View
216
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Parallel communities? The Segmentation of Migrants’
Social Capital
Mario Diani
(University of Trento)
Sponsored by:
2
My talk will address three issuesa) How much and with whom do ethnic
& migrant organizations (EMOs) link
b) What is the structure of the EMO organizational field
c) What are the implications for the relationship between organizational social capital and the cohesion of civil society
3
Four cities and eleven groupsBarcelona: 100 EMOs interviewed
(Moroccan, Ecuadorian, Andeans)
Budapest: 51 EMOs interviewed (Ethnic Hungarians, Chinese, Muslims)
Geneva: 48 EMOs interviewed (Italians and Kosovars)
Milan: 46 EMOs interviewed (Egyptians, Filipinos, Ecuadorians)
4
How much do they connect? Barcelona: 3.8 major partners (could name 10)
Budapest: 3.9 (Ethnic Hungarians more active)
Geneva: 3
Milan: 2.4 (Egyptians more active)
Differences across cities but not significant differences between groups
5
To whom? (Bonding or bridging?) Barcelona: 1.9 mentions for each actor (198).
Autochtonous below the average
Budapest: 1.4 (139 mentioned) Ethnic Hungarians more central than other groups Autochtonous below the average
Geneva: 1.2 (114 mentioned) Autochtonous above the average
Milan: 1 (105 mentioned) Autochtonous above the average
6
Patterns I Major
partners for EMOs
Many Few Many Geneva
Milan
Ties to autochtonous organizations
Few
Barcelona Budapest
11
Patterns II Geneva, Milan: Fewer ties in generalbut more ties to autochtonous Network integration
Barcelona, Budapest:More ties in general but less ties to autochtonous Network segmentation
12
Provisional remarksa) High involvement in organizational
alliances (many major partners) greater segmentation of organizational fields (ties concentrated within ethnic & migrant groups)
b) Low involvement in organizational alliances (fewer major partners) greater integration of organizational fields (with key role for autochtonous organizations)
c) Social capital does not always yield cohesion
Recommended