Immigration and social interaction

ABSTRACT

The article investigates to what extent the presence of immigrants in urban environments is reflected in the personal social interactions of their residents. Starting from the assumption that social interactions are complex products of contextual conditions, individual characteristics and personal preferences, we examine potentially varying effects of the presence of immigrants in a neighbourhood and city on different forms of social interaction, i.e., on neighbourhood contacts as well as on weak and strong ties. The article contributes to the literatures on social interactions and on consequences of immigration. The analysis is based on a unique data set for a random sample of German urban neighbourhoods. We can show that, in German cities, interaction between the long-term residents and those of immigrant background is frequent and common – in the neighbourhoods and in the social networks more generally. However, evidence regarding the impact of the neighbourhood as opportunity context for encounters and ensuing closer interactions is mixed. While a higher immigration-related diversity of the residential environment increases the frequency of inter-group contact in these environments, effects of differing opportunities for interaction in the residential environment on network ties could not be demonstrated. We suggest that this may be explained by a possibly limited importance of neighbourhood, as compared with other social contexts, and by the relative recency of immigration.

Key words:

• immigration
• diversity
• neighbourhood
• interethnic contact
• social networks

Notes

1. The project team further includes Steven Vertovec of the Göttingen MPI-MMG, Miles Hewstone and Katharina Schmid from Oxford, Dietlind Stolle from McGill University, Montreal, Thomas Schmitt (University Erlangen-Nürnberg) and Jörg Hüttermann of the MPI-MMG. The design of the study is a product of the team as a whole.

2. The term ‘immigrant’ has different connotations in different countries and contexts. In this text, we refer to the first and second immigrant generation. See below for more details.

3. The assumption that immigrants and ethnic minority members were withdrawing from mainstream society was a core claim in the debate about ‘parallel societies’, for examples see Vertovec and Wessendorf (2010).

4. Annual estimates are based on the German Mikrozensus, a sample census comprising 1% of all households. First results of a 10% census conducted in 2011 have led to slightly revised estimates.

5. This refers to the legal category of ‘Spätaussiedler’, individuals from former socialist countries deemed of German descent. Around four million immigrants enjoy this privileged status. Explicit reference to ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ minorities is not common in the German official and public discourse; statistics using such categories are unavailable.

6. Where cities make figures for the population with a migration background available, they are based on the population registration, not on the sample census. The definitions of ‘migration background’ used by individual cities differ from that of the Statistisches Bundesamt but all aim to capture first and second-generation immigrants of foreign and German citizenship.

7. Of the large surveys in Germany, the GSOEP offers data that can be broken down to the relatively large postal districts (see Drever 2008). These areas are not identical with statistical areas. ALLBUS data contain information on the type of context (Gemeindegrößenklassen). The European Social Survey of 2003 contains only subjective information about the ethnic composition of the neighbourhoods in which respondents reside.

8. For a comparison of nation states see e.g., Gesthuizen et al. (2009) and Hooghe et al. (2009). Studies on Germany with larger geographical units are Drever (2008) and Gundelach and Traunmüller (2010).

9. Answers to questions referring to foreign birth, nationality, ethnicity, reflect the saliency of borders, i.e., we will learn about intergroup interactions the respondents are conscious of. In all likelihood, we – like other analyses based on common surveys – underestimate existing intergroup interactions.

10. Respondents were asked, for instance, whether they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I generally don't care about the problems of foreigners’.

11. For strong ties, questions referred to ‘people you feel very close to. By “very close” we mean people with whom you discuss important personal matters, to whom you have frequent personal contact and who are there for you when you need their help’. For weak ties, respondents were asked about ‘acquaintances to whom you have rather loose contact. I am talking about acquaintances with whom you occasionally meet up or speak on the phone, but not close friends with whom you speak about very personal things’.

12. Here for people living in cities of at least 50,000 inhabitants in the Western states including Berlin (comparable to the population of the DivCon survey).

13. The observed differences between contact in the neighbourhood and network ties contradict a common self-selection argument. This line of argument assumes that people with existing intergroup contacts or people with a preference for intergroup interaction often choose to live in neighbourhoods with high migration-related diversity. Frequent intergroup interaction would then not be an effect of contact opportunities but of the presence of an immigrant-friendly selection of the non-immigrant population. If this were true, we should find a link between higher immigrant shares and more intergroup interaction for all forms of social interaction. Further, studies of the motives that lead people to move house do not support assumptions of self-selection. People tend to be motivated by characteristics of the home (e.g., price and space) and changes in the composition of the household, followed by job-related motives and material conditions of the neighbourhood (location, environment) (see Kemper 2008). This pattern is confirmed by the answers to an open question in the DivCon Survey. Here respondents (except those born there) were asked why they moved to the current area of residence. Only 8% mentioned aspects relating to the social structure of the neighbourhood, including its (low or high) share of ‘foreigners’ or immigrants. The prevalence of this type of answer is unrelated to the share of immigrants in the neighbourhoods.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sören Petermann

Sören Petermann is a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity. Previously he worked as a researcher and lecturer at the Institute of Sociology and at the Collaborative Research Centre 580 ‘Social development in post-socialistic societies’ at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. He obtained a Dr. phil. in 2001 and a Dr. phil. habil. in 2012, both from Halle University.

Karen Schönwälder

Karen Schönwälder is Research Group Leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity and extracurricular professor at the Georg August University Göttingen. Previously she held positions at the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB), the University of London and Marburg University.