1. WORKING PAPER SERIES
Creating Social Capital Resources: A case study of Romanian
immigrants in Toronto and the greater Toronto area
Laura Visan
CERIS Working Paper No. 93
November 2012
Series Editor
Kenise Murphy Kilbride
Graduate Programs of
Early Childhood Studies
and
Immigration and Settlement Studies
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 2K3
kilbride@ryerson.ca
CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre

2. The CERIS Working Paper Series
Manuscripts on topics related to immigration, settlement, and cultural diversity in urban
centres are welcome. Preference may be given to the publication of manuscripts that are
the result of research projects funded through CERIS - The Ontario Metropolis Centre.
All manuscripts must be submitted in both digital and hard-copy form, and should
include an Abstract of 100-200 words and a list of keywords.
If you have comments or proposals regarding the CERIS Working Paper
Series please contact the Editor at:
(416) 736-5223 or e-mail at <ceris@yorku.ca>.
Copyright of the papers in the CERIS Working Paper Series is retained by the author(s).
The views expressed in these Working Papers are those of the author(s), and opinions on
the content of the Working Papers should be communicated directly to the author(s)
themselves.
CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre
8
th
Floor, York Research Tower, 4700 Keele St.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
Telephone (416) 736-5223 Facsimile: (416) 736-5688

3. Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 2
2. Review of the Literature ......................................................................................................... 2
i. The role of civic participation in the development of social capital resources……….3
ii. Network construction and the development of social capital resources……………...4
iii. Trust as a bridging concept between the network-based perspective and the civic
participation perspective……………………………………………………………...6
iv. Immigrants in Canada and the construction of social capital resources……………...8
3. Methodology........................................................................................................................... 8
4. Major Findings and Discussion: Civic participation practices and network development
strategies of Romanian immigrants .......................................................................................... 10
i. Political participation as a form of civic involvement……………………………….14
ii. Network construction among Romanian immigrants………………………………..15
iii. Barriers to civic participation for Romanian immigrants……………………………17
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations.......................................................................... 23
Works Cited .............................................................................................................................. 24

4. Creating Social Capital Resources:
A case study of Romanian immigrants in Toronto and the greater Toronto area
Laura Visan
Executive summary
The development of social capital resources represents a key factor for the successful
integration of immigrants in their countries of adoption. Usually, this is acquired through civic
participation and / or networking (the expansion of personal and professional networks). It is
important to include a cultural perspective in the study of social capital in order to understand
how the immigrants’ experiences in their native countries blend with the challenges encountered
during the process of settlement in Canada.
This paper explores the construction of social capital resources in the case of Romanian
immigrants in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area, an ethnic group which, in Canada, has
rarely been the subject of academic research or policy analysis. Romanian-Canadians’ attitude
towards civic participation and the structure of their interpersonal ties were solidly influenced by
the experience of living under a totalitarian regime (Romania, before the 1989 Revolution), in a
social environment dominated by the absence of interpersonal trust and where civic participation
was mandatory. However, this influence has been counterbalanced by the daily realities
encountered in Canada, where community involvement is freely engaged in.
In 2010 and 2011 semi-structured, open-ended ethnographic interviews were conducted
with 30 Romanian-Canadians who had immigrated to Canada between 1990 and 2004. Only
first-generation immigrants were included in the sample. The persons included had come to
Canada as landed immigrants or as visa students. They were at least 12 years old in December
1989, when the totalitarian regime of Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown through the anti-
communist Revolution. Questions were asked regarding the civic participation practices of
interviewees in Canada: the frequency with which they engage in citizenship activities, if any,
the types of organizations preferred for volunteering, their financial or in-kind donations vs time
contributed to various causes, and their reasons for not participating in community activities.
They were also questioned whether their professional and personal networks included more
Romanians or Canadians (a generic term for all ethnicities except Romanian), if they tended to
grant more trust to Romanians or to Canadians, and if they had ever asked another Romanian
immigrant’s help when searching for a job. Other questions in this section included the
frequency with which respondents visit Romania, if at all, and their willingness to start a
business with other Romanians from their homeland. Policy recommendations are provided
regarding how associations and organizations seeking to attract volunteers should target their
outreach efforts towards ethnic communities:
1. More attention should be directed towards community consultation, with research
(qualitative and quantitative) studies customized for each group.

5. 2
2. Not-for-profit organizations should adopt a more transparent approach in communicating
the outcomes of their activities. This would help alleviate the suspicions of immigrants
who come from countries with a low level of interpersonal trust.
3. Organizations should better explain the importance of civic participation to newcomers;
they should insist on the importance of developing bridging (extra-community) ties,
which are likely to facilitate newcomers’ integration into the labour market.
Key words
Immigrants, Romanian-Canadians, social capital, trust, civic participation, networking, bonding
ties, bridging ties
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the research I conducted for my PhD thesis in Communication and
Culture at York University & Ryerson University (joint programme), Toronto. I would like to
express my gratitude to Professor John Shields, Ryerson University, thesis supervisor, Rina
Cohen, Associate Professor at York University, and Amin Alhassan, Associate Professor at York
University, for their valuable advice, and for their friendship and ceaseless encouragement.
1. Introduction
The development of social capital resources represents a key factor for the successful
integration of immigrants in Canada. Usually, this is acquired through civic participation and / or
networking (the expansion of personal and professional networks of ties). Engagement in
community activities may help newcomers overcome their apprehensions related to settling in a
new country and familiarize them with the social, economic and political context of their new
country. At the same time, establishing networks of ties outside one’s close circle of family
members, friends and acquaintances (i.e., bridging ties), represents an essential step towards
securing a job that would accurately reflect and put to use immigrants’ academic and
professional experience.
Studies conducted in the United States have indicated a negative correlation between
ethnicity and social capital resources (Alesina and La Ferrara 2000: 849-850; Coffé and Geys
2006: 1065) but this trend has not been confirmed in the case of Canada (Eisenberg 2007: 74–75;
Aizlewood and Pendakur 2005: 78). However, before analyzing this correlation and discussing
the civic participation practices of various ethnic communities and the networks of ties they have
developed, it is necessary to look at the “continuum” between the memories of homeland and the
everyday reality encountered in Canada. The past events in a person’s life decisively shape an
immigrant’s “cultural interests, tastes, values and world view,” which accompany immigrants in
their country of residence (Bar- Haim 1992: 207). Social capital research should thus provide
more insights into the cultural particularities that inform immigrants’ attitude towards
volunteerism, community involvement and the development of networks of ties, granting more
attention to “cultural attributes”, as well as “values, norms and social trust” (Badescu and
Uslaner 2003: 3). In the case of Romanian-Canadians, it is important to explore the interplay
between their past under a communist regime and their everyday life in Canada, and the
influence of this double experience upon their civic participation practices.
2. Review of the Literature

6. 3
The concept of social capital has often been defined as a mix of civic virtue and expanded
networks of personal ties. Robert Putnam defines social capital as a network of connections that
a person may rely upon, which cannot properly function in the absence of civic virtue.
Reciprocity (the willingness to reciprocate) and trustworthiness are core ingredients for the good
functioning of a society; conversely, a society “of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not
necessarily rich in social capital” (Putnam 2000: 19; see also Francis Fukuyama 1999 for an
emphasis on the cooperative nature of social capital).
According to Marleen Huysman and Volker Wulf, social capital represents “the glue that
holds together social aggregates such as networks of personal relationships, communities,
regions, or even whole nations” (2004: 1). Interpersonal networks may only thrive in
environments governed by mutual trust, a shared set of cultural values, and a sense of obligation
that informs interpersonal relations (ibid). Marc Hooghe also suggests that social capital has a
two-tiered structure, encompassing both structural elements, related to the networks of an
individual, whether formal (voluntary organizations, work environment) or informal (family,
friends or peer related) networks, and attitudinal elements, such as trust, reciprocity and tolerance
(2008; see also Hooghe and Stolle 2003).
Social capital is most often regarded as an asset connected to higher indicators of the
quality of life, such as public safety, health and life satisfaction; it has been also suggested that
solid stocks of social capital usually correlate with higher levels of education and more
confidence in public institutions (Aizlewood and Pendakur 2005: 77-78). Social capital is usually
equated to a “surplus capacity” which allows people “to do what they otherwise would not be
able to do” (Fennema and Tillie 2008: 352). Individuals may hardly if at all thrive outside of
personal networks, which cannot function in the absence of trust. “Civicness” (or more
commonly, “civic mindedness” and “network structure”, the two strands usually associated with
the study of social capital, are thus interdependent. For the sake of clarity, though, these strands
will be presented separately, with an emphasis on trust as their point of convergence.
i. The role of civic participation in the development of social capital resources
While “traditionally, the term ‘civic participation’ has been associated with activities
related to formal political rights and responsibilities” (Schugurensky, 2003: 10), a broader
understanding of this concept may be more helpful: civic participation encompasses
a set of activities that entail active involvement in community (civic) life. In this
regard, it includes active participation (and not only membership) in organizations
such as hobby groups, service clubs, sports and recreation organizations, school
councils, environmental groups, heritage associations, neighbourhood
associations, international solidarity groups, or political organizations.
(Schugurensky 2003: 10).
In a similar vein, Citizenship and Immigration Canada contends that being a Canadian
citizen is more than merely voting and obeying laws; it also entails an ongoing involvement in
one’s community (2008). Sheila Copps, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, has
emphasized that in order to build and consolidate a democratic society in Canada, citizens need
to participate in the decisions that shape their collective future, that is, not only in elections but
also in the activity of public institutions, governance structures and voluntary work (interview in
Canadian Diversity, 2003: 6).
In a memorable statement, Robert Putnam maintained that community and social capital
are “conceptual cousins” (2000, 19), and considered that participation in community life,

7. 4
manifested in altruism, volunteering and philanthropy, represents the central measure of social
capital. Emphasizing the distinction between “doing with” and “doing for,” Putnam argued that a
cheque mailed in an envelope, irrespective of the amount, cannot substitute for actual
participation. Social capital, as a form of “doing with”, entails networks and connection, which is
different from the “doing for” of philanthropy. It is through social networks that reciprocity and
general trust grow among the members of the community, and good deeds depend upon a
network of intra-community ties. The persons who belong to formal and informal networks are
more likely to engage in community activities and to make donations for various causes. Sigrid
Rossteutscher also regards participation in voluntary association as an important generator of
trust, contending that no democracy “can survive without citizen participation and civic
engagement, at least at some minimum level” (2008: 210).
However, other scholars consider that we do not have sufficient empirical evidence in
support of the positive effects that voluntary associations may produce at the level of societies
(Hooghe and Stolle 2003: 23; Hooghe 2008; see also Frane Adam and Borut Rončević, who
doubt that membership in choirs or bird watching groups may produce a broad “spillover effect”
and increase interpersonal trust at the level of an entire community (2003). Dario Castiglione
maintains that participation in voluntary organizations is selective, as some social groups are
more actively involved in such activities than others. According to him, members of civic
organizations are not representative of the broader society. The persons who get engaged in
community-related activities already possess a strong sense of “civicness” or civic mindedness
(2008). Furthermore, civic participation does not always provide equal access to citizens, “giving
more voice to the well-off in society than to those with few educational credentials, low incomes
or less [sic] civic skills” (Verba, in Castiglione, 2008: 578).
It is also suggested that face-to-face interaction represents the key ingredient of civic
participation, while cheques mailed to various charities or even internet-mediated forms of
collaboration represent second-best forms of engagement in one’s community (see Putnam, 2000
and Skocpol, 2003, who deplore the trend towards passive and distant membership, most often
manifested through cheque signing). Conversely, other authors consider that the new forms of
participation are as powerful as physical presence, since “passive members, too, identify strongly
with the values and goals of the association, even if there is very little contact between the
members” (Hooghe, 2008: 574; see also Stolle and Hooghe, 2003). This challenges the theory of
active participation as a generator of trust and casts a new light upon the passive donors, often
pointed at for taking “the easy way” of writing a cheque instead of contributing time for their
causes of choice.
It is not clear whether the development of trust and norms of reciprocity increases with
the time dedicated to any kind of organizations, or if such assets are preconditions for joining
civic organizations. Further studies are necessary in order to clarify the relation between civic
organizations and the development of social capital resources at the level of a particular
community. Longitudinal studies of associational membership, or comparative studies of the
practice of civic participation, including both persons who conscientiously contribute their time
to community and persons who undertake such activities on a less than regular basis, would help
to address this knowledge gap.
ii. Network construction and the development of social capital resources
Along with civic participation practices, the construction of personal networks represents
the other principal strand in the research of social capital. Pierre Bourdieu emphasized the

8. 5
importance of establishing a widespread net of interpersonal relations, arguing that the social
capital network of an individual depends on the number of connections that she could mobilize,
and on the volume of economic, social and symbolic capital that each member of her network
disposes of (1980: 2). However, it should be noted that Bourdieu’s approach toward networks
leaves room for the marginalization and isolation of individuals who do not comply with the
selection criteria established by a particular group. His perspective should be taken with caution
in the context of multicultural societies, such as Canada.
Bourdieu was not the first scholar to focus on the importance of social networks; almost a
decade earlier, Mark S. Granovetter had distinguished between strong and weak interpersonal
ties. According to him, the strength of interpersonal ties lies in the “combination of the amount
of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services
which characterize the tie” (1973: 1361). However, from the individual point of view, weak ties
– which include persons outside the close circle of friends, families, relatives and neighbours –
represent an important factor in generating social cohesion. When an individual changes her job,
she is not only shifting from one network to another, but also bridging these two networks.
Interested in professional mobility, Granovetter argues that weak ties can foster a “sense of
community” (1973: 1361) among professionals and technical specialists, borrowing this focus on
groups rather than individuals from the sociological approach to social capital. Conversely, the
persons who maintain strong ties will most likely prefer to interact with people engaged in strong
ties. Francis Fukuyama also emphasized that intra-group relations of traditional communities
such as tribes, clans or village associations, albeit tight, represent a liability rather than an asset,
given their narrow radius of trust. Intra-group solidarity “reduces the ability of group members to
cooperate with outsiders” (1999) and sometimes produces a negative perception of the latter.
Fukuyama argues that the economic function of social capital is to reduce the transaction costs
inherent in traditional rules and hierarchies (1999).
The distinction between strong and weak ties has often been pursued in terms of
bonding/close and bridging/open ties. According to James Coleman (1998), all networks have
the potential to produce some forms of social capital, depending on the extent of their openness.
Network closure, that is, bonding ties, protects the norms of a particular community and
guarantees the existence of trustworthiness, but also limits the access to external resources;
conversely, weak (bridging) ties have more potential for developing civic skills than bonding
ties. Network closure through the community-acknowledged norms, expectations and sanctions
are particularly important in producing social capital by strengthening the intra-community ties
between the members of a particular community.
Belonging to networks generates two kinds of consequences, James Coleman observes.
The first is access to information, as some members of the network play the role of information
providers or brokers. Information is important because it facilitates action. Sometimes,
individuals belonging to close (bonding) networks may choose to get information about current
events from members of the same network instead of reading the press. This way, the quality of
information deteriorates (1998; see also Burt, 2001: 37). Second, networks generate sets of
norms and effective sanctions that govern the relations among the network members. Observance
of sanctions that guide behaviour leads to a high degree of trustworthiness among the members
of a closed network. In some cases, norms are internalized; if not, they are supported by rewards
for community-oriented actions, and by disapproval towards self-oriented acts. This kind of
social capital is restrictive: it encourages certain actions and constrains the acts that conflict with
the norms of the community

9. 6
A rich personal network usually translates into an easier access to the labour market. As
Ronald S. Burt maintains, society is a market “in which people exchange all variety of goods and
ideas in pursuit of their interests” (2001: 31). The people with solid human capital, materialized
in education and personal and professional skills, have a better chance in the labour market than
individuals lacking such assets. Similarly, people who are richer in social capital, thanks to an
extended network of ties, are likely to benefit from their position as well. According to an
extensive study Burt conducted in 2000, networks with closure appear to be “systematically
associated with substandard performance” in the job market, while “networks that span structural
holes are associated with creativity and innovation, positive evaluations, early promotion, high
compensation and profits” (2001: 45). In a similar fashion, Lin argues that closed networks may
facilitate the sharing of information among the members of a particular group, while more open
networks expose the individual to “better or more varied resources or information, control or
influence” (2008: 59). While binding networks represent “the innermost layer” of social
relations, entailing strong ties and “reciprocal and intense interactions” among the members of a
network, bonding relations have at their core the exchange of information and resources (2008:
59).
Robert Putnam also maintains that bonding resources, that is, dense networks, foster
intra-community solidarity and cohesiveness, providing support for underprivileged members,
but at the same time, they limit access to information and extra-group resources. Bonding
organizations build upon a solid network of ties among the members of a certain group, with
intra-community loyalty prevailing over any interest to establish ties with members of other
groups. Among the associational forms that provide bonding ties, Putnam mentions fraternal
organizations, women’s reading groups and country clubs (2000: 22). Conversely, bridging (or
weak) ties provide better opportunities for networking outside an individual’s close community.
Revisiting Mark Granovetter’s arguments (1973), Putnam argues that weak (bridging) ties are
more valuable than strong (bonding) ties, because they “link me to distant acquaintances who
move in different circles from mine”. Or, in Xavier de Soussa Briggs’ words, bonding social
capital is good for “getting by,” while bridging ties help an individual “get ahead” (in Putnam,
2000: 22-23; see also Tosutti, 2003; Berger, Foster and Meinhard, 2005).
iii. Trust as a bridging concept between the network-based perspective and the civic
participation perspective
Scholars of social capital are cautiously approaching the concept of trust. It is difficult to
measure, and it is still unclear whether trust represents a source or consequence of social capital
(Raiser, 2008). However, in spite of the critics this concept has drawn because of its ambiguity, it
is present in most works on social capital. Often, trust bridges the networking perspective with
the civic participation perspective. In a democratic society, networks entail reciprocity, mutual
obligations and a sense of mutual trust. Cohesiveness at the level of communities, as well as
people’s desire to become involved in civic activities, builds on such favourable milieu. In
Robert Putnam’s words, a society governed by trust is more efficient than a distrustful society in
the same way that money is more efficient than barter. “Trustworthiness lubricates social life”
(2000: 21).
A common distinction made in the studies of trust is that between generalized and
particularized trust. The former presumes that most people are trustworthy and denotes a
willingness to invest a certain amount of trust in most people, or at least to grant them the
“benefit of the doubt” (Putnam, 2000: 136). In turn, particularized trust is “faith only in people

10. 7
like yourself,” and it may sometimes represent a source of stereotypes regarding members who
are situated outside one’s group (Uslaner, 2008). Generalized trusters establish ties outside their
own group, holding “a positive view of human nature and believ[ing] that contact with different
groups can be both personally and socially fruitful” (Uslaner and Conley, 2003: 335). These
persons are more likely to trust people with different racial and cultural backgrounds, as they
believe that most others share common values and beliefs (Pearce, 2008). Conversely,
particularized trusters will generally feel reluctance towards civic participation, embracing an “us
vs them” perspective of the world. When it comes to civic participation, these persons prefer
causes with which they identify, and will seek the company of people from their own
community.
According to Robert Putnam, social capital can hardly function in the absence of
generalized trust. A cohesive social climate builds upon honesty, and this is “the best policy” for
a community, but only if others observe it too. In other words, as Putnam maintains (2000: 136),
“generalized reciprocity is a community asset,” drawing attention to the difference between
honesty based on personal experience, and honesty as a norm of the community. He establishes a
connection between trust and civic participation, arguing that people who trust others are “all-
round good citizens, and those engaged in community life are both more trusting and more
trustworthy” (2000: 136). Conversely, the individuals who are not involved in civic activities are
more inclined to be distrustful of other persons. Eric Uslaner suggests, however, that generalized
trust represents the exception rather than the norm. People are inclined to be more trustworthy
when interacting with members of their own kind, who are perceived “in generally favourable
terms, particularly as being trustworthy, honest and cooperative” (Uslaner, 2008: 104).
Alberto Alessina and Eliana La Ferrara define as trusting those individuals who answer
that “most people can be trusted,” and non-trusting those who say that “you can’t be too careful”
or that “it depends” (2002: 213). The authors observe that a solid stock of mutual trust ensures
the proper functioning of economic activities and facilitates interpersonal relations. However,
there are several factors that potentially reduce the capital of trust, such as: “a recent history of
traumatic experiences”; belonging to a group that has been experiencing discrimination (for
instance, women, racial or sexual minorities); a less than successful social and financial status;
living in a fragmented community with income disparities among its members (2002: 208).
Scholarship on this topic is in an incipient stage, “sketchy at best”, say Alessina and La Ferrara
(2002: 209) but they claim most authors agree that trustworthiness stems from an individual’s
moral and cultural background, from her religious beliefs and from personal experiences.
Further, they contend that people may be more trusting towards persons who are similar to them
such as family, relatives, peers or members of the same ethnic group. A longer interaction with a
particular group of people, or the promise of future interaction, may also consolidate one’s trust
towards the members of that group (2002: 210).
One matter that requires further clarification is the influence that the general level of
trust in a community plays upon individual trust. Alessina and La Ferrara wonder: “If the level of
trust in the country of origin is different from the one of the country of destination, how does the
immigrant’s attitude towards trust change?” (2002: 10). In the case of immigrants, Uslaner and
Conley maintain that people with strong intra-community ties either will refrain from
participating in the larger society, or will only join organizations made of their own nationality.
Conversely, individuals who develop loose ties within their own community are more inclined to
engage in civic activities at the level of the larger society (2003: 331; see also Pearce, 2008).
Uslaner and Conley observe that it does matter with what kind of people an individual prefers to

11. 8
associate. If individuals choose the company of similar persons, this betrays a particular wariness
towards strangers. This kind of individuals “will not take the risks involved in trusting people
they do not know,” (Uslaner and Conley 2003, 333) for fear that other people may not
acknowledge their system of values. Individuals who only engage with similar people “might
become hermits isolated from civic engagement” (Uslaner and Conley 2003: 333). This view
seems at odds with Robert Putnam’s idea, mentioned earlier in this chapter, that the existence of
bonding ties does not preclude the development of bridging ties, and vice versa.
iv. Immigrants in Canada and the construction of social capital resources
According to Abdolmohammad Kazemipur, although Canada represents a destination for
approximately 250,000 immigrants annually, literature on social capital and ethnic communities
“has been growing, but it is still far from giving a thorough picture” (2008: 1). Kazemipur
maintains that researchers from the academic environment as well as policy makers are
interested in the social capital resources developed by ethnic communities but lack “good,
reliable data” (2006b: 221). Furthermore, “a big and thorough picture of the social capital profile
of immigrants as compared to that of the mainstream population” is yet to appear in the scholarly
literature (Kazemipur, 2008: 2).
According to the 2003 Ethnic Diversity Survey, 10.1 million Canadians – 46% of the
population – contribute time to the community, with the highest percentage – 52% – found
among youths aged 15 to 24. Immigrants tend to volunteer less than native Canadians and also to
have lower scores in interpersonal trust, group activities, political expression including
participation in voting, donations, confidence in business people and membership in youth
groups (Kazemipur, 2008). However, this discrepancy between native Canadians and immigrants
should not be regarded as an alarming factor, Kazemipur considers. It should be taken into
consideration that a low interest in politics may be accounted for by the fact that immigrants are
only allowed to vote after acquiring Canadian citizenship. In a similar fashion, modest interest in
civic participation may be related to the fact that, in their countries of origin, immigrants may not
have been familiarized with contributing time outside their micro-communities –families and kin
(Kazemipur, 2008).
Abdolmohammad Kazemipur suggests that the study of networks should represent the
foundation of any study of social capital, and cautions that any research that does not incorporate
this dimension remains incomplete. He also maintains that social capital measured through social
networks does not represent an independent variable, but rather an interactive effect, with three
main components: size of social networks – the social dimension; the resources that individuals
in the networks have to dispose of – the economic dimension; and the willingness of these
individuals to share networks – the cultural dimension (2006a: 60). He admits, though, that
knowledge on the topic is limited, attributable “partly to the fluid nature of social relationships
and the difficulty of capturing their dynamics” (2006a: 48). With the intensification of migratory
fluxes worldwide, a better understanding of the social capital networks developed by immigrants
would provide a clearer insight into how discrimination, language barriers and marginalization
influence them. Kazemipur argues that the limitations immigrants face in their countries of
settlement leave them with little choice “but to develop stronger communal ties and to draw
more heavily on their communal resources” (2006a: 48).
3. Methodology

12. 9
According to Abdolmohammad Kazemipur, a comprehensive understanding of social
capital networks should take into consideration structural, cultural and/or agency factors. A
quantitative approach would provide insights only for the first and last of these dimensions; in
order to gain a better understanding of the cultural dimension, “to get into the minds of various
immigrant groups and view the world from their vantage points in order to acquire of the sense
of their cultural orientations, an X-ray of their minds and souls,” a thorough qualitative research
is necessary (Kazemipur, 2006a: 61).
In 2010 and 2011 I undertook semi-structured, open-ended ethnographic interviews with
30 Romanian immigrants residing in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The persons
included in my research sample came to Canada as landed immigrants or as visa students. They
were at least 12 years old in December 1989, when the totalitarian regime of Nicolae Ceausescu
was overthrown through the anti-communist Revolution. By this age, Romanian children were
already familiarized with the coping strategies and everyday living practices required for
surviving under communism. This sample only included Romanians who immigrated to Canada
after the Revolution because during Ceausescu’s political regime, the few individuals who were
able to escape from the country in spite of the closed borders had a different motivation for
leaving than the successive waves of Romanians who arrived in Canada beginning in the early
1990s. I wished to see how the experience of living under a totalitarian regime, with its
obligation to undertake “patriotic work”, interplayed with the experience of living in Canada
where civic participation is, in general, a free decision, not imposed by a form of authority (with
the exception, perhaps, of the mandatory community service imposed by high school curricula or
social responsibility programs developed by corporations for their employees).
The respondents were selected through a snow-ball technique and are identified through
initials. To the highest extent possible, both genders were represented in balanced numbers.
However, the class representation was homogeneous because of the strict selection criteria
enforced by Immigration Canada. The “benchmark system” in use when these respondents
immigrated to Canada granted additional points for education and professional experience, and
therefore encouraged the selection of university or college graduates, while rendering the
immigration process extremely difficult – if not unachievable – for primary or high school
graduates. As of July1, 2011, the immigration criteria considerably changed, giving preference
to candidates with professional experience in the occupations that are in high demand on the
Canadian labour market.
Questions were asked regarding the civic participation practices of interviewees: the
frequency with which respondents engage in citizenship activities, if any, the types of
organizations preferred for volunteering, their financial or in-kind donations vs time contributed
to various causes, and their reasons for not participating in community activities. The
respondents were also asked to explain what they understood by “being a good citizen” and how
they are situated vis-à-vis their own assessment; at the same time, interviewees were asked to
identify their main duties or obligations and rights as Canadian citizens. Another set of questions
invited respondents to consider whether being a good citizen in a Canadian city means a different
thing than being a good citizen in a Romanian city, or whether the inhabitants of a small or
medium-sized city have more time for volunteering than people who reside in a metropolis.
Respondents were also questioned in regard to their networking practices; they were asked if
their professional and personal networks included more Romanians or Canadians (a generic term
for all ethnicities except Romanian), if they tended to grant more trust to Romanians or to
Canadians, and if they had ever asked another Romanian immigrant’s help when searching for a

13. 10
job. Other questions in this section included the frequency with which respondents visit
Romania, if at all, and their willingness to start a business with other Romanians from their
homeland, as well as the importance of connections for life success (more specifically, the
interviewees were asked if they agreed with an idea commonly held in Romania that “you cannot
succeed in life without connections). This approach may be related to the absence of
interpersonal trust that characterized the Nicolae Ceausescu era, and was perpetuated in the wake
of the 1989 Revolution. Eric Uslaner and Gabriel Badescu argue that high levels of trust usually
correlate with less corruption (2004: 31). Differing from Western European countries, which
enjoy a solid capital of trust both at an interpersonal level and directed towards institutions and
authorities, in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, “people see corruption all
around them and lose faith in others and their system” (2004: 32).
4. Major Findings and Discussion: Civic participation practices and network
development strategies of Romanian immigrants:
The respondents were initially questioned about the rights and responsibilities which, in
their view, are attached to the status of Canadian citizen or permanent resident. In regard to
rights, most respondents referred to freedom of speech, the right to participate in the Canadian
labour market, the right to manifest themselves as an ethnic group, the right to a fair trial, the
right to free circulation or internal migration, the right to own property, the right to benefit from
health services and the right to participate in political activities. It is important to point out, as
one of the interviewees remarked, that since the 1989 Revolution which overthrew the
communist regime, these rights are secured in Romania as well. Different from in Western
Europe, where V.V. felt discriminated on the base of his Romanian nationality, in Canada he felt
immediately welcome. Praising the Canadian multiculturalism for the equality it fosters, the
respondent stated that “Here [in Canada], “the society gives you the opportunity to do what you
want, what you can, depending on who you are, and not on where you come from.”
When it comes to responsibilities, most interviewees indicated the newcomer’s obligation
to find employment, pay taxes, obey the laws, be a diligent employee, avoid relying upon social
welfare support and have a respectful attitude towards other members of the society. To these,
one respondent added the duty of a Canadian citizen to reside in Canada and not to use the
Canadian passport as a convenient safety net. B. P. also mentioned the duty to preserve “the
good things we brought with us from Romania, and thus to add something to the Canadian
culture”; he believes that this practice should be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Five out of 30 respondents consider involvement in community-related activities to be a
duty. V. V. mentioned a Canadian “system of values” that has at its core a sense of solidarity and
cohesiveness. E. L., who participated several times in civic activities, sees the right to criticize
the less-than-gratifying aspects of everyday living in Canada as conditioned by active
participation in society. I. T. considers that Romanians are not nurtured and educated in the
“mentality of volunteering” and that a positive change in this sense requires time and interaction
with more civically active Canadian residents. A. C. believes that active involvement in
communities is a duty in itself, not linked to a particular status in Canada:
I don’t feel a particular gratitude towards the Canadian society, ... a gratitude per
se, as if Canada had given me God knows what. I’ve done a lot of work here.
Some people who come here have this feeling, “Wow, now I need to work hard,

14. 11
to pay back the chance of having been accepted in Canada.” I’ve never felt
indebted, either towards Canada or any other country in the world. If I volunteer, I
don’t do it for Canada but to help other people.
In other cases, disappointing personal experiences or a difficult process of settlement
undermined the possibility of civic participation. E. B. remembered that, in his case, the process
of obtaining the Permanent Resident status lasted four years, and in consequence, he was still
uncomfortable with the idea of contributing his time here towards the Canadian society. R. C.
had a similar experience:
Since my first day here, I invested time, money and effort in my education and
career. The Canadian society never supported me. I got some help from smaller
communities, such as the Hungarian one, but not the Romanian one…. My former
wife was Hungarian. We never got any help from the Romanian church either.
Most respondents consider themselves good citizens; however some of them regard their
limited interest in civic participation as a shortcoming – T. P. and V. V. view themselves as
merely “acceptable” citizens because they only occasionally participated in volunteering
activities. L. M. distinguishes between two categories of individuals: some who conscientiously
involve themselves in community-related activities and others, more passive, who do not
undertake any specific activity in this sense but at least do not represent obstacles for the
Canadian society. He places himself in the second category.
With the exception of two interviewees, D. C. and B. P., the other 28 either do not
contribute time to the community, or do so sporadically. Many persons invoked the lack of time
as the main reason for not participating in civic activities. D. A. also admitted that she considered
civic participation a task for either young people, who are at the beginning of their careers, or for
seniors, who have more time. However, other interviewees tried to balance time constraints with
their wish to do something for society, and participated in particular causes, albeit in isolated
instances. For instance, T. P. helped at the renovation of a Romanian church in his
neighbourhood. G. G. did research and gathered information for Amnesty International. He was
already familiar this organization from his time in Denmark, where he had lived for several years
before immigrating to Canada. Upon his arrival to Toronto, he joined Amnesty in order to
facilitate his integration. Regarding civic participation as a win-win situation, the respondent
stated that the benefit of contributing time to this organization resulted in better contact with
Torontonians, as “people who do this [volunteering] are satisfied with their lives, and as a
newcomer, you get in contact with a more positive part of your immigrant life.” D. B. attended
several Feed the Street programs where he prepared food for homeless persons in Toronto. I. T.
volunteered at a facility that recycled computers, which allegedly were to be donated to children
from East European orphanages. He quit this activity upon discovering that these computers
were in fact sold on E-Bay for $100 apiece.
Upon her arrival in Canada, A. C. felt closer to the Romanian students’ club at her
university. In time, however, she distanced herself from this group and became more constantly
involved with organizations that raise funds for cancer research. “I am more interested; ...I am
more satisfied by giving my help in this way, more than before, when I was thinking more about
the Romanian community,” she states. E. L. contributed his time to several causes, but he was
most satisfied with the experience he had with Habitat for Humanity:
I had volunteered for different organizations and I realized that all their projects
were intangible for me.... I hadn’t been able to see the results, some outcome of
my work that would have a profound significance for me. With Habitat it is

15. 12
different: first of all, they build houses, second, they sustain a cause that affects so
many people, regardless of the country they live in.
I. M. emphasized the fact that contributing time in a formal way by joining organizations and
associations is not part of Romanian culture, but Romanians often get involved in acts of
informal participation, which is “those ways of giving and helping that are not mediated by
formal organizations” (Reed and Selbee, 2000). She remembered that in Romania, when
somebody moved out, many street or building neighbours would come to help. I. M. and her
family have maintained this practice of informal helping in Canada as well. As a real estate
agent, I. M. has an irregular schedule but whenever possible, she is glad to babysit her
neighbours’ children or drive an elderly acquaintance to the doctor. Likewise, several times a
year, O. N. takes the children on his street to a local community centre for sport activities, while
A. V. shovels the snow for his elderly or disabled neighbours. This preference for informal
volunteering illustrates the cultural differences mentioned above by Abdolmohammad
Kazemipur, a feature that needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the social capital
formation of immigrant communities.
As mentioned, only D. C. and B. P. contribute time to the community on a regular basis,
participating in a multitude of activities. D. C. is particularly active in activities associated with
St. George Orthodox Church in Toronto. B. P. has also initiated various projects with the
community around All Saints Romanian Church in Toronto. At the same time, he is the vice-
president of the Association of the Romanian Professors in Ontario. From this position, he
organized several events, including a conference in co-operation with York International on
politics and strategies at the Black Sea and a yearly award ceremony for the Romanian-Canadian
students who complete a graduate program in Engineering at a Canadian University.
We also invited our MP, Jim Karygianis, who represents the Romanian
community in Canada1
. He also encouraged us to translate the Canadian Charts of
Rights and Freedoms into Romanian and helped us publish it in Canada. He
participates in many events that we organize, either at the association or at the
church. Through the association, we tried to help the people who came from
Romania to find a job in academia, and were successful. We managed to hire
several Romanians at York or to collaborate with them on certain projects.
B. P. is also ready to contribute time at the school of his children whenever needed. “Last
year the children had to go for cross-country skiing but there was nobody to take them, so I
offered. Anybody can do these simple things. It is not necessarily a great cause, but such simple
things that you enjoy doing. You help and you see the results.” At the same time, he participates
in the community projects of his neighbourhood, such as cleaning the parks or planting flowers.
He emphasizes again that volunteering does not necessarily require joining a formal association
and spending many hours there. One may contribute time by becoming involved in such small
activities which benefit the neighbourhood community.
All persons included in this sample make donations on a more or less regular basis. Most
of them prefer medical causes, directing their donations to disability-related causes, children’s
hospitals or cancer research organizations. However, Robert Putnam distinguishes between the
actual time contributed for a particular cause and a financial donation, arguing that the latter
cannot substitute for volunteering (2000: 116-120). B. P. shares this view, considering financial
1
Romanian-Canadians have now their first MP, Corneliu Chisu, representing the Pickering-
Scarborough East federal electoral district

16. 13
donations to be less valuable than direct involvement, but because of time constraints he often
resorts to this solution. A regular donor to a multitude of causes and, as mentioned, a
conscientious participant in community activities, he is disappointed by the Romanian
immigrants who write checks to the church, collect their receipt and leave. He believes that
donations should come “wholeheartedly,” without caring for receipts and potential tax
deductions. Twice a year, together with his wife and several other families, B. P. makes
donations toward a small monastery in Bessarabia, without expecting any formal
acknowledgement for this. B. P.’s response contradicts the idea that civic participation is
generally a goal-oriented activity.
Although all respondents make financial or in-kind donations to various causes, most of
them are still sceptical of where their donations end up. L. M. admits that she prefers to make
donations towards “York Central Hospital” rather than a particular organization that runs fund-
raising activities. “Cancer research is such a bottomless bag.... Or United Way: ...I give them
money but I am pretty sure it’s a waste.... It is more useful to donate for a micro cause.” M. M.
would prefer to help individual persons, orphaned children in particular. He is sceptical of any
organized fundraising campaign, which he considers to be “pure financial scam.”
Many respondents would also like to know that the great preponderance of their
donations goes to individuals or groups in need, and not to the administrative structure of a
particular organization. C. V. makes donations for environmental causes and for the campaigns
that follow natural disasters, such as the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami or the Haiti earthquake. He
admits that his gift is accompanied by “a certain amount of guilt because you don’t have another
possibility to help.” He also suspects that the money collected from donations might not actually
reach the people in need. During the interview, he mentioned a CBC investigation that revealed
major flaws in remitting the funds raised in Canada to the Haitian population. He felt more
comfortable when one of his patients went to Haiti on a humanitarian mission; he could thus
donate medical supplies for the disaster area without any doubts regarding the final destination of
his aid.
Raymond Breton suggests that people contribute time to different causes in order to
satisfy a wide range of needs, including: expressing identity, gaining public acceptance, boosting
self-esteem, manifesting political or religious beliefs, or environmental concerns. He argues that
people will become involved with a particular organization or cause on condition they can draw
a personal benefit from this. Breton calls this “the civic participation postulate” and distinguishes
simple membership from participation. He thus seems to eliminate the possibility of “giving
something” to the society without expecting any returns (2003). While pursuing his
undergraduate degree, C. V. did volunteer work at a hospital because he needed several reference
letters. He considers that this kind of “purpose-oriented” participation does not represent
volunteerism per se. In turn, true involvement in community should stem from a person’s
genuine belief or interest in a particular cause. Moreover, he regards the hours he worked for the
hospital as a win-win situation: he obtained his reference letters, while the institution benefitted
from his labour. There is a “very fine line” between volunteering and “forced labour,” and
volunteering is “tricky”, he believes. Every time he was invited to join a particular non-
governmental organization, “the persons there had a purpose.”
I also asked the respondents if they make or made “informal donations.” Numerous
Romanians residing in Romania must raise money in order to send their seriously sick children,
parents or relatives abroad for medical interventions that cannot be performed in Romania. The
patients cannot afford to support the treatment costs of serious maladies, and they need to raise

17. 14
money from public donations. Media dedicate ample space to such cases, also providing
supporting evidence – photocopies of the documents issued by Romanian hospitals – in order to
deter the suspicions of the potential donors. Many online communities or blogs also present
select cases, which often become the subject of widely circulating messages. Most respondents
are suspicious towards such endeavors, unless initiated by a person they know, or “certified” by
a friend or acquaintance who has more details about the case. D. A., for instance, would make an
informal donation if she knew the beneficiary or the person raising the money. Otherwise, “all of
us who came here have debts and priorities, mortgage, children’s education.” Apparently,
geographic proximity matters. D. C. and C. V. contributed to the unfortunate case of the
Montreal grandfather: a parent visiting his children and grandchildren in Canada suffered a
severe stroke before leaving for the airport for his return flight to Romania. In turn, B. P.
considers that any donation made without expecting a receipt is an informal one. So far, he has
not donated money to a particular person. Instead, whenever receiving such messages, he
directed them towards the church, so that more funds were raised. Furthermore, in order to avoid
any suspicion in regarding the destination of money, the priest from All Saints church in Toronto
went to Romania and handed in personally the money raised for a particular campaign.
i. Political participation as a form of civic involvement
The instances of political participation involve contacting a political representative;
petitioning or demonstrating for a certain cause; voting in local or national elections;
participating in local neighbourhood meetings that address political matters; becoming an active
member of a political party or protest organization (Fennema and Tillie, 2008). Some scholars of
social capital correlate participation in volunteering organizations with a more active interest in
political activities. In this sense, Jan W. Van Deth writes that “particularly because voluntary
associations are usually involved in political actions, they function as a Tocquevillian ‘school for
democracy’” (2008: 201). Active members of such organizations are inclined to be more
conscientious about their political duties. This perspective echoes the argument Robert Putnam
expressed in Bowling Alone, according to which voters are more likely to make financial
donations for charitable causes and to contribute their time for the benefit of the society (2000:
35). Conversely, other scholars maintain that “heavy involvement in club life” might be even
detrimental, as it suppresses people’s interest and time for political participation (Erickson and
Nosanchuk, 1990: 206, as cited in Rossteutscher, 2008: 213).
None of the persons included in my research sample has a vested interest in Canadian
politics, nor are they involved in direct political activities, with the exception of voting. The
overwhelming majority of them vote at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Researching
the implications of participation in political activities, scholars have concluded that immigrants
are generally underrepresented in this field because of the difficulties associated with their
settlement in a new country (language training, acknowledgement of foreign credentials, finding
a workplace, etc.). As mentioned above, Abdolmohammad Kazemipur observed that immigrants
score lower than native Canadians on political participation. Liviana Tossutti also notes that
“recently-established newcomers and members of some ethnic groups were less likely than
Canadian-born to vote, to engage in campaign and protest activities, and to contact politicians.”
(2003: 71.) Furthermore, immigrants’ low interest in political activities is likely to deepen
through the growing income gap between the Canadian-born and newcomers, which complicates
the latter’s settlement in Canada, and places ever more integration challenges ahead of them
(2003: 71-72).

18. 15
Of all respondents, only D. C. and R. C. do not vote in all levels of elections and/or on a
regular basis. D. C. works in shifts and the hospital schedule has not allowed her yet to exert this
right; furthermore, she is not particularly interested in politics. R. C. only votes in the municipal
elections in Canada. Before immigrating, he joined a Romanian political party, the same one his
father had been a member of before being imprisoned by the communist authorities for his
political convictions, but the distance between promises and accomplishments disappointed him.
Since then, he decided to stay away from most political activities, both in Romania and in
Canada.
B. P. considers voting to represent both a duty and an obligation for all citizens, and he
performed this duty in both Romania and Canada. I interviewed him several days before the local
elections on October 25, 2010 but he had already exercised his vote online. He sees Canadian
politicians as different from those in his homeland, being more involved in people’s lives and
more accessible. “You get in contact with him, you know him. Take for instance, the ward
councillor: you can appraise his involvement in community life, and evaluate his activity.” T. P.
considers the right to criticize the town, the province and the state as conditioned by one’s voting
record. He also suggests that immigrants should not be allowed to vote for elections in Romania:
“Once that I decided to live here, it is not fair to have Romanians back home live with my
decision . . . they should make the decision there.” I. T. also speaks about the moral obligation to
vote, in appreciation for democratic values:
Yes, I vote. I went on the street at the 1989 Revolution and I saw dead people on
the street. Our childhood was completely crazy; with all that schizophrenia, you
thought one thing, you had to say something else . . . so many young people died
at the Revolution, not only in Bucharest, everywhere, for us to have the right to
vote. Not only did I vote; in Romania I participated on election committees all the
time.
B. P. considers the generalized suspicion that Romanians inherited from the communist
era to be magnified by a particular apprehension towards politics. He regrets the fact that, at the
time of his interview, Romanian immigrants in Toronto/GTA lacked representation at all
political levels but he attributes this to the fact that Romanians form a relatively young
community, whose members do not have a long history of settling in Canada. Hence, few of its
members have reached the point at which they can run for a legislative position in the provincial
or federal Parliament. B. P. considers the lack of political representation to be also determined by
the geographical dispersion of Romanian immigrants:
If we were like Italians in Woodbridge or Greeks in some Danforth areas, more
concentrated in particular zones, we might have found a representative for the
Romanian community. Now, it is difficult to create a distinct community,
geographically speaking. Fifty years ago, when Italians and Greeks immigrated
massively to Canada, it was a different context.
Pieter Bevelander and Ravi Pendakur contend that “increased age and higher education
have a strong positive effect on voting behavior” (2009); this applies to the Romanian
immigrants included in my research sample which, with the exception of two persons of the 30,
vote at all levels of elections. All respondents have superior education, which, as mentioned
earlier, was a prerequisite for their selection as immigrants to Canada. However, Bevelander’s
and Pendakur’s correlation between social capital and trust, and that “trust and belonging are
clearly associated with higher odds of voting” (2009), are not confirmed in the case of the
Romanians in this study.

19. 16
ii. Network construction among Romanian immigrants
Applying the “position-generator” method, Kazemipur found a significant difference
between native Canadians, who have on average six persons in their networks, and immigrants,
with only four persons in their networks. Having a more extended network of contacts translates
into a multitude of benefits, from “accessing useful information about economic opportunities, to
having a resourceful host of friends to draw on in times of economic difficulty” (2006a: 55). As
Kazemipur shows, immigrants have a smaller value of social networks than native Canadians,
and implicitly a lower capacity to construct bridging ties in order to “cut across social
boundaries.” At the same time, immigrants are more reluctant to ask their contacts for assistance,
in comparison to their native-born counterparts. The social networks of immigrants mostly
include their co-ethnics (Portes, 1995; Reitz and Sklar, 1997, as cited in Kazemipur, 2006a: 57).
This entails “a lower frequency of contacts with the larger society and, potentially, a slower
process of language acquisition and cultural adaptation, not to mention the presence of fewer job
choices” (Kazemipur, 2006: 57). According to Raymond Breton, exclusion from the social
networks of the larger society and workplace discrimination are the main factors that make
immigrants determined to seek intra-community ties (2003).
The Romanian-Canadian group has its own particularities, which distance it from the
model above. In Hong Qiu’s terms, they may be considered to form a “knowledge diaspora,”
thanks to the transferability of their skills; that is, they are:
expatriate technical professionals who are well educated and possess knowledge
of the latest development in such high-technology fields as computer science,
telecommunications and information technologies. Depending on their brains, not
physical strength for survival and success, they enjoy comparatively high social
and economic status in host countries” (Qiu, 2003: 148).
Most of them have Romanians in their personal networks but more Canadians among their
professional ties. Once again, the term “Canadians” refers to any ethnic group other than
Romanians.
D. C. and B. P., the two respondents who are actively involved in volunteering activities,
have much richer and diverse networks, both professionally and personally. D. C. and B. P.
count well over a hundred personal acquaintances and professional ties respectively. These
examples confirm Robert Putnam’s idea that high bonding capital may also entail high bridging
capital (2007). At the same time, several respondents emphasized that expanding and
diversifying networks require time and effort. The importance of developing a diverse, more
bridging-oriented network is suggested by A. V.; as a driving instructor, he meets many people
but “the people who take lessons are either immigrants who have just arrived from Romania and
cannot help others, or very young people.”
All respondents include in their social life activities other Romanian friends or
acquaintances. Although she dedicates at least 70% of time to her Romanian relatives and
friends, D. C. partakes in numerous activities with her Canadian colleagues. “We go to camping
together, we go out together, we attend baby showers and Christmas parties together.” About
80% of B. P.’s social life revolves around other Romanians. Together with his friends and
acquaintances, he has joined a dance club. “We are only Romanians there. We meet once a
month, even if we do not dance at all. It is a reason to see each other and see what we have done
lately.”

20. 17
The respondents who have Romanian colleagues have more affinity with them than with
Canadians. They prefer spending their coffee breaks and taking lunches with other Romanians. A
common cultural background facilitates interpersonal relations: “You tell a joke, it is received
and understood differently. ...It is easier to express yourself, we have the same tastes, the same
background,” D. A. commented. Several respondents approached other Romanians when they
searched for a job or wished to change their actual position. Upon arriving in Canada, B. P.
contacted a Romanian professor who informed him about a position in his department and
introduced him to the chair of the department. B. P. applied, went through the interviewing
process and obtained the position. L. M. was employed in the automotive industry more than ten
years ago, thanks to a Romanian acquaintance.
When entering the real estate profession, I. M. bought and sold the first houses of
Romanian immigrants. Furthermore, she considers that an immigrant who opens a business in
Toronto and does not target her own community has an incorrect approach:
At the beginning, at least, it is very important, because the client will understand
you much better, and I don’t refer to the language only. In my early days, I had
only Romanian customers; now perhaps only half of them are Romanians. But
even now, when I have Romanian customers, I understand them better, we have
the same background, the same education, I understand better what they want. I
think this does not disappear in time.
However, some respondents distinguished between spending lunch breaks with
Romanian colleagues and using them as professional resources. E.B. feels “a particular
connection” with his Romanian colleagues but when he has to seek professional help, he always
chooses Canadians. “They are more involved in their field of activity, so I trust them more. I feel
that I have more chances to get help from them when searching for jobs, boosting my resume.
Personally, I prefer Romanians but professionally I prefer Canadians.” Similarly, G.P. trusts his
Romanian friends but feels more comfortable seeking professional counselling from Canadians.
V.V. would feel more comfortable asking a Romanian for help, because “it is easier to make him
feel what I want, and to make myself understood.” However, he would be unsure about the
validity of the information: “I don’t know how well he knows the society, the system.” When it
comes to personal advice, though, all interviewees prefer to ask a Romanian rather than a
Canadian.
More in-depth qualitative and quantitative research is needed in order to better document
this lack of interpersonal trust and the reasons why some of the Romanian immigrants seem to
“not take seriously” other Romanians. It would be interesting to study whether this double
standard, that is, viewing Romanians as amusing and helpful but less trustworthy when it comes
to professional information, has any effect upon the civic participation practices of this ethnic
group. It should be researched whether this kind of attitude is an isolated occurrence or,
conversely, a more significant trend. On the other hand, it should be clarified how solid these
affective personal ties are, considering that most of my respondents do not think of Romanians as
forming a community.
iii. Barriers to civic participation for Romanian immigrants
The city factor
In 1908 Georg Simmel deplored the “blasé outlook” that he noticed in the residents of
metropolises: “Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the inner side of this external reserve is not only
indifference but, more frequently than we believe, it is a slight aversion, a mutual strangeness

21. 18
and repulsion which, in a close contact which has arisen any way whatever, can break out into
hatred and conflict” (1908: 35-37). Echoing Simmel’s thoughts, Louis Wirth wrote about the
close physical contacts and the distant social contacts of city dwellers, about the spirit of
competition and mutual exploitation as characteristic of “urbanites”, and about the clock and the
traffic signalling alienation and regimentation (1995 [1938]: 68-71).
About a hundred years after Simmel’s critique of city life, the data released by Statistics
Canada’s Ethnic Diversity Survey in 2003 also confirmed the negative influence that growing
urbanization has had upon people’s attachment towards their community. It reported that only
18% of Canadians residing in metropolises declared a very strong sense of belonging to their
community, as opposed to nearly 30% people residing in rural areas. Consequently, as most
immigrants settle in the three largest metropolitan areas of Canada – Toronto, Montreal and
Vancouver – and prefer intra-community ties, they develop a weaker sense of belonging towards
the larger community.
Amanda Aizlewood and Ravi Pendakur also contend that the “city factor” has a more
significant impact on the development of stocks of social capital than ethnicity. Reviewing the
data from the Equality Security Community (ESC), a national and stratified random sample of
the Canadian population who speak an official language and are over eighteen years old, and
matching this with municipal data from the 1996 census, Aizlewood and Pendakur emphasized
the “metropolis effect” in assessing the evolution of civic participation and the formation of
social capital networks in the case of immigrant communities, --inasmuch as Canada is one of
the most urbanized countries in the world, with, they note, close to 80 percent of citizens living
in cities or metropolitan areas. Ethnic diversity in Canada is strongly anchored in urban
development; in Toronto, identified as “Canada’s major immigration gateway,” the foreign-born
population “accounted for 45.7% of the CMA's [Census Metropolitan Area] total population of
5,072,100, up from 43.7% in 2001” (Statistics Canada, 2009); Montréal represents “the second
leading gateway for recent immigrants” [Statistics Canada, 2009]; and its share of recent
immigrants, 14.9%, is greater than that of Canada’s 11.5%. In the Vancouver CMA, the 2006
Census “counted 831,300 foreign-born people” (Statistics Canada, 2009) about 92,700 more than
in 2001.
Aizlewood and Pendakur maintain that the cosmopolitanism associated with an urban
lifestyle is linked to the fragmented social capital networks developed by immigrants. In other
words, “the larger the city of residence is, the less likely people are to participate, trust and
socialize” (2005: 96). Patrick W. Pearce also maintains that the size of a particular community
correlates with its members’ sense of belonging. Larger populations are considered to weaken
the intra-cohesiveness of a community, while fostering anomie and individualism (2008; see also
Putnam, 1996; Coffé and Geys, 2005 for a discussion of the negative correlation between the
population size and the dimension of the municipality on the one hand, and the stock of social
capital on the other). Further research should clarify whether the “metropolis effect” experienced
by immigrants comes into play through feelings of estrangement and alienation, or whether it
simply has to do with the city size – a bigger city attracts more newcomers, who do not have the
chance to interact – or if this effect is a combination of both factors.
Most respondents believed that people who live in medium-sized or small cities and not
in metropolises have more time for civic participation and are more interested in community
involvement. One interviewee mentioned that he feels “dissolved in the mass of the city,” while
several respondents complained about the hours they waste every day in traffic, commuting from
home to work. 17 out of 30 respondents mentioned that time constraints prevented them from

22. 19
engaging in community activities but they were also unsure whether their civic participation
would have increased had they lived in a smaller city, with significantly less time spent on
commuting. Respondents have suggested that in smaller cities, “More interpersonal connections
are created, people know each other and are more willing to help each other, while in a big city
you become an “anonym”, you get isolated.” (O. T.). Having spent her childhood in a relatively
small Romanian city, A. C. remembers the strong feeling of intra-community cohesiveness that
she and her family experienced there, while A. V. considers that the residents of smaller cities
are friendlier towards immigrants than people from metropolises: “Here, often people treat you
as a stranger. ...I don’t know you, you are stranger, not even children talk to you, and parents
encourage them [not] to do so. But a small community will always know you.”
Limited interpersonal trust
A limited level of interpersonal trust represents a hindrance to the development of social
capital resources. Most respondents trust their micro-group of Romanian friends with whom they
feel comfortable but are indifferent, when not hostile, towards this ethnic group at large. In some
cases, the respondents had unpleasant experiences with other Romanian immigrants and decided
to adopt a more reserved attitude. Several interviewees remark that, notwithstanding the efforts
of various institutions such as the church, to bring Romanian immigrants together, they do not
yet form a community. Other persons consider that Romanians in Toronto are organized in
“groupuscules”, comprising friends who go to church or attend parties together; however, there
is not much interaction among these groups. Attempting to find a motivation for this absence of
cohesion, I. T. points at “the typically Romanian irony and cut-throat attitude,” while E. L. and
B. P. link it with suspicion. “I think this has very much to do with communism: people are
suspicious and then prefer to stay away and not interact with other persons who may harm
them,” E. L. stated. On the other hand, he has met Romanian immigrants who were so willing to
integrate in Canada that they wished to cut all the ties that might have reminded them of
homeland.
Most respondents admitted that they came to Canada with a prejudice against
volunteerism, a consequence of the years spent under the communist regime:
the first impression is that of unpaid labour which I’ve had enough [of] in
Romania. We had to work for nothing, to gather the crops because the peasants
were too busy stealing. You cannot take this out of your mind; after almost twenty
years [in Canada] my first reflex when I hear about volunteering is, ”Leave me
alone” (L. M.).
There is a clear difference. ...What we had in Romania could not be considered
volunteering. In Canada, volunteering is something of a national asset, it is
something you do for both your interests, and [those of] the entire community. In
Romania, nobody tried to explain me why I should give time for the community,
neither in high school, nor in university. They forced me to do it. Now, there is
that idea [in Romania] that you must be stupid if you do something without being
paid (V.V.).
I don’t volunteer at all. It is a waste of time, because such activities are never
properly managed. ...There is not a program manager there that could coordinate
activities: “You do this, you do that .... “ Let’s plant trees; ok, it turns out to be

23. 20
just a pathetic dawdle.... There is no follow-up, nobody says, “Let’s see how
much our trees have grown.” But I am aware that there is something very wrong
in my mind, and probably in the mind of Romanians in my generation [in their
early 50s]; we all have a big problem, it’s like some kind of a tumour (L. M.).
Even D. C. and B. P., the two respondents who are actively involved in volunteering
activities that target Romanian immigrants, are sceptical towards the existence of a cohesive
community of Romanian immigrants in Toronto and the GTA. D. C. observes that many
Romanian immigrants engage in various activities such as children’s weekly hockey games, but
do not find any time for the Romanian community. D. C. also mentions a particular predilection
for material achievement to the detriment of active civic participation. D. C. adds an inclination
towards procrastination and lateness that some Romanians manifest, as well as the self-centred
approach she notices in some of her fellow Romanians, and their incapacity to accept a
subordinate position. “Everybody knows best how things should be done, even if there is a
manager or an instructor ..... Everybody knows best even if he is not qualified” [ D.C.]. For five
years, the interviewee was the leader of a folk dance group, which eventually broke up due to the
above-mentioned challenges. Sometimes, D. C. feels discouraged by this attitude, and feels that,
for her, the Romanian community is limited to her friends and acquaintances; however, she
continues to encourage her six-year-old and two-year-old grandchildren to speak Romanian, and
she takes them to various events of the Romanian ethnic group.
B. P. talks about several unsuccessful attempts to unite the multitude of above-
mentioned micro-communities. In his view, this could not happen because of the absence of
community leaders:
It was demonstrated; Marcel Ban [the creator of the first online community for
Romanian immigrants in Toronto and the GTA] has attempted [much] and also
[accomplished] a lot for the Romanian community. Thanks to him, we have the
Romanian school: several people made a project and applied to Toronto District
School Board for this school, a very easy thing to do, if you think [about it]. There
are government funds for all communities, and all ethnic groups have at least a
class in their language. But a single person cannot do everything. Several leaders
of the community, of the associations that we have, need to work together, for a
common purpose.
Many respondents invoked the lack of transparency and accountability of their fundraisers. The
issue of accountability is a well-known issue in the activity of non-governmental actors who
undertake fundraising activities. C. V. complains about the limited decision-making power that a
volunteer for a major organization has. He described the opportunity he had to volunteer for
Amnesty International several years ago. His task was to write support letters for several
dissidents he had never heard of. The respondent was de-motivated by an apparent lack of any
impact of his contribution, by the fact that volunteers often do not know if their endeavour yields
any result for years, or not. E. G. is equally sceptical of volunteering, which she regards as a
form of unpaid labour to which newcomers struggling with “Catch 22” requirements for
Canadian experience are particularly vulnerable:
I don’t like this idea of volunteering. ...I needed Canadian work experience when
I got here, and I thought, like everybody, let’s do some volunteering. ...I know a
lot of people who wasted many months volunteering in order to get experience, --
unpaid labour basically, because that’s what volunteering is. I didn’t like this idea;
it was just working without getting a salary. In this society, which boasts of its

24. 21
high living standard? --I think that too many people are taking advantage of this
thing.... “There are so many immigrants coming here; they are educated, they
worked for many years, but we cannot hire them because they don’t have
Canadian work experience. ...Let’s send them to do some volunteering, --I mean,
some unpaid labour.”
T. P. is also wary when it comes to the intentions of not-for-profit organizations. He
would be willing to participate in the construction of a new Romanian church in his
neighbourhood, doing any kind of activity, from cleaning to canvassing. However, he regards
financial components incompatible with genuine civic participation, and is irritated by
organizations which call themselves “not-for-profit” but have employees and pay them a salary.
The responses show again how personal histories blend with the day-to-day realities of
the country of adoption. The interviewees are disappointed by the fragmentation of the
Romanian-Canadian ethnic group; some of them explicitly connected the lack of cohesion to the
suspicion-imbued atmosphere of pre-1989 Romania. On the other hand, all respondents have
adopted fairly quickly the practice of making financial or in-kind donations to various causes,
although most of them are sceptical about the destination of their money. This accountability
issue, however, should not be exclusively traced back to the suspicious atmosphere of the
communist era; donors worldwide are concerned about the insufficient transparency in the use of
funds by not-for-profit organizations.
Particularized trust and the refashioning of ties with the homeland
The Ethnic Diversity Survey revealed that first-generation immigrants have more contact
with the family in the country of origin by visiting, talking over the phone or writing letters and
emails. 75% of the first generation immigrants who had arrived in Canada during the 1990s
initiated monthly or more frequent contact with the families in the home country. In the case of
the immigrants who arrived before 1991, this percentage decreased to 46%. Only 18% of the
second-generation and 8% of the third-generation immigrants continued to maintain monthly or
more frequent contract with homeland families (Statistics Canada, 2003).
Questioned about the frequency with which they travel to Romania and the motivation
for their visits, 26 out of 30 interviewees responded that they return on a more or less regular
basis (twice a year, every year or every few years). Their motivation is exclusively affective;
none of the respondents invoked economic ties as a reason for visiting Romania. Neither do the
respondents send remittances home, but most of them regularly invite family members to visit
them in Canada.
L. M. visits Romania every two years, and sees this as a personal necessity. “I need to see
my friends and relatives, my aunts and uncles who are now old, and I don’t know for how long I
will be able to see them. There is Skype now, and there are other methods to see your friends and
relatives without being close to them ...but I need to see them, I feel complete if I do this.”
Likewise, D. C. returns to Romania approximately every year to visit her family and friends, and
to see places that she is fond of, “for spiritual enrichment.” B. P. often returns to Romania and
sends his children there every summer. Other respondents visited their homeland on a less
regular basis; in ten or fifteen years of residing in Canada, they only returned to Romania once or
twice. Some of them were forced by circumstances to return, for instance, the health issues of
their parents or legal matters. All of them would have welcomed the opportunity to go there
more often. Because of family issues, G. D. has never returned to Romania since settling in
Canada but she is anxious to visit Bucharest when her son has grown older.

25. 22
C. V., J. D. and L. S. are sceptical, if not outwardly hostile, towards the idea of visiting
Romania. J.D., who immigrated to Canada in 1992, recalled in a gloomy tone the experience of
his only visit to Romania, aimed at settling several legal matters. At 7 a.m., all the pubs were
already crowded; all the streets smelled like urine, and people were trying to slash your bag or
steal from your pockets. C. V. and L. S. are hesitant about the idea of visiting Romania; C. V.
has been back four times in 20 years but “every time I felt that I had less and less to do with what
happens there.” L. S. has never visited Romania since 1995, when he came to Canada. “I don’t
have a particular reason for not going, perhaps a lack of... you know, out of sight, out of mind.
...At the beginning I may have wanted to go...but there was no money, and then I left it for next
year, for next year....Years have passed and now I no longer feel the need.” Later in the interview
L. S. equated the attachment to homeland and the interest in its social, political and economic
context to the incapacity of adjusting to living in Canada:
I met many Romanians who live in some kind of a bubble, in an artificial
atmosphere.... They are always thinking about Romania, are very close to
Romania, and live here only to get a material advantage. Some of them don’t even
know what is happening here but know everything about Romania, all politicians
there...so it’s more of a cultural...adjustment. There are two categories, but
perhaps the delineation is not that clear, between those who adjust very well here
and consider that they belong here, and those who regard this country as a
temporary stage, something like, “I’ll befriend the devil till I cross the bridge.” I
belong to the first category.... I’ve always wondered if I’ve torn myself from my
origins, and why I’m so unwilling to go to Romania; it is not something
deliberate.
In some cases, the affective ties are complemented by the participation of immigrants in
the economies of their native countries, or what Manuel Orozco calls the T5 model: “tourism,
transportation, telecommunications, trade and transmission of monetary remittances” (cited in
Stasiulis, 2008: 139). Such initiatives usually stem from an “emotional engagement and [the]
sense of responsibility, even ‘pangs of conscience for having left the country.’ or a commitment
to make things change, even from abroad.” This represents an undeniable reality for numerous
immigrants (Ionescu, 2006: 50).
Only three of the 30 respondents would have no reservations in starting a business with
other Romanian immigrants, or with Romanians residing in Romania; A. C. and E. L. would be
interested in such an initiative, while D. C. would not be especially sceptical towards it; she
generally, though, does not find entrepreneurship in itself too appealing. In turn, B. P., who is
involved in a multitude of causes concerning the Romanian immigrants in Toronto, is less
concerned about the nationality of his potential business partners. He would grant more attention
to the trustworthiness and desire to succeed that those persons manifest. Although he is doing his
utmost to support his co-nationals who immigrate to Toronto, B. P. would not start a business
with Romanians residing in Romania, as he does not trust the business environment there:
I worked there before coming to Canada, and I know how things work. It matters
very much to be infiltrated into politics and to give bribe. Here [in Canada] you
can plan and develop a business in time. While doing my PhD in Romania, I
worked at a company that was selling medical equipment. I was doing everything,
from designing equipment to actual sales. Unfortunately, from what I’m noticing,
things are going from bad to worse. You cannot do anything unless you have
connections among politicians, and this discourages you from the beginning.

26. 23
Other interviewees would start a business with immigrants, but not with Romanians from the
homeland. In this context, L. M. mentions the unstable economic and legal framework, and a
petrified “caste” system in Romania. “Here I flip apartments. I am informed on the economic
life, I listen to the radio…. In Romania, I would build on sand”. It has been also suggested that
there is a certain difference in mentality, as Romanians from their homeland “do not understand
how things go here,” which would surely lead to conflicts. Both the economic and legal
instability of Romania and an alleged lack of information among Romanians would deter C. V.
from starting his business there. “Here, legally, you may have an office only if you are a dentist.
In Romania, you may be anybody, Gheorghe Hagi [a famous soccer player] has lots of clinics.”
Other respondents are sceptical towards the business mentality in Romania. E. B. considers
Romanians to be good entertainers but less dedicated when it comes to hard work. If she were to
start a business with Romanians, from either here or her homeland, R. T. would like them to
have discarded the “Romanian values: I steal, I could not care less about the people around me.”
5. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
Responses provided by the Romanian Canadians included in this research sample
demonstrate the need to incorporate a mix of factors in the analysis of ethnic communities. An
understanding of the social and economic context of the immigrants’ homelands should be
complemented by an examination of the challenges encountered during the process of settlement
in a new country, including everyday living practices; in other words, research should take into
consideration what stays in immigrants’ lives, what is left behind and what happens when these
two forces interact.
The experience of living in a totalitarian social climate dominated by interpersonal
suspicion, with the obligation to undertake “patriotic work” (physical chores that were supposed
to keep people busy and prevent them from engaging in acts of dissent), has left a strong imprint
on Romanian Canadians’ attitude towards civic participation and network development.
According to Marc Morjé Howard, the collapse of communism “did not create a tabula rasa by
erasing people’s prior experiences, but rather ...those very experiences influence people’s current
behaviour” (2003a: 173). Howard considers that there is an essential difference between a
democratic regime, where civic involvement represents a personal choice, and participation in
the communist era, which “was often forced or coerced” (2003: 173), but it took time for people
to acknowledge this distinction. However, after immigrating to Canada, where deciding to
become involved in one’s community is a freely consented decision (with very few exceptions,
such as the mandatory hours included in high-school curricula), most respondents have changed
their perception towards volunteering. Even if they are not yet willing to commit time to
community activities, or would like to do so but cannot find time, they acknowledge the
significant differences between mandatory “patriotic work” and civic participation as understood
in Canada.
We need more contextualized analyses, qualitative and quantitative studies, aiming to
understand the particularities of each ethnic group when it comes to developing social capital
resources, through both civic participation and networking. More attention should be directed
towards community consultation, with research frameworks customized for each ethnic
community. Not-for-profit organizations and all other associational forms seeking to attract
volunteers would gain better insights on how a particular ethnic group may be approached, on its
potential motivations for volunteering or, conversely, on the reasons that prevent its members
from doing so. In the case of the persons included in this research sample, the decision to not

27. 24
contribute time to the community was determined by several factors: lack of time, bad memories
from the communist era when participation was mandatory, or a strenuous process of settlement.
Being aware of these factors would enable not-for-profit actors to better customize their
campaigns for attracting volunteers. At the same time, by undertaking consultation with ethnic
groups, Canadian organizations would have the occasion to initiate more consistent social
interaction, “as a message to newly-arrived immigrants that they are welcome and accepted in
their new home countries” (Kazemipur 2008: 14).
Not-for-profit organizations should adopt a more transparent approach in communicating
the outcomes of their activities. All 30 persons interviewed make financial donations on a regular
basis, particularly to hospitals and organizations conducting medical research. However, more
than two thirds of respondents are suspicious regarding the final destination of their contributions
and would appreciate receiving more information on how the organisation made use of the
money collected. More transparency on this matter would help alleviate the suspicion of donors
and would be particularly useful in the case of immigrants who come from countries with a low
stock of interpersonal trust.
Organizations should better explain the importance of civic participation to newcomers.
Although pressured by the challenges of settling in a new country, immigrants could find
comfort engaging in an activity which would benefit their community, and would provide an
opportunity to learn about Canada and its institutions. Furthermore, volunteering would help
immigrants expand their network of ties beyond their circle of family members, friends and
acquaintances (bonding ties); access to bridging ties is likely to facilitate their integration on the
labour market.
WORKS CITED
Adam, F. and B. Rončević (2003). Social capital: Recent debates and research rrends.
Social Science Information, 42 (2): 155-183
Aizlewood, A. and R. Pendakur (2005). Ethnicity and social capital in Canada. Canadian
Ethnic Studies Journal, 37 (2): 77-107.
Alessina, A. and E. La Ferrara (2000).Participation in heterogeneous communities. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(2): 207-234
Alesina, A. and E. La Ferrara (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics,
85: 207–234.
Badescu, G. and E. M. Uslaner (2003). Introduction. In G. Badescu and E. M. Uslaner
(Eds.), Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy. London: Routledge.
Bar-Haim, G. (1992). Revista Mea: Keeping alive the Romanian community in Israel. In S.
Harold- Riggins (Ed.), Ethnic Minority Media: An International Perspective (pp. 196 –
216). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, I., M. Foster and A. Meinhard (2005). Ethnicity, Social Cohesion and Social
Integration in Toronto, Canada. Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Ryerson
University, Working Paper Series number 32. Retrieved [October 17th
2012] from
http://www.ryerson.ca/~cvss/WP32.pdf
Bevelander, P and R. Pendakur.(2009). Social capital and voting participation of
immigrants and minorities in Canada. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 32(8): 1406-1430.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31 (1):
2-3.

28. 25
Breton, R. (2003). Social Capital and the Civic Participation of Immigrants and
Members of Ethno-Cultural Groups. Paper presented at the Conference on The
Opportunities and Challenges of Diversity: A Role for Social Capital? Montreal,
November, 2003.
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In N. Lin,
K. Cook and R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
------ (2003). Interview with Sheila Copps Minister of Canadian Heritage. Canadian Diversity. 2
(1): 4-7.
Castiglione, D. (2008). Social Capital between Community and Society. In D. Castiglione,
J. W. Van Deth and G. Wolleb (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Coffé, H. and B. Geys (2006). Community heterogeneity: A burden for the creation of
social capital? Social Science Quarterly, 87 (5): 1053-1072.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology Supplement 94: 95-120.
de Soussa Briggs, X. (1997). Social capital and the cities: Advice to change agents.
National Civic Review 86: 111–117.
Eisenberg, A. (2007). Equality, Trust and Multiculturalism. In F. M. Kay and R. Johnston
(Eds.), Social Capital, Diversity and the Welfare State. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Erickson, B., and T. A. Nosanchuk. 1990. How an apolitical association
politicizes. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 27(2): 206-220
Fennema, M. and J. Tillie (2008).Social Capital in Multicultural societies. In D.
Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth and G. Wolleb (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy
George Mason University. Retrieved October 12th
2012 from The International Monetary
Fund website:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology
78: 1360 – 1380
Hooghe, M. (2008). Voluntary Associations and Socialization. In D. Castiglione, J. W.
Van Deth and G. Wolleb (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hooghe, M. and D. Stolle (2003).Generating Social Capital. In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle
(Eds.), Generating Social Capital: Civil society, institutions, and the state. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Huysman, M. and V. Wulf (2004). Social Capital and Information Technology: Current
debates and research. In M. Huysman and V. Wulf (Eds.), Social Capital and Information
Technology. Cambridge Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Ionescu, D. (2006). Engaging Diasporas as Development Partners for Home and
Destination Countries: Challenges for Policymakers. Retrieved October 12th
2012 from
International Organization of Migration Website:
http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs
/serial_publications/mrs26%20interior.pdf
Kazemipur, A. (2006a). The market value of friendship: Social networks of immigrants.