Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8. Conclusion | Questions, results and conclusions of Part 1 I conclude that the threat mechanism evoked by the proximity of ethnic outgroups, positive contact experiences due to increased contact opportunities when one lives in close proximity to members of ethnic outgroups, and selective residential migration all take place at the same time within neighbourhoods and municipalities characterised by a sizeable ethnic outgroup. Ethnic Competition Theory argues that ethnic competition and perceptions thereof cause ethnic hostility to increase. Our fi ndings show that at the locality level, only characteristics associated to (perceptions of) economic competition are positively related to ethnic hostility. I assumed that perceptions of cultural competition would be infl uenced by the presence of Mosques and safety threats by crime rates and residential mobility. If this is correct, my fi ndings would imply that only variation in economic competitive threat and not cultural or safety threats within a nation infl uence ethnic hostility. A necessary next step is to assess to what extent cultural threats at the national level (the presence of places of worships for different ethnic groups) and safety threats (national crime rates) can explain cross-national variation in ethnic hostility next to economic threats (socio-economic status). On the other hand, my assumption that perceptions of cultural competition would be infl uenced by the presence of Mosques within the locale living environment and safety threats by crime rates and residential mobility within the locale might not be correct. Perhaps perceptions of cultural and safety threats are more infl uenced by the mass media, which takes its cues from levels of threat at the national level, than by characteristics of the local living environment? Future research is warranted. 8.1.3 The Local Living Environment and Indicators of Social Cohesion Research questions of Chapter 4 Chapter 4 investigated the impact of characteristics of neighbourhoods and municipalities on four indicators of social cohesion: contact frequency with one’s neighbours, tolerance of a neighbour from a different race, generalised social trust and volunteering. The choice for these dependent variables enabled me to assess to what extent the impact of neighbourhoods and municipalities was similar for an indicator of both ethnic hostility and social cohesion between ethnic groups (i.e. tolerance/opposition to a neighbour from a different race), and for indicators of social cohesion that referred to associative life and generalised trust. Although ethnic and economic heterogeneity, poverty, crime and residential mobility of the local environment are all allegedly related to lower levels of different dimensions of social cohesion (cf. Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000, 2002; Letki, 2008; Putnam, 2007), it remained unclear which of these characteristics matters most and whether the impact of contextual characteristics is consistent for different indicators of social cohesion. Building on my results of Chapter 3, I also argued in Chapter 4 that it is very likely that the impact of the community on indicators of social cohesion depends on the characteristics of its residents, such as ethnic background, income and educational degree. So far, these so-called cross-level interactions have received relatively little attention. The research question of Chapter 4 was: 177
To what extent, and for whom, do ethnic and economic heterogeneity, economic affl uence, crime rates and residential mobility within Dutch neighbourhoods and municipalities affect indicators of social cohesion (i.e. contact frequency with one’s neighbours, tolerance of a neighbour from a different race, generalised social trust and volunteering)? I derived a hypothesis regarding the impact of locality characteristics on indicators of social cohesion mainly from the homophily principle (Blau, 1977; Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954; McPherson et al., 2001). But I also assessed to what extent Ethnic Competition Theory and Contact Theory would lead to different expectations. The homophily principle simply states that people like others who resemble themselves, and that people have the tendency to associate with these similar others while having a ‘natural aversion to heterogeneity’ (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Lehning, 1998). I expected that in ethnically and economically diverse communities inhabitants would share fewer characteristics and have more divergent lifestyles than inhabitants of homogenous neighbourhoods and municipalities, hence these individuals would have fewer (positive) ties with others. Next to degree of heterogeneity, I argued that neighbourhoods and municipalities differ in the extent to which they offer their inhabitants the resources to meet and mingle under favourable circumstances. I identifi ed three of these locality characteristics which may obstruct indicators of social cohesion: poverty, criminality and residential mobility. I expected the homophily principle to be less applicable to the higher educated and the rich, and that instead they would prefer living in a diverse locality, at least more so than individuals with lower incomes and lower educational degrees. This could be true especially within the Netherlands, with its history of strong endorsement by the elite of the ideology of multiculturalism (see introduction of this book). Hence I expected heterogeneity, poverty, crime and residential mobility to have a less severe detrimental effect on indicators of social cohesion for the higher educated and the rich than for the lower educated and the poor. Finally, following the homophily principle, I expected that increasing heterogeneity would have a less negative impact on indicators of social cohesion for ethnic minorities living in these localities than for the native Dutch. Results of Chapter 4 Of the investigated locality characteristics, economic affl uence at the neighbourhood level is most consistently positively related to different indicators of social cohesion. Within economically deprived neighbourhoods, neighbours have less contact with each other, volunteer less and have lower levels of trust. This relationships holds even if we control for composition effects, that is, for the characteristics of the individuals living in these neighbourhoods, and after taking into account other relevant characteristics of the living environment. Ethnic and economic heterogeneity within neighbourhoods and municipalities does not have a consistent negative impact on different indicators of social cohesion for the residents living in these localities. After taking into account composition effects and other relevant locality characteristics, crime rates are not related to the four distinguished indicators of social cohesion in Chapter 4 either. Residential mobility within municipalities induces specifi c indicators of social 178
Page 1 and 2:
ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3:
Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7:
Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9:
3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10:
8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17:
1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction | Research question
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28:
1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33:
2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 34 and 35:
2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 36 and 37:
social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43:
2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54:
The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56:
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58:
seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60:
the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66:
In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70:
3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72:
9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75:
4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77:
unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79:
4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87:
Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92:
Page 96 and 97:
5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99:
5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
the worsening economic conditions o
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIO
Page 120 and 121:
To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123:
6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 124 and 125:
6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 126 and 127:
Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 128 and 129: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 130 and 131: Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 138 and 139: Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 144 and 145: 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147: among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 148 and 149: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 152 and 153: Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 160 and 161: Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 164 and 165: Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 168: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 172 and 173: 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175: 8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177: 8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 182 and 183: local living environments (on ethni
Page 190 and 191: 8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193: ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195: 8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197: 8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199: APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201: APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203: Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205: APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207: *********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209: impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211: Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213: vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215: *and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217: Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219: Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221: APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223: Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225: Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227: Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?