granovetter, Mark, ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (1973), pp. 1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Fukayama, Francis, Trust (New York: The Free Press, 1995)Google Scholar.
37 Portes, Alejandro, ‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24 (1998), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Putnam, Robert D., ‘Bowling Together’, American Prospect, 13 (2002), 20–22Google Scholar.
38 Uslaner, Eric, The Moral Foundations of Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Putnam’s account differentiates ‘inter-’ from ‘intra-’ ethnic trust but how this relates to the ‘thick/thin’, ‘generalized/particularized’ distinction is not clear.
40 Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity: An Economist’s Perspective’; Anderson and Paskeviciute, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society’; Marschall and Stolle, ‘Race and the City’.
41 Soroka, Helliwell and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’.
42 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’.
43 Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’.
44 Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust. As might be anticipated from the fact that neighbours will generally comprise a mix of known and unknown others, the TiN item has moderate loadings on both a ‘trust in strangers’ and a ‘trust in friends and family’ component, though the highest loading is on the latter dimension.
45 Sturgis, Patrick and Smith, Patten, ‘Assessing the Validity of Generalized Trust Questions: What Kind of Trust Are We Measuring?’ International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22 (2010), 74–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 See also, Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust.
47 Marschall and Stolle, ‘Race and the City’.
48 Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’; Soroka, Helliwell and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’; Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity’.
49 Hooghe, Marc, Reeskens, Tim, Stolle, Dietland and Trappers, Ann, ‘Ethnic Diversity, Trust and Ethnocentrism and Europe: A Multilevel Analysis of 21 European Countries’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, 2006)Google Scholar.
50 Anderson and Paskeviciute, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society’.
51 Putnam, Robert, ‘The Strange Disappearance of Civic America’, The American Prospect, 24 (1996), 7–24Google Scholar; Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity: An Economist’s Perspective’; Anderson and Paskeviciute, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society’; Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’; Knack, Stephen and Keefer, Phillip, ‘Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (1997), 1251–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’.
52 Cohen, J., ‘The Earth Is Round (P<.05)’, American Psychologist, 49 (1994), 997–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Freedman, David, ‘Statistical Models and Shoe Leather’, Sociological Methodology, 21 (1991), 291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 In fact, this is itself likely to be an over-estimate. Putnam later reports that when the non-independence between sample units is accounted for in a multi-level model, the coefficient is ‘slightly lower’, although he does not say by how much (Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’, p. 158). See also Pennant, ‘Diversity, Trust and Community Participation in England’; Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’.
54 Soroka, Helliwell, and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’.
55 The TPS is funded by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (see http://www.culture.gov.uk/4828.aspx).
56 See Williams, Joel, ‘Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport (2005–06), Final Technical Report’ (London: Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, 2006)Google Scholar.
57 Aust, Rebecca and Vine, Lisa, ‘Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport, Annual Report 2005/2006’ (London: Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, 2007)Google Scholar.
58 Where there is more than one household at an address, a single household is selected at random.
59 Brown, C. and Ritchie, J., ‘Focused Enumeration: The Development of a Method for Sampling Ethnic Minority Groups’ (London: PSI/SCPR, 1981)Google Scholar.
60 Johnston, R. et al. , ‘Fractal Factors? Scale, Factor Analyses and Neighbourhood Effects’, ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper, 2 (2005), 1–24Google Scholar.
61 Martin, David, ‘Geography for the 2001 Census in England and Wales’ (London: Office for National Statistics, 2001)Google Scholar.
62 Maas, Cora and Hox, Joop, ‘Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling’, Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1 (2005), 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Sampson, Robert, Morenoff, Jeffrey and Gannon-Rowley, Thomas, ‘Assessing “Neighbourhood Effects”: Social Processes and New Directions in Research’, Annual Review of Sociology, 28 (2002), 443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 See, for example: Hale, C., Pack, P. and Salkfeld, J., ‘The Structural Determinants of Fear of Crime: An Analysis Using Census and Crime Survey Data from England and Wales’, International Review of Victimology, 3 (1994), 211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowenkamp, Christopher, Cullen, Francis and Pratt, Travis, ‘Replicating Sampson and Groves’s Test of Social Disorganisation Theory: Revisiting a Criminological Classic’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40 (2003), 351–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Sampson, Robert and Byron Groves, W., ‘Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganisation Theory’, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1989), 774–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Taylor, R. B. and Covington, J., ‘Community Structural Change and Fear of Crime’, Social Problems, 40 (1993), 374–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 Morenoff, J. D. and Sampson, R. J., ‘Violent Crime and the Spatial Dynamics of Neighbourhood Transition: Chicago, 1970–1990’, Social Forces, 76 (1997), 31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66 Kaiser, H. F., ‘A Second-Generation Little Jiffy’, Psychometrika, 35 (1970), 401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Johnston et al., ‘Fractal Factors? Scale, Factor Analyses and Neighbourhood Effects’; Propper, C. et al. , ‘Local Neighbourhood and Mental Health: Evidence from the UK’, ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper 6 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 Pearson correlation = 0.981 (p < 0.001).
69 cf. Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’.
70 For all MSOAs, the correlation between the 1991 and 2001 Herfindahl indices is 0.971.
71 The Institute of Public Policy Research estimates that the total number of post-2004 immigrants from Eastern Europe was 550,000 (see Pollard, Naomi, Latorre, Maria and Dhananjayan, Sriskandarajah, ‘Floodgates or Turnstiles: Post EU-Enlargement Migration Flows to (and from) the UK’ (London: IPPR, 2008)Google Scholar.
72 Alesina and Ferrera, ‘Who Trusts Others?’; Delhey and Newton, ‘Who Trusts?’; Delhey and Newton, ‘Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust’; Li, Yaojun, Pickles, Andrew and Savage, Mike, ‘Social Capital and Social Trust in Britain’, European Sociological Review, 21 (2005), 109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
73 Twenty per cent of respondents provided no answer to the earnings question, and therefore this was imputed using a hot-deck procedure in STATA 10. See Mander, Adrian and Clayton, David, ‘Hotdeck Imputation’, Stata Technical Bulletin, 9 (2000), 32–34Google Scholar.
74 Rosenberg, Morris, ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology’, American Sociological Review 21 (1956), 690–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
75 Goldstein, Harvey, Multilevel Statistical Models 3rd Edition, 3rd edn (London: Arnold, 2003)Google Scholar; Hox, J., Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications. (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002)Google Scholar.
76 Hox, , Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications (Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002)Google Scholar.
77 See Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia and Skrondal, Anders, Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edn (College Station, Tex.: Stata Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
78 Models are estimated in STATA 10 using the xtmixed and xtmelogit commands. See Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal, Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edn.
79 Putnam identifies television as the ‘mysterious anti-civic X-ray’ responsible for the precipitate decline in trust and other indicators of social capital in the United States since the 1950s (Putnam, ‘The Strange Disappearance of Civic America’).
80 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
81 In multi-level models, level-2 fixed effects can only explain variability at that level while level-1 fixed effects can explain variability at both levels if the mean of explanatory variable is not equal across level-2 units (Hox, Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications).
82 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’; Goodhart, ‘Too Diverse?’
83 Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust; Hardin, ‘Conceptions and Explanations of Trust’; Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust; Newton, ‘Social and Political Trust’.
85 Marschall and Stolle, ‘Race and the City’; Leigh, ‘Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity’; Soroka, Helliwell and Johnston, ‘Measuring and Modelling Interpersonal Trust’; Costa and Kahn, ‘Civic Engagement and Community Heterogeneity’; Hooghe et al., ‘Ethnic Diversity, Trust and Ethnocentrism and Europe’; Anderson and Paskeviciute, ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society’.
86 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’; Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust.
87 Putnam, Bowling Alone; Paxton, ‘Not All Association Memberships Increase Trust’.
88 Sturgis and Smith, ‘Assessing the Validity of Generalized Trust Questions: What Kind of Trust Are We Measuring?’; Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust.
89 Stolle, Soroka and Johnston, ‘When Does Diversity Erode Trust?’
90 Putnam, ‘E Pluribus Unum’ (emphasis added).
91 Putnam, , ‘E Pluribus Unum’, p. 165Google Scholar.
