Beyond Generalised Trust: Norms of Reciprocity as an Alternative Form of Social Capital in an Assimilationist Integration Regime
| Author | Birte Gundelach,Richard Traunmüller |
| Published date | 01 October 2014 |
| Date | 01 October 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.12064 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 4 VO L 6 2 , 5 9 6 – 6 1 7
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12064
Beyond Generalised Trust: Norms of Reciprocity
as an Alternative Form of Social Capital in an
Assimilationist Integration Regime
Birte Gundelach
Richard Traunmüller
University of Bern
University of Mannheim
Scholars have recently stressed two important avenues for the study of cultural diversity and social capital: the role of
political integration regimes as well as alternative indicators to generalised trust.This article addresses both. Focusing
on Germany, it provides the first study of the relationship between cultural diversity and social capital in a country
implementing an ‘assimilationist’ model of integration.As a further innovation, the article contrasts social trust with an
alternative, yet often neglected form of social capital, namely norms of reciprocity. Results based on data from the
German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) and using multi-level analyses of 97 German regions suggest a negative
relationship between cultural diversity and social trust in Germany. Assimilationist policies have not (yet) led to
efficient integration of minority groups and a value convergence that could bridge cultural divides. Nevertheless,
cultural diversity does not erode the commitment to norms of reciprocity, which may therefore be regarded as an
alternative foundation of social cohesion in culturally diverse societies.
Keywords: social capital; trust; reciprocity; diversity; integration regime
Growing cultural diversity and its impact on social capital has become a highly debated
topic in Western societies. In the most general sense, the concept of social capital captures
the notion that social cohesion is valuable and serves as a resource for the effective
functioning of societies.1 Modern societies therefore seem to be increasingly confronted
with a ‘new liberal dilemma’ (Newton, 2007): on the one hand, immigration and growing
cultural diversity are appreciated economically and culturally as valuable assets. On the other
hand, however, we are faced with empirical findings indicating the uncomfortable reality
that cultural heterogeneity threatens social cohesion.
A multitude of researchers, most prominently Robert Putnam (2007), have found a
negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social capital indicators in the US
context (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2002; Costa and Kahn, 2003; Rice and Steele, 2001;
Rotolo, 2000; Rudolph and Popp, 2010). Recently, a growing number of studies examined
to what extent these findings can be transferred to European societies, but the results so far
remain inconclusive (Becares et al., 2011; Fieldhouse and Cutts, 2010; Gijsberts et al., 2012;
Lancee and Dronkers, 2011a; Laurence, 2011; Letki, 2008; Sturgis et al., 2011; Tolsma et al.,
2009).
The lack of consensus regarding the impact of cultural diversity on social capital in the
European context calls for further research on this politically charged issue. In particular,
scholars have recently stressed two important and promising avenues for further research:
the role of political integration regimes as well as the study of different measures of social
cohesion (Harell and Stolle, 2010). The present article addresses both of these.
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
B E Y O N D G E N E R A L I S E D TR U S T
597
Focusing on Germany, our study goes beyond existing work and illuminates the rela-
tionship between diversity and social capital in a country implementing an ‘assimilationist’
model of integration (Koopmans et al., 2005). Although considering the integration policy
context is frequently regarded as crucial for our understanding of diversity’s effect on social
capital (Harell and Stolle, 2010; Kesler and Bloemraad, 2010), it is striking that virtually all
previous studies were conducted in so-called ‘multiculturalist’ regimes that actively recog-
nise cultural diversity, that is, in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden as well as the
classical immigration countries USA, Canada and Australia. As presented in Table 1 there is
no study of a country that implements the direct counterpart of the multicultural model,
namely an assimilationist approach to integration policy.
The assimilationist model forms the most exclusive and restrictive approach to integra-
tion, requiring a high degree of cultural assimilation (Koopmans et al., 2005; Manatschal,
2011). Until 2000, when it liberalised its citizenship legislation, Germany was a perfect
showcase for an assimilationist approach to integration. Since then it has experienced a shift
towards a more multicultural approach. Nevertheless, considering the four ideal types –
assimilationism, segregationism, universalism and multiculturalism – Germany is still closest
Table 1: Empirical Studies on Diversity and Social Capital According to Integration Regime
Universalism
Multiculturalism
France
USA
Former ‘melting pot’
Alesina and La Ferrara, 2000; 2002; Alexander, 2007; Costa and Kahn,
approach in the
2003; Fieldhouse and Cutts, 2010; Marschall and Stolle, 2004; Putnam,
US
2007; Rice and Steele, 2001; Ross et al., 2001; Rotolo, 2000; Sampson
et al., 1997; Stolle et al., 2008
Canada
Hou and Wu, 2009; Phan, 2008; Soroka et al., 2002; 2005; Stolle et al.,
2008
Australia
Leigh, 2006
Great Britain
Becares et al., 2011; Fieldhouse and Cutts, 2010; Laurence, 2011;
Letki, 2008; Sturgis et al., 2011
The Netherlands
Gijsberts et al., 2012; Lancee and Dronkers, 2011a; 2011b; Tolsma et al.,
2009
Sweden
Gustavsson and Jordahl, 2008; Öberg et al., 2011
Assimilation
Segregationism
Germany (this study)
Former ‘guest worker’
Austria
approach in Germany
Switzerland
Note: Typology of integration regimes adapted from Koopmans et al., 2005.
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2014, 62(3)
598
B I R T E G U N D E L A C H A N D R I C H A R D T R A U N M Ü L L E R
to an assimilationist approach to migrant integration (Koopmans et al., 2005). To this day,
Germany’s integration policies are marked by high barriers to naturalisation and notable
requirements of cultural assimilation.
Far from presenting a mere ‘Germany too!’ study, the focus on Germany thus brings a
specific theoretical contribution to the debate on diversity and social capital as it is a first
important step to revealing potential systematic differences in sub-national diversity effects
on social capital across different political integration regimes.
More importantly, we go beyond existing work by not only studying diversity’s effect on
social trust but also considering a vital alternative, yet often neglected form of social capital,
namely norms of reciprocity. Indeed, recent literature emphasises that cultural diversity has
different impacts, depending on the exact facet of social capital under study (Anderson and
Paskeviciute, 2006; Gesthuizen et al., 2008; Gundelach, 2013; Harell and Stolle, 2010; Letki,
2008). In contrast to cursory reflections of social capital, where trust and reciprocity are
treated as interchangeable concepts, we argue that social trust and reciprocity are clearly
distinct and that the impact of cultural diversity on norms of reciprocity is different from the
impact on social trust.Whereas social trust relies on strong value consensus and familiarity
with behavioural patterns, the commitment to norms of reciprocity is based on mutual
acceptance of procedural norms in specific settings of social interaction and does not
presuppose consensus between actors on more fundamental issues (Hooghe, 2007). Thus we
expect diversity to impact less harmfully on norms of reciprocity than on social trust.
So far, measures of norms of reciprocity have simply not been available to survey-based
comparative social capital research (but see Freitag and Traunmüller, 2008). Relying on
high-quality data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), we are able to go
beyond studying the impact on social trust and for the first time evaluate diversity’s impact
on the norm of reciprocity.
Our results based on multi-level analyses of 97 German regions (the so-called Raum-
ordnungsregionen) suggest a negative relationship between cultural diversity and social trust in
Germany. This is particularly the case in the presence of the largest visible group of
foreigners in Germany, namely Turkish Muslims. It seems that assimilationist policies in
Germany have not yet led to efficient integration of minority groups and a value conver-
gence that could bridge cultural divides. But the findings confirm our theoretical expec-
tation concerning norms of reciprocity. Cultural diversity does not erode the commitment
to the norm of reciprocity, which may therefore be regarded as an alternative foundation of
social cohesion in culturally diverse societies.
Norms of Reciprocity as an Alternative Form of Social Capital
The repeatedly established negative relationship between diversity and social capital is
usually explained with reference to conflict theory (Blalock, 1967; Blumer, 1958; Bobo,
1999; Quillian, 1995). It is well known that trust and solidarity develop more easily in
contexts where people feel familiar with each other and share certain characteristics with
members of the community (Delhey and Newton, 2005; Fukuyama, 1995; McPherson
et al., 2001; Messick and Kramer, 2001; Uslaner, 2002). Cultural differences,...
To continue reading
Request your trial