This paper studies what determines group formation and the degree of participation when the population is heterogeneous, both in terms of income and race or ethnicity We are especially interested in whether and how much the degree of heterogeneity in communities influences the amount of participation in different types of groups Using survey data on group membership and data on U S localities, we find that, after controlling for many individual characteristics, participation in social activities is significantly lower in more unequal and in more racially or ethnically fragmented localities We also find that those individuals who express views against racial mixing are less prone to participate in groups the more racially heterogeneous their community is These results are consistent with our model of group formation

Participation in Heterogeneous Communities

This paper studies what determines group formation and the degree of participation when the population is heterogeneous, both in terms of income and race or ethnicity. We are especially interested in whether and how much the degree of heterogeneity in communities influences the amount of participation in different types of groups. Using survey data on group membership and data on U. S. localities, we find that, after controlling for many individual characteristics, participation in social activities is significantly lower in more unequal and in more racially or ethnically fragmented localities. We also find that those individuals who express views against racial mixing are less prone to participate in groups the more racially heterogeneous their community is. These results are consistent with our model of group formation.

/pdf/participation-in-heterogeneous-communities-5b8ednwgkk.pdf

A standard optimal investment model can be used to analyse an individual's decision to accumulate social capital. We analyse six facts that support the predictions of this individual-based approach: (1) social capital first rises and then falls with age, (2) social capital declines with expected mobility, (3) social capital rises in occupations with greater returns to social skills, (4) social capital is higher among homeowners, (5) social connections fall sharply with physical distance, (6) people who invest in human capital also invest in social capital. We fail to find robust evidence that social capital investments fall with the value of time or that geographic/religious groups generate social capital complementarities.

/pdf/an-economic-approach-to-social-capital-4uhl7oz9sy.pdf

An Economic Approach to Social Capital

Community governance is the set of small group social interactions that, with market and state, determine economic outcomes. We argue (i) community governance addresses some common market and state failures but typically relies on insider-outsider distinctions that may be morally repugnant and economically costly; (ii) the individual motivations supporting community governance are not captured by either selfishness or altruism; (iii) communities, markets and states are complements, not substitutes; (iv) when poorly designed, markets and states crowd out communities; (v) some distributions of property rights are better than others at fostering community governance; and (vi) communities will probably increase in importance in the future.

Social Capital and Community Governance

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon -- group polarization -- has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, "radicalization," cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism. Group polarization bears on the conduct of government institutions, including juries, legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions. There are interesting relationships between group polarization and social cascades, both informational and reputational. Normative implications are discussed, with special attention to political and legal institutions.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/991209454.pdf?abstractid=199668

The Law of Group Polarization

Individuals invest in their local environments by volunteering, getting involved in local government, becoming informed about their political leaders, joining non-professional organizations and even gardening. Homeownership may encourage these investments because homeownership gives individuals an incentive to improve their community and because homeownership creates barriers to mobility. Using the U.S. General Social Survey document that homeowners are more likely to invest in social capital, and a simple instrumental variables strategy suggests that the relationship may be causal. While our results are not conclusive, we find evidence that a large portion of the effect of homeownership on these investments may come from lower mobility rates for homeowners. Using the German Socio-Economic Panel homeownership and citizenship controlling for individual fixed effects. Finally, across cities and counties, areas with more homeowners have lower government spending, but spend a larger share of their government budget on education and highways.

Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w6363/w6363.pdf

Denise DiPasquale

Papers

Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?

Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?

Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?