Participative Immigrants or Participative Cultures? The Importance of Cultural Heritage in Determining Involvement in Associations

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper uses insights from the literature on social capital and from the sociology of values to explain dependency of immigrants’ involvement in associations depend on the norms of participation in their country of origin as well as the norms of their host countries. The argument is that changing the social context should lead to changing participative behaviours. I use cross-classified multilevel models on the EVS 2008 data to test if average levels of participation in the host and in the origin society determine immigrants’ propensity to become member in voluntary organizations. The findings point to a partial assimilation of immigrants. Their behaviours, while influenced by their culture of origin, are mainly shaped by their country of residence. The relation is influenced by the differences between the patterns of participation in the two cultures, the age when migrating and the dependency of the origin on remittances.

Keywords

Membership in associations International migration Double-contextuality Value change Assimilation 

Résumé

Cet article emprunte des idées aux recherches sur le capital social et à la sociologie des valeurs afin d’expliquer comment l’engagement des immigrants dans des associations dépend des normes de participation dans leur pays d’origine ainsi que des normes dans leur pays d’accueil. L’argument est que le changement de contexte social devrait conduire à un changement des comportements participatifs. J’applique des modèles à niveaux multiples et classement croisé aux données EVS de 2008 afin de tester si les niveaux moyens de participation dans les sociétés d’accueil et d’origine déterminent la propension des immigrants à devenir membres d’organisations bénévoles. Les résultats mettent en évidence une assimilation partielle des immigrants. Leurs comportements, bien qu’influencés par leur culture d’origine, sont principalement déterminés par leur pays de résidence. La relation est influencée par les différences entre les types de participation dans les deux cultures, l’âge au moment de la migration et la dépendance de l’origine sur l’envoi de fonds.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag stützt sich auf die Erkenntnisse aus der Literatur zu sozialem Kapital sowie auf die Erkenntnisse der Soziologie der Werte und erläutert, wie eine Involvierung von Einwanderern in Vereinen von den Beteiligungsnormen in ihrem Herkunftsland sowie von den Normen ihres Gastlandes abhängig ist. Es wird behauptet, dass eine Veränderung des sozialen Umfelds zu einer Änderung der Beteiligung führen sollte. Ich wende hierbei kreuzklassifizierte mehrstufige Modelle auf die in der EVS 2008 erhobenen Daten an, um zu untersuchen, ob die Neigung der Einwanderer zu einer Mitgliedschaft in gemeinnützigen Organisationen von dem durchschnittlichen Beteiligungsgrad in der Gesellschaft des Gastlandes und des Herkunftslandes bestimmt wird. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf eine teilweise Anpassung der Einwanderer hin. Auch wenn ihr Verhalten von der Kultur ihres Herkunfstlandes beeinflusst wird, so wird es doch hauptsächlich von dem Land, in dem sie leben, geprägt. Dabei haben die Unterschiede zwischen den Beteiligungsmustern in den beiden Kulturen, das Alter zum Zeitpunkt der Einwanderung und die Abhängigkeit von Geldüberweisungen Einfluss auf das Verhältnis.

Resumen

El presente documento utiliza percepciones de la literatura sobre el capital social y de la sociología de los valores para explicar que la dependencia de la implicación de los inmigrantes en asociaciones depende de las normas de participación en su país de origen, así como también de las normas de sus países anfitriones. La hipótesis es que el cambio del contexto social debe llevar al cambio de los comportamientos participativos. He utilizado modelos multinivel y multiclasificación en los datos de la EVS 2008 (Estudios de Valores Europeos) para probar si los niveles promedio de participación en la sociedad de origen y en la sociedad anfitriona determinan la propensión de los inmigrantes a convertirse en miembros de organizaciones de voluntariado. Los hallazgos señalan una asimilación parcial de los inmigrantes. Sus comportamientos, aunque se ven influidos por su cultura de origen, son moldeados principalmente por su país de residencia. La relación se ve influida por las diferencias entre los patrones de participación en las dos culturas, la edad cuando se emigra y la dependencia del origen en las remesas.

Chinese

本篇论文运用社会资本文献和价值社会学的结论,阐述移民家属在多大程度上参与社团取决于其原籍国的规范和东道国的规范。本文的论点是,社会环境的变化会导致参与行为的变化。笔者在 EVS 2008 数据中运用交叉分类的多层模型,以评估东道国和原籍国的平均社团参与水平是否决定了移民喜欢加入志愿社团的倾向。调查结论表明移民出现部分同化。虽然移民的行为受原籍国文化的影响,但是主要影响因素为东道国的文化。影响参与行为受影响程度的因素包括两种文化中参与模式的差异、移民时的年龄以及接收侨汇的原籍国亲属。

Japanese

本論文では、社会資本に関する文献と社会学の観点から、出生国の規範と受入国の規範への依存に関する組織の中の移民の関与を解釈する。そして社会的状況の変化は参加行動の変化を導くことを議論する。受入国と出生国の社会において平均的な参加ボランティア団体が移民の傾向を決定する場合には、2008年のEVSデータの交差分類したマルチレベルモデルを用いる。調査結果から移民の部分同化を指摘できる。出生国の文化によって影響を受けた行動規範は、主として居住国によって形成される。その関係は、移住した年齢と送金先の依存という2つの文化における行動パターンの相違に影響されているといえる。

Arabic

يستخدم هذا البحث إختراق الأدب في رأس المال الإجتماعي و من علم الإجتماع للقيم لشرح إعتماد مشاركة المهاجرين في الجمعيات يعتمد على معايير المشاركة في بلدهم الأصلي و كذلك معايير البلاد المضيفة لهم. الجدل هو أن تغيير السياق الإجتماعي يجب أن يؤدي إلى تغيير سلوكيات المشاركة. يمكنني إستخدام نماذج عبر سرية متعددة المستويات على بيانات (2008EVS) لإختبار إذا كان متوسط مستويات المشاركة في المضيف و المجتمع الأصلي يحدد ميل المهاجرين ليصبحوا أعضاء في المنظمات التطوعية. النتائج تشير إلى إستيعاب جزئي للمهاجرين. سلوكهم٬ في حين يتأثر بثقافتهم الأصلية٬ يتشكل أساسا˝ ببلد إقامتهم. العلاقة تتأثر بالإختلافات بين أنماط المشاركة في الثقافتين٬ العمر عند الهجرة و الإعتماد على بلدهم الأصلي في التحويلات المالية.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Working on this paper was supported by CNCS grants PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0210 and PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0669. The author is grateful to Monica Şerban for discussing initial versions of the paper, and Mălina Voicu and two anonymous reviewers for later comments.

References

  1. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleksynska, M. (2011). Civic participation of immigrants in Europe: Assimilation, origin, and destination country effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 27, 566–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., et al. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, D. T., Barraket, J., Lewis, J. M., & Considine, M. (2012). Civic engagement and associationalism: The impact of group membership scope versus intensity of participation. European Sociological Review, 28(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, R., & Milligan, S. (2011). Immigration, ethnicity and voluntary association membership in Canada: Individual and contextual effects. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arts, W. (2011). Explaining European value patterns: Problems and solutions. Studia UBB Sociologia LVI, 1, 7–31.Google Scholar
  7. Bădescu, G., & Neller, K. (2006). Explaining associational involvement. In J. Van Deth, et al. (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies. A comparative analysis (pp. 158–187). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bădescu, G., & Sum, P. E. (2005). Historical legacies, social capital and civil society: Comparing Romania on a regional level. Europe-Asia Studies, 57(1), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Boccagni, P. (2012). Rethinking transnational studies: Transnational ties and the transnationalism of everyday life. European Journal of Social Theory, 2012(15), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiswick, B. R. (1999). Are immigrants favorably self-selected? American Economic Review, 89, 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, James. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Curtis, J. E., Baer, D. E., & Grabb, E. G. (2001). Nations of joiners: Explaining voluntary association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Ulzurrun, L. M. D. (2002). Associational membership and social capital in comparative perspective: A note on the problems of measurement. Politics and Society, 30(3), 497–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinesen, PT. (2011). Where you come from or where you live? examining the cultural and institutional explanation of generalized trust using migration as a natural experiment. European Sociological Review (forthcoming) doi:10.1093/esr/jcr044.
  16. Esser, H. (2010). Assimilation, ethnic stratification, or selective acculturation? Recent theories of the integration of immigrants and the model of intergenerational integration. Sociologica, 1, 1–29.Google Scholar
  17. Espadas, M.A., Aboussi, M., Lozano, E. R. (2012). Associations of immigrants in the third sector in Andalucía: Governance and networking issues, Voluntas, forthcoming. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9277-x.
  18. Fidrmuc, J., & Gërxhani, K. (2008). Mind the gap! social capital, east and west. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freitag, M. (2003). Beyond Tocqueville: The origins of social capital in Switzerland. European Sociological Review, 19(2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social values and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ginieniewicz, J. (2011). Citizenship values and asset accumulation: The case of Argentine migrants. Citizenship Studies, 15(6–7), 881–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gundelach, P. (1994). National value differences: Modernization or institutionalization? International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 35(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Handy, F., & Greenspan, I. (2008). Immigrant volunteering. A stepping stone to integration? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(10), 1–27.Google Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization. Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Inkeles, A. (1969). Making man modern: On the causes and consequences of individual change in six developing countries. American Journal of Sociology, 75(2), 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jagodzinski, W. (2004). Methodological problems of value research. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 97–121). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  29. Jasso, G., & Rosenzweig, M. (1986). Family reunification and the immigration multiplier: U.S. immigration law, origin-country conditions, and the reproduction of immigrants. Demography, 23(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kosic, Ankica. (2008). What motivates civic participation of immigrants? antecedents and experiences. In D. Vogel (Ed.), Highly active migrants. A resource for European civil societies (pp. 93–108). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  31. Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital. The impact of the welfare state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liang, Z. (1994). Social contact, social capital, and the naturalization process: Evidence from six immigrant groups. Social Science Research, 23, 407–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucassen, L., Penninx, R. (2009). Caught between Scylla and Charybdis? Changing orientations of migrant organizations in the era of national states, from 1880 onwards. IMISCOE Working Paper 26.Google Scholar
  34. Meulemann, H. (2008). Introduction. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European social survey 2002 (pp. 1–40). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moya, J. (2005). Immigrants and associations: A global and historical perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 833–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myrberg, R. (2011). Political integration through associational Affiliation? Immigrants and Native Swedes in Greater Stockholm. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nyhagen Predelli, L. (2008). Political and cultural ethnic mobilisation: The role of immigrant associations in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(6), 935–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ozcurumez, S. (2009). Immigrant associations in Canada: Included, accommodated, or excluded? Turkish Studies, 10(2), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paloni, A., Massey, D. S., Ceballos, M., Espinosa, K., & Spittel, M. (2001). Social capital and international migration: A test using information on family networks. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1262–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paxton, P. (2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86(1), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2007). Patterns of formal and informal social capital in Europe. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Arana, R. (2008). Bridging the gap: transnational and ethnic organizations in the political incorporation of immigrants in the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(6), 1056–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A Portrait. third edition. revised, expanded, and updated. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  46. Schofer, E., & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 806–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schrover, M., & Vermeulen, F. (2005). Immigrant organisations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5), 823–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Şerban, M., & Voicu, B. (2010). Romanian migrants to Spain: In or outside the migrant networks—a matter of time? Revue d’études Comparatives Est-Ouest, 41(4), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spencer, S. B. (2011). Culture as structure in emerging civic organizations in Russia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stoll, M. (2001). Race, neighbourhood, poverty, and participation in voluntary associations. Sociological Forum, 16(3), 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Uslaner, E. M., & Bădescu, G. (2003). Legacies and conflicts. The challenges to social capital in the democratic transition. In G. Bădescu & E. M. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and the transition to democracy (pp. 219–232). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. van Londen, M., Phalet, K., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). Civic engagement and voter participation among Turkish and Moroccan minorities in Rotterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(8), 1201–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Voicu, B. (2010). Social Capital in Romania at the beginning of the Milenium: Traveller in the no-friends land?. Iaşi: Lumen.Google Scholar
  55. Voicu, M., & Rusu, A. (2012). Immigrants’ membership in civic associations: Why are some immigrants more active than others? International Sociology, 27(6), 788–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voicu, B., & Şerban, M. (2012). Immigrant participation in voluntary associations across Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(10), 1569–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Bank .(2009). World Bank staff estimates based on the International Monetary Fund’s Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook (2008), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1110315015165/RemittancesData_Nov09(Public).xls.
  59. Wuthnow, R. (2002). Religious involvement and status-bridging social capital. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 669–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zrinščak, S. (2011). Local immigrant communities, welfare and culture: An integration/segregation dilemma. In E. Carmel, A. Cerami, & T. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Migration and welfare in the new Europe. Social protection and the challenges of integration (pp. 197–212). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEPS/INSTEADEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  2. 2.Research Institute for Quality of LifeRomanian AcademyBucurestiRomania
  3. 3.Department of SociologyLucian Blaga University of SibiuSibiuRomania

Personalised recommendations