Advertisement

Introduction: Why this Book?

  • Wahideh Achbari
Chapter
Part of the IMISCOE Research Series book series (IMIS)

Abstract

The focus of this book is on the role voluntary organizations play in generating generalized trust , and in the enhancement and maintenance of a democratic political culture . Voluntary organizations are not only supposed to have an institutional impact by challenging governance structures, but they also arguably instill civic-mindedness in people who participate in activities. However, bonding associations where ethnic ties predominate are supposed to have a negative socialization effect on their participants. This is opposed to bridging voluntary organizations, where ethnic bonds are surpassed. This chapter discusses why interethnic contact in organizations should explain generalized trust . It embeds the research questions in previous work and elaborates the rationale of the research design .

Keywords

Generalize Trust Voluntary Organization Voluntary Sector Social Success Negative Socialization Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abascal, M., & Baldassarri, D. (2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 722–782.Google Scholar
  2. Achbari, W. (2015a). Back to the future: Revisiting the contact hypothesis at Turkish and mixed non-profit organizations in Amsterdam. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(1), 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achbari, W. (2015b). Bridging and bonding ethnic ties in voluntary organisations: A multilevel ‘schools of democracy’model. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(14), 2291–2313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alba, R. D., & Nee, V. (2005). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). Civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, C. J., & Paskeviciute, A. (2006). How ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects for civil society: A comparative study of citizenship behavior. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arends, J., & Flöthe, L. (2014). Wie doet vrijwilligerswerk [Who does voluntary work?] Sociaaleconomische trends. The Hague: Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Bécares, L., Stafford, M., Laurence, J., & Nazroo, J. (2011). Composition, concentration and deprivation exploring their association with social cohesion among different ethnic groups in the UK. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2771–2787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bekkers, R. (2012). Trust and volunteering: Selection or causation? Evidence from a 4 year panel study. Political Behavior, 34(2), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benton-Short, L., Price, M., & Friedman, S. (2007). Global perspective on the connections between immigrants and world cities (pp. 1–33). Washington: George Washington Center for the Study of Globalization.Google Scholar
  13. Berger, M., Galonska, C., & Koopmans, R. (2004). Political integration by a detour? Ethnic communities and social capital of migrants in Berlin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bijzondere subsidieverordening integratie, participate en sociale cohesie (SIP) [Funding regulation] (2007). Gemeente Amsterdam [Amsterdam municipality].Google Scholar
  15. Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social trust and fractionalization: A possible reinterpretation. European Sociological Review, 24(3), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bloemraad, I. (2013). The promise and pitfalls of comparative research design in the study of migration. Migration Studies, 1(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blokland, T. (2003). Urban bonds: Social relationships in an inner city neighbourhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Borgonovi, F. (2012). The relationship between education and levels of trust and tolerance in Europe. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(1), 146–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research in the sociology of education. New York: Greenwald Press.Google Scholar
  20. Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Bunting, M. (2007, 18 June). Immigration is bad for society, but only until a new solidarity is forged. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  23. Burgermonitor, A. (2008). [Amsterdam citizens’ monitor]. Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek [Research and Statistics Center], Gemeente Amsterdam [Amsterdam Municipality].Google Scholar
  24. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2003). The age of migration (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Claibourn, M. P., & Martin, P. S. (2000). Trusting and joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22(4), 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Coffé, H., & Geys, B. (2007a). Participation in bridging and bonding associations and civic attitudes: Evidence from Flanders. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(4), 385–406.Google Scholar
  27. Coffé, H., & Geys, B. (2007b). Toward an empirical characterization of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen, J. (1999). Trust, voluntary association and workable democracy: The contemporary sources of American distrust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 208–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dagevos, J. (2005). Gescheiden werelden? De etnische signatuur van vrijetijdscontacten van minderheden [Separated worlds? The ethnic signature of minorities’ leisure contacts]. Sociologie, 1(1), 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dagevos, J., & Gijsberts, M. (2005). Uit elkaars buurt [Separated neighbourhoods]. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  32. De Hart, J., & Dekker, P. (2003). A tale of two cities: Local patterns of social capital. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 153–169). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. De Tocqueville, A. (1990). Democracy in America. New York: Random House [First published in 1840].Google Scholar
  34. De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Dekker, P. (2003). Social capital of individuals. In S. Prakash & P. Selle (Eds.), Investigating social capital: Comparative perspectives on civil society, participation, and governance (pp. 88–110). New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts?: The origins of social trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5(2), 93–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionlaism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Della Porta, D. (2000). Social capital, beliefs in government, and political corruption. In S. J. Pharr & R. D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 202–230). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Dinesen, P. T., & Hooghe, M. (2010). When in Rome, do as the Romans do: The acculturation of generalized trust among immigrants in western Europe. International Migration Review, 44(3), 697–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Estlund, C. (2005). Working together: Crossing color lines at work. Labor History, 46(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fennema, M., & Tillie, J. (1999). Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: Civic communities and ethnic networks. Journal of Migration and Ethnic Studies, 25(4), 703–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fennema, M., & Tillie, J. (2001). Civic community, political participation and political trust of ethnic groups. Connections, 24(1), 26–41.Google Scholar
  43. Fielding, J. L., & Gilbert, G. N. (2006). Understanding social statistics (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  44. Foley, M., & Edwards, B. (1999). Is it time to disinvest in social capital? Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Gesthuizen, M., Van Der Meer, T., & Scheepers, P. (2009). Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: Tests of putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geys, B. (2012). Association membership and generalized trust: Are connections between associations losing their value? Journal of Civil Society, 8(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gijsberts, M., Van der Meer, T., & Dagevos, J. (2012). ‘Hunkering down’ in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (Eds.). (2000a). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  51. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000b). Case study and generalization. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 98–115). London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  52. Hardin, R. (1999). Do we want trust in government? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness (Vol. 4). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Harell, A., & Stolle, D. (2010). Diversity and democratic politics: An introduction. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 43(02), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration. Göttingen: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Cultural Diversity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hewstone, M. (2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71(2), 417–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Höhne, J. (2013). Language integration of labour migrants in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden from a historical perspective. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für SozialforschungGoogle Scholar
  58. Hooghe, M. (2003). Value congruence and convergence within voluntary associations: Ethnocentrism in Belgian organizations. Political Behavior, 25(2), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2013). Do all associations lead to lower levels of ethnocentrism? A two-year longitudinal test of the selection and adaptation model. Political Behavior, 1–21.Google Scholar
  60. Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., & Trappers, A. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Integratienota 2007–2011: Zorg dat je erbij hoort! [Integration policy: Make sure you belong!] (2007). Ministerie Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Wonen, Wijken en Integratie [Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Living, Neighbourhoods and Integration] Den Haag [The Hague].Google Scholar
  62. Ivarsflaten, E., & Strømsnes, K. (2013). Inequality, diversity and social trust in Norwegian communities. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(3), 322–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jacobs, D., Phalet, K., & Swyngedouw, M. (2004). Associational membership and political involvement among ethnic minority groups in Brussels. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39(4), 342–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Johnston, G. (2007, 19 June). Mixed-race neighbours ‘less trusting’. The Daily Telegraph.Google Scholar
  66. Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. (2010). Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 43(02), 319–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Koopmans, R. (2004). Migrant mobilisation and political opportunities: Variation among german cities and a comparison with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kraaykamp, G., Wolbers, M. H. J., & Ruiter, S. (2009). Family survey Dutch population [Familie-enquête Nederlandse bevolking]. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen, Sociology.Google Scholar
  71. Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2008). Ethnic diversity in neighborhoods and individual trust of immigrants and natives: A replication of putnam (2007) in a west-European country. International Conference on Theoretical Perspectives on Social Cohesion and Social Capital, 15.Google Scholar
  72. Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in Dutch neighbourhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbours, trust in the neighbourhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(4), 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Laurence, J. (2011). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Leefsituatie allochtone stedelingen 2004–2005 [The Living Condition of Urban Minorities] (2004–2005). Den Haag. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP) [The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research].Google Scholar
  75. Leigh, A. (2004). Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. The Economic Record, 82(258), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Leigh, A. (2006). Does equality lead to fraternity? Economics Letters, 93(1), 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 56(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Levi, M. (1996). Social and unsocial capital: A review essay of Robert Putnam’s making democracy work. Politics & Society, 24(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lindberg, E., & Farkas, G. M. (2016). Much ado about nothing? A multilevel analysis of the relationship between voluntary associations’ characteristics and their members’ generalized trust. Journal of Civil Society, 12(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Maloney, W. A., & Roßteutscher, S. (Eds.). (2007). Social capital and associations in European democracies: A comparative analysis (Vol. 16). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Maloney, W. A., Van Deth, J. W., & Roßteutscher, S. (2008). Civic orientations: Does associational type matter? Political Studies, 56(2), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Marschall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the city: Neighbourhood context and the development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 25(2), 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent development in network measurement. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
  86. Morales, L., & Echazarra, A. (2013). Will we all hunker down? The impact of immigration and diversity on local communities in Spain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(3), 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. J. M. (1998). Segregation and social participation in a welfare state: The case of Amsterdam. In S. Musterd & W. J. M. Ostendorf (Eds.), Urban segregation and the welfare state: Inequality and exclusion in western cities (pp. 191–205). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nannestad, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Newton, K. (1999). Social capital and democracy in modern Europe. In J. V. Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton, & P. F. Whiteley (Eds.), Social capital and European democracy (pp. 3–24). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Newton, K., & Norris, P. (2000). Confidence in public institutions: Faith, culture, or performance? In S. J. Pharr & R. D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (Vol (pp. 52–73). Princeton: Prinecton University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Odmalm, P. (2005). Migration policies and political participation: Inclusion or intrusion in western Europe?. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Offe, C. (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 42–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Osberg, L., Smeeding, T. M., & Schwabish, J. (2004). Income distribution and public social expenditure: Theories, effects and evidence. Social Inequality, 821–859.Google Scholar
  94. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Paxton, P. (2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86(1), 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Paxton, P., & Glanville, J. L. (2015). Is trust rigid or malleable? A laboratory experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Penninx, R., & Slijper, B. (1999). Voor elkaar? Integratie, vrijwilligerswerk en organisaties van migranten [For each other? Integration, voluntary work, and organizations of migrants]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES).Google Scholar
  99. Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40(2), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Pharr, S. J., Putnam, R. D., & Dalton, R. J. (2000). Introduction: What’s troubling the trilateral democracies? In S. J. Pharr & R. D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 3–30). Princeton: Prinecton University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities. International Migration Review, 31(4), 799–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530(1), 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Prins, B., & Saharso, S. (2010). From toleration to repression: The Dutch backlash against multiculturalism. In S. Vertovec, & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalist backlash. European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 92–110). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  108. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rapp, C., & Freitag, M. (2014). Teaching tolerance? Associational diversity and tolerance formation. Political Studies, 1–21.Google Scholar
  113. Rijkschroeff, R., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2004). De omstreden betekenis van zelforganisaties. Sociologische Gids, 51(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
  114. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlation and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  116. Roßteutscher, S. (2006). The lure of the associative elixir. In S. Roßteutscher (Ed.), Democracy and the role of associations: Political, organizational and social contexts (pp. 3–15). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  117. Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state: An institutional approach. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspectives (pp. 191–210). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Schaeffer, M. (2014). Ethnic diversity and social cohesion: Immigration, ethnic fractionalization and potentials for civic action. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  119. Schnabel, P., Bijl, R., & de Hart, J. (2008). Betrekkelijke betrokkenheid [Relative engagement]. Studies in Sociale Cohesie [Studies in Social Cohesion]. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  120. Scholten, P., & Holzhacker, R. (2009). Bonding, bridging and ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Changing discourses in a changing nation. Nations and Nationalism, 15(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Smith, S. S. (2010). Race and trust. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sønderskov, K. M. (2009). Different goods, different effects: Exploring the effects of generalized social trust in large-n collective action. Public Choice, 140(1), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sønderskov, K. M. (2011). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership? Unravelling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Staat van de stad Amsterdam [State of the city Amsterdam] (2008). Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek [Research and Statistics Service], Gemeente Amsterdam [Amsterdam municipality].Google Scholar
  125. Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19(3), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Stolle, D., & Howard, M. M. (2008). Civic engagement and civic attitudes in cross-national perspective: Introduction to the symposium. Political Studies, 56(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Stolle, D., & Rochon, T. R. (1998). Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stolle, D., & Rochon, T. R. (2001). Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, & M. Diani (Eds.), Beyond tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective (pp. 143–156). Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  129. Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56(1), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Stolle, D., Petermann, S., Schmid, K., Schönwälder, K., Hewstone, M., Vertovec, S., et al. (2013). Immigration-related diversity and trust in German cities: The role of intergroup contact.Google Scholar
  131. Sturgis, P., & Smith, P. (2010). Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., Read, S., & Allum, N. (2011). Does ethnic diversity erode trust? Putnam’s ‘hunkering down’thesis reconsidered. British Journal of Political Science, 41(01), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Tarrow, S. (1996). Making social science work across space and time: A critical reflection on Robert Putnam’s making democracy work. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tillie, J. (2004). Social capital of organisations and their members: Explaining the political integration of immigrants in Amsterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tillie, J., & Slijper, B. (2007). Immigrant political integration and ethnic civic communities in Amsterdam. In S. Benhabib, I. Shapiro, & D. Petranovich (Eds.), Identities, affiliations and allegiances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Tilly, C. (2005). Trust and rule (Cambridge studies in comparative politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Togeby, L. (2004). It depends… How organisational participation affects political participation and social trust among second-generation immigrants in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Tolsma, J., Van der Meer, T., & Gesthuizen, M. (2009). The impact of neighbourhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44(3), 286–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Uitermark, J., & Van Steenbergen, F. (2006). Postmulticulturalisme en stedelijk burgerschap. Over de neoliberale transformatie van het Amsterdamse integratiebeleid [Post-multiculturalism en urban citizenship. On the neoliberal transformation of Amsterdam’s integration policy]. Sociologie, 3, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Uitermark, J., Rossi, U., & Van Houtum, H. (2005). Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), 622–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  143. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Segregation and mistrust: Diversity, isolation, and social cohesion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Uslaner, E. M., & Conley, R. S. (2003). Civic engagement and particularized trust: The ties that bind people to their ethnic communities. American Politics Research, 31(4), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Van den Broek, A., & Van Ingen, E. (2008). Sociale contacten in de vrije tijd. [Social contacs in your spare time]. In A. Van den Broek, & S. Keuzenkamp (Eds.), Het dagelijks leven van allochtone stedelingen [The daily life of minority urbanites] (pp. 101–124). Den Haag: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
  148. Van der Houwen, K., Kloosterman, R., & Te Riele, S. (2010). Contacten tussen bevolkingsgroepen [Contacts between communities]. Sociale samenhang: Participatie, vertrouwen en integratie [Social cohesion: Participation, trust and intergration] (pp. 183–196). Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: Den Haag.Google Scholar
  149. Van der Meer, T., & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Van der Meulen, R. A. T. (2007). Brug over woelig water: Lidmaatschap van sportverenigingen, vriendschappen, kennissenkringen en veralgemeend vertrouwen [Bridge over troubled waters: Membership of sport associations, friendships, acquaintances and generalized trust] (Vol. 139). Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.Google Scholar
  151. Van Ingen, E., & Bekkers, R. (2015). Generalized trust through civic engagement? Evidence from five national panel studies. Political Psychology, 36(3), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vermeulen, F. F. (2005). The immigrant organising process: The emergence and persistence of Turkish immigrant organizations in Amsterdam and Berlin and Surinamese organisations in Amsterdam, 1960–2000. PhD Thesis, The University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  153. Vermeulen, F.F. (2008). Diversiteit in uitvoering. Lokaal beleid voor werkloze migrantenjongeren in Amsterdam en Berlijn. [Diversity in implementation: Local policy for migrant youths in Amsterdam and Berlin]. Den Haag: Nicis Institute.Google Scholar
  154. Vermeulen, H. (2010). Segmented assimilation and cross-national comparative research on the integration of immigrants and their children. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1214–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Vermeulen, H., & Penninx, R. (2000). Immigrant integration: The Dutch case. Aksant Academic Pub.Google Scholar
  156. Vermeulen, F. F., Brünger, M., & Van de Walle, R. (2009). Het maatschappelijk middenveld in Amsterdam en in de stadsdelen, 2002–2007. Aantallen, typen, netwerken, (bestuurs)leden en de relatie met de lokale overheid. [Civil society in Amsterdam and the boroughs, 2002–2007. Quantities, types, networks, (board) members and the relationship with the local government.] Amsterdam: Instituut for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES), Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  157. Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (2010). Introduction: Assessing the backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. In S. Vertovec & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 1–31). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  158. Waghorne, R. (2007, 1 September). Today’s Garda turban row is tomorrow’s race riot. Ask Paris… . Daily Mail.Google Scholar
  159. Wallman Lundåsen, S., & Wollebæk, D. (2013). Diversity and community trust in Swedish local communities. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  162. Whiteley, P. F. (1999). The origins of social capital. In J. Van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton, & P. F. Whiteley (Eds.), Social capital and European democracy (pp. 25–44). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  163. Wij Amsterdammers: Investeren in mensen en het stellen van grenzen [We residents of Amsterdam: Investing in people and demarking boundaries] (2007). Gemeente Amsterdam [Amsterdam municipality].Google Scholar
  164. Wollebaek, D., & Selle, P. (2002). Does participation in voluntary associations contribute to social capital? The impact of intensity, scope and type. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Applied social research methods series: V.5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  167. Zmerli, S., Newton, K., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Trust in people, confidence in political institutions, and satisfaction with democracy. In J. W. Van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (Vol. 17, pp. 35–65). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied EconomicsFree University BrusselsBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Political ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations