Integration has become both a key policy objective related to the resettlement of refugees and other migrants, and a matter of significant public discussion. Coherent policy development and productive public debate are, however, both threatened by the fact that the concept of integration is used with widely differing meanings. Based on review of attempted definitions of the term, related literature and primary fieldwork in settings of refugee settlement in the UK, the paper identifies elements central to perceptions of what constitutes ‘successful’ integration. Key domains of integration are proposed related to four overall themes: achievement and access across the sectors of employment, housing, education and health; assumptions and practice regarding citizenship and rights; processes of social connection within and between groups within the community; and structural barriers to such connection related to language, culture and the local environment. A framework linking these domains is presented as a tool to foster debate and definition regarding normative conceptions of integration in resettlement settings.

/pdf/understanding-integration-a-conceptual-framework-4hht6n3gt0.pdf

Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework

The debate on causes and consequences of social capital has recently been complemented by an investigation into factors that erode it. Various scholars concluded that diversity, and racial heterogeneity in particular, is damaging for the sense of community, interpersonal trust and formal and informal interactions. However, most of this research does not adequately account for the negative effect of a community's low socio-economic status on neighbourhood interactions and attitudes. This article is to date the first empirical examination of the impact of racial context on various dimensions of social capital in British neighbourhoods. Findings show that low neighbourhood status is the key element undermining all dimensions of social capital, while the eroding effect of racial diversity is limited.

Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Capital and Race in British Neighbourhoods

While most current research documents a negative relation between ethnic diversity and generalized trust, it has to be acknowledged that these results often originate from one-country analyses in North America. In this article, attitudinal measurements from the European Social Survey are combined with Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development data on migration patterns, thus examining the relationship between diversity and trust in a comparative manner across 20 European countries. More fine-grained measurements of diversity (including type and rise of diversity over time and legal status of immigrants) are included in a multilevel model. At the individual level, most of the familiar relations were confirmed. At the country level, hardly any indicators for migration or diversity proved to be strongly and consistently related to generalized trust. Results suggest that the pessimistic conclusions about the negative effects of ethnic diversity on generalized trust cannot be confirmed at the aggregate level across European countries.

Ethnic Diversity and Generalized Trust in Europe : a Cross-National Multilevel Study

A number of studies have found a negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social capital and assumed from this a harmful effect of diversity on social cohesion. This article suggests that social cohesion must be treated as a multifaceted concept and any analysis into the relationship between diversity and social capital needs to be complemented by an analysis of diversity?s effect on ?relations between ethnic groups?. Our results show that while increasing diversity does have a negative impact on social capital, it simultaneously improves perceptions of, and relations between, ethnic groups. Furthermore, we find that forming ?bridging? ties in diverse environments plays a significant role in the positive relationship between diversity and tolerance, and that the presence of ?bridging? ties can also reduce the negative impact of diversity on social capital. However, while our results show that diversity has both positive and negative effects on social cohesion, we find that it is disadvantage which has the most detrimental impact, undermining both social capital and interethnic relations. We also find evidence that using a more sensitive measure of diversity (creating an area typology based on the proportional size, number, and type of ethnic groups in an area) reveals that living in different structures of diversity may lead to different social cohesion outcomes.

/pdf/the-effect-of-ethnic-diversity-and-community-disadvantage-on-2dd40itgpz.pdf

The Effect of Ethnic Diversity and Community Disadvantage on Social Cohesion: A Multi-Level Analysis of Social Capital and Interethnic Relations in UK Communities

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/suppl/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309/suppl_file/so40_vandermeer_suprefs.pdf

Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 40 (2014) "Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social Cohesion"

In recent years, there has been an intense public and policy debate about ethnic diversity, community cohesion, and immigration in Britain and other societies worldwide. In addition, there has been a growing preoccupation with the possible dangers to social cohesion represented by growing immigration flows and ethnic diversity. This paper proposes a critical framework for assessing the links between immigration, social cohesion, and social capital. It argues that the concept of social capital is episodic, socially constructed and value-based, depending on the prevailing ideological climate. Considerations of social capital as a public policy tool to achieve social cohesion need to incorporate an appreciation of alternative conceptions of social capital rooted in a textured under-standing of immigrant processes and migration contexts.

/pdf/immigration-social-cohesion-and-social-capital-a-critical-35wzyjjvde.pdf

Pauline Hope Cheong

Papers

Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review