Skip to content

Migration and social trust

Migration and social trust refers to the observed relationship between immigration-driven ethnic diversity and levels of social trust (particularly generalized trust and trust in neighbors) in receiving societies. A substantial body of research finds that higher ethnic diversity, often resulting from immigration, is associated with lower social trust, at least in the short to medium term.

Background and theory

Social trust—the expectation that others will act in cooperative or non-exploitative ways—is a core component of social capital. Generalized trust (trust in people one does not know personally) is especially important for large-scale cooperation, economic activity, and civic life.

The most influential theoretical account comes from political scientist Robert D. Putnam. In his 2007 paper “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” Putnam argued that ethnic diversity tends to reduce social solidarity and social capital in the short run. Residents of more diverse neighborhoods “hunker down”: they trust others less (including members of their own ethnic group), cooperate less, volunteer less, and withdraw from collective life. Putnam termed this the “constrict” effect.

Earlier work by economists Alberto Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara also documented negative associations between ethnic fractionalization and trust or public goods provision.

Empirical evidence

A major 2020 narrative and meta-analytical review by Peter Thisted Dinesen, Merlin Schaeffer, and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov examined 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The overall meta-estimate showed a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. The association is stronger for trust in neighbors than for more abstract generalized trust, and stronger when diversity is measured at more local (neighborhood or municipal) levels.

Key supporting findings include: - Putnam’s analysis of U.S. data from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey, showing lower trust, altruism, and community engagement in more diverse communities. - Similar patterns reported in studies from Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, and other Western countries. - Evidence that the negative link appears for both natives and, in some cases, immigrants themselves.

The average effect size is modest (partial correlation around −0.026 in the meta-analysis), but it is consistent across a large number of studies and remains after many controls.

Mechanisms

Proposed mechanisms include: - Anomie / social isolation: Diversity increases uncertainty about norms and reduces the sense of shared identity, leading people to withdraw. - In-group preference and reduced contact quality: People prefer to interact with similar others; when neighborhoods become more heterogeneous, meaningful positive contact may decline. - Competition and threat perceptions: Immigration can raise perceptions of economic or cultural competition, lowering trust. - Compositional effects: Immigrants and some minority groups often report lower average trust levels, which can lower community averages when their share increases.

Criticisms, nuances, and long-run dynamics

The literature is not unanimous. Some studies find weaker or null effects after controlling for socioeconomic factors, residential segregation, or inequality. Critics have argued that apparent diversity effects partly reflect compositional sorting (lower-trust groups concentrating in diverse areas) or that segregation, rather than diversity itself, drives the pattern.

Putnam himself emphasized that the negative short-run effects can be overcome in the longer run through the creation of new, overarching identities (as occurred with earlier waves of immigration in the United States). Contextual factors such as economic equality, inclusive institutions, and norms of openness appear to moderate the relationship: more open value climates can attenuate trust erosion.

Effect sizes are generally small, and diversity can bring other benefits (economic dynamism, cultural exchange). The relationship is stronger at local scales than at national ones.

Literature

Key books

  • Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000 (revised edition 2020). (Foundational work on declining social capital in the United States; provides the broader framework later applied to diversity.)
  • Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. (Earlier comparative study of social capital and institutional performance.)
  • Uslaner, Eric M. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. (Argues that generalized trust is rooted in moral values and optimism rather than solely in experience or diversity.)
  • Uslaner, Eric M. Segregation and Mistrust: Diversity, Isolation, and Social Cohesion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. (Challenges the diversity–trust link and emphasizes residential segregation and the quality of intergroup contact as more important factors.)
  • Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press, 1995. (Examines cultural and institutional sources of trust and their economic consequences across societies.)
  • Arneil, Barbara. Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. (Critical examination of social capital theory in relation to diversity and justice.)

Selected articles and reviews

See footnotes below for major empirical studies and meta-analyses.

Summary

Across a large body of research, including comprehensive meta-analyses, ethnic diversity associated with migration is linked to modestly lower social trust, especially trust in neighbors and in more local contexts. The effect is consistent but not overwhelming, is subject to important moderators, and may diminish over longer time horizons as societies adapt. The findings remain a central topic in debates about immigration, social cohesion, and the conditions under which diverse societies maintain high levels of trust.

Notes

  1. Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review (Dinesen, Schaeffer & Sønderskov, Annual Review of Political Science, 2020).
  2. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century (Robert D. Putnam, Scandinavian Political Studies, 2007).
  3. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics.
  4. Love Thy Neighbor? Ethnoracial Diversity and Trust Reexamined (Abascal & Baldassarri, American Journal of Sociology, 2015).
  5. Immigration, social trust, and the moderating role of value contexts (Social Science Research, 2019).
  6. Related reviews include van der Meer & Tolsma (2014) and Schaeffer (2014).
  7. Putnam, Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster publisher page).
  8. Uslaner, The Moral Foundations of Trust (Cambridge University Press).
  9. Uslaner, Segregation and Mistrust (Cambridge University Press).
  10. Fukuyama, Trust (Simon & Schuster / Free Press).