Bourdieu was the first to conceptualize social capital, seeing it as resources derived from social networks. Coleman focused on how social capital contributes to human capital through norms and trust. Putnam emphasized how social capital strengthens community and civic engagement but can be reduced by diversity. This dissertation will examine how Polish migrants in the UK build social networks and social capital considering these theories, analyzing experiences, identity, media and industry roles.

1. Social Capital, Social Networks, and Post-
Accession Polish Migration to the UK
The Experiences of Recent Polish
Migrants, Network Building, and
Accumulation of Social Capital

3. Table of Contents
Page
Abstract…………………………………………………………………..
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………….
Introduction………………………………………………………………
Methodology……………………………………………………………..
Chapter 1. Defining and Conceptualising Social Capital
1.1 What is Social Capital?...........................................................................................
1.2 Three Concepts of Social Capital………………………………………………..
1.2.1 Bourdieu and the very first conceptualisation of Social Capital ………….
1.2.2 Coleman - Social Capital in Creation of Human Capital ………………….
1.2.3 Putnam - Social Capital, Immigration and Ethnic Diversity……………..
1.2.4 Social Networks and Social Support………………………………………..
Chapter 2. Background
2.1 Dynamics of Polish migration to the United Kingdom in the context of EU
Enlargement …………………………………………………………………………
2.2 Identifying root causes of post-2004 Polish migration to the UK…………….
2.3 Migratory strategies adopted by Polish
migrants………………………………………………………………………………

4. Chapter 3. The Experiences of Recent Polish Migrants in the UK.
Social Network Building and Generation of Social Capital………….
Chapter 4. Polish Ethnic Identity, Social Trust and Accumulation of
Social Capital by Polish Migrants in the Context of EU
Enlargement………………………………………………………………
Chapter 5. The Role of the Migration Industry and the New Media
in the Process of Integration of Polish Migrants into British Society,
Network Building and Generation of Social Capital………………….
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….
Bibliography………………………………………………………………
Appendix 1 Figures…………………………………………………..
Figure 1. A three actor system without (a) and with (b) closure………………….
Figure 2. Inflow of EU 8 Workers to the UK, New Applicants to the Worker
Registration Scheme, (in thousands)…………………………………………………
Figure 3. Number of job vacancies in the United Kingdom (in thousands), by
quarters……………………………………………………………………………….
Figure 4. The unemployment rates in Poland in the years 1993–2003 (in %)…....
Figure 5. Visiting of Polish websites in the UK in a period between January 2006
and January 2008……………………………………………………………………..
Figure 6. The Dominance of electronic media
The use of Polish media by Polish migrants in 2007 (UK, Ireland)………………..
Figure 7. The most frequently read Polish newspapers in London and London’s
suburbs (Croydon and Luton)………………………………………………………..

5. Appendix 2 Tables…………………………………………………….
Table 1. Main destination countries for migrants form Poland in the second
quarters of 2000-2007………………………………………………………………….
Table 2. Emigrants (a) by sex and age. Poland 2003-2006………………………….
Table 3. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Working Age Immigrants by Cohort
of Arrival in the LFS: 2001-2006……………………………………………………..
Table 4. Emigrants (a) aged 15 and more by sex, age and education. Poland
2003-2005(b)…………………………………………………………………………...
Table 5. Reception of Polish migrants by British society…………………………...
Table 6. Factor analysis of the bridging and bonding functions of the Internet…..
Table 7. The bridging and bonding function of different online groups…………..
Table 8. Top 10 most visited Polish websites visited in February 2008…………….
Appendix 3 Notes……………………………………………………..

6. Introduction
As a Polish migrant who arrived in Britain in 2006 I have taken a keen personal
interest in the integration of myself and other Polish immigrants. I arrived with no
social network in Britain and, although I have succeeded in integrating into British
society, I am aware that others have struggled due to their limited education and lack
of linguistic skills. The more I have studied, the more I have become interested in
why my experiences have differed from those of many of my co-ethnic immigrants
and this led me to look deeper into some of the theories behind the issue.
The ever increasing interest in the theories of Bourdieu, Coleman and, more
particularly, Putnam in recent years, has encouraged a growing debate around the
notion of social capital. In the field of social sciences, for example, it has become a
central concept of research and analysis and it is currently being more and more often
applied to the study of migration. Attempts have been made to actually measure the
various aspects of social capital and how they can affect people’s ability to build
human capital.
This dissertation will explore the concept and dimensions of social capital as well as
migrants’ networking skills and strategies through a study of experiences of post-
accession Polish migrants in the UK. Acknowledging Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and
Putnam’s great contribution to the study of social capital I will introduce, analyse and
discuss their philosophies of social capital respectively. Following this, I will
undertake a critical examination of the three theories and explore their pertinent
aspects in the subsequent chapters.

7. The aim of this dissertation is to demonstrate the applicability of the theory of social
capital in relation to Polish migrants’ capability to build social networks and the role
of ethnic identity and the migration industry in that process. It also aims to contribute
to a deeper understanding of the complexity, diversity and dynamism of Polish
migrants’ networks and the varied support and resources they provide.
I will mainly draw upon the work of Putnam as his recent revelations of the concept
of social capital are focused, to a great degree, on the analysis of associations between
immigration and ethnic diversity and the impact they have on social capital. This
gives us a basis for the development and further elaboration of Putnam’s ideas in the
context of recent Polish migration to the UK with special reference to migrants’
experiences of, and aptitude to, amass social capital and build new, or reinforce
existing, social networks in the host country.
As post 2004 migration to the UK is a relatively new social phenomenon, research
connecting it with research into sociology and, more specifically, social capital is very
limited. Besides, various sources of information about recent trends in Polish
migration to Britain are often inconsistent and incomplete. As a result, there is also a
lack of complex and extensive knowledge about the experiences of Polish migrants
with reference to migrants’ ability to generate social capital through an active
establishment of new social networks within their ethnic group, but also outside of
that group. Moreover, our knowledge about immigration and immigrants, instead of
coming from reliable and objective sources of data, is mostly based on information we
are fed by media. Consequently, our perceptions are easily influenced by what we
hear or read about, resulting in our subjective and prejudiced way of thinking about

8. immigrants. For that reason, I feel that there is a great need for further investigation
and in-depth analysis of this subject matter.
This dissertation is based on secondary sources, mainly journal articles, case studies,
books and on-line publications.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters.
Chapter one outlines the definition and three concepts of social capital offered by
Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam. It looks at the role of social networks and the three
categories of support they provide.
Chapter two outlines the dynamics and root causes of Polish migration to the UK. It
identifies the migratory strategies adopted by Polish migrants in the context of EU
Enlargement.
Chapter three analyses the experiences of recent Polish migrants in the UK, migrants’
capability to build social networks and generate social capital.
Chapter four examines the role of Polish ethnic identity in the creation/ deconstruction
of social trust among Poles and how it affects their ability to accumulate social capital
after Poland’s accession to the EU.
Chapter five reviews the role of the migration industry and the new media, their
impact on the process of integration of Polish migrants into British society and Poles’
potential to build networks and generate social capital.

9. Methodology
This dissertation uses secondary research, firstly to analyse the three concepts of
social capital and then to relate it to the study of Polish migrants in Britain.
Primary research was impossible due to the length of time over which the research
would have to be carried out and any sample study would have been too small to be
representative.
The majority of my information in respect of the concept of social capital has been
gathered from journals, books, and online sources. In my analysis of Polish migration
I have used journal articles, official statistics, case studies and online publications
(papers).
Because the literature regarding Polish migrants’ network building strategies is
limited and that relating it to social capital is extremely limited, I had to use every
possible resource in order to support my hypotheses and findings. I used materials
from the British Library and the University library and I used Google as my internet
search engine, searching phrases such as, “social capital”, “Polish migrants UK”,
“social networks”, “post-accession polish migration”, “Polish migrants”, “ethnic
identity”, “new media” and “migration industry”. The internet provides a wealth of
information but the difficulty lies in extracting the relevant data.

10. Chapter 1
Defining and conceptualising social capital
In this Chapter I will define what social capital is. I will introduce and outline theories
of social capital put forward by Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam. I will also briefly
look at the role of social networks, the three types of social support they provide and
their importance for migrants and their social ties.
1.1 What is Social Capital?
There has been considerable and increasing interest in social capital theory in recent
years, deriving mainly from sociology and political science, which play a significant
role in popularising the concept, which is being currently applied to various
disciplines and numerous subject areas (Piachud, D. 2002). Social capital as a
“multidisciplinary concept” (Field, J. 2008, p.2) integrates sociology and economics,
and combines a number of ideas including civic tradition, civic engagement, social
cohesion, and social solidarity. (Schuller et al. 2000). In the words of Schuller et al.
(2000)
Social capital - broadly social networks, the reciprocities that arise from
them and the value of these for achieving mutual goals - has become an
influential concept in debating and understanding the modern world…(It)
draws attention to the importance of social relationships and values such
as trust in shaping broader attitudes and behaviour (p.1).

11. Field (2008) maintains that the underlying notion of the theory of social capital is
what he calls, “relationships matter” (p.1). Hence, it has to do with people’s social
interactions, which ultimately lead to the establishment of certain forms of
connectedness and creation of social ties between them. Consequently, over time,
intensification of social contacts bring about the emergence of complex social
networks used by people to cooperate in order to achieve their personal goals (which
is easier when having wide social networks), but most importantly for the collective
benefit (evidenced by increased solidarity, integrity, cohesiveness and stability of
society as a whole) (Field, J. 2008). An individual can belong to different social
networks through which he is connected with other members of a given network with
whom he shares common value system, beliefs or outlook upon life (Field, J. 2008).
Broadly speaking, social capital is embedded in the structure of social networks since
the latter is believed to be the main source of social capital. Hence, the wider social
networks one manages to establish, the greater social capital one generates. However,
as stated by Field, “social relationships can sometimes serve to exclude and deny as
well as include and enable” (Field, J. 2008, p.3). He claims that the more we have in
common with members of our social networks, the more enthusiastic they feel about
helping us and thus the more we can benefit from these connections, if only we can
give the same in return (Field, J. 2008). Besides, as we can be judged upon our social
contacts, which may influence the way we behave, or even shape our personality, “it
could be said that we are, at least partly, defined by whom we know” (Field, J. 2008,
p.13).

12. The notion of social capital gives us a better insight into the actual relations between
an individual, his life and experiences (micro level), the dimensions of civic life, its
system of organisations and institutions (meso level), and the community, the ethnic
group and even the nation (macro level) (Field, J. 2008).
Recent debates of social capital originate from the very early interest in social
networks, which can be dated back to the 1950s and the work of Bott (2002).
Subsequently, Mark Granovetter in “The strength of weak ties” introduced a term
‘weak ties’ (loose acquaintances), whilst focusing on analysing their role and the way
in which they may contribute to the forging of a wider chain of social networks
(Granovetter, M. 1973). Since the late 1960s, Barry Wellman has also developed the
study of communities as social networks revealing the far reaching potential of
communities, which are no longer limited to neighbourhoods and local districts
(Wellman, B. 2002).
1.2 Three Concepts of Social Capital
The concept of social capital was firstly introduced in the works of Bourdieu (1986),
and then continued to be analysed by Coleman (1988, 1994) and most recently by
American political scientist Robert Putnam (1993a, 1993b, 1995, 2000, 2007).
Although Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam all emphasise the power and the prominent
character of social networks and the main prerequisites of their existence such as
generalised reciprocity and social values, (mainly trust (Putnam and Coleman)), they
introduce quite divergent approaches to the conceptualisation of social capital.

13. 1.2.1 Bourdieu and the very first conceptualisation of Social Capital
Bourdieu derived the concept of social capital from his early studies, of what he
called, cultural capital (Robbins, D. 2007). Bourdieu’s work “Reproduction” gave rise
to the concept, while initiating its more detailed analysis in subsequent works such as
‘provisional notes’ (1980) and “Distinction” (1984). In “Distinction” Bourdieu
reformulates the concept of capital while analysing the connections between
economic1
, cultural2
, educational and social3
capital. Through this, he provides us with
a better insight into the understanding of the relation between the categories of class
and status group. He also attempts to distance an understanding of ‘capital’ from the
economic sphere and therefore he utilizes the idea of exchange within economics and
applies it to the spectrum of cultural and social exchange (Moore, R. 2008).
In “The Forms of Capital”, Bourdieu elaborates his distinction between economic,
social and symbolic capital where the latter can be further subdivided into cultural,
linguistic, scientific, or literary capital, which form a habitus4
. This, in turn, represents
a set of values, interests, state of mind, and favoured ways of life characteristic of
every social group and usually used by a particular group to show its superiority over
other groups. Nonetheless, Bourdieu notes that ‘class habitus’ may vary even among
the members of a given group (class fractions) in accordance with the degree to which
it is cultivated (levels of cultural capital also differ between the classes depending on
their status and position in society) (Bourdieu, P. 1986).
Moore (2008) points out that for Bourdieu the main difference between economic and
the sub-types of symbolic capital is that, while the former is instrumental and profit

14. driven, the latter capital somewhat “deny and suppress their instrumentalism by
proclaiming themselves to be disinterested and of intrinsic value” (p.103).
In Bourdieu’s account, social capital cannot be merely downgraded to a level of
economic or cultural capital. However, it is strictly associated with the two while
being built up from the conversion of the latter capitals in the constant process of
social interaction (networking) (Schuller, T. et al. 2000).
He initially saw cultural capital as a powerful tool used by social groups in order to
demonstrate their status and gain power over other groups (Schullet, T. et al. 2000).
According to Robbins (2000), for Bourdieu, cultural capital is rather distinct from the
individual’s financial assets while being even more meaningful and valuable than the
actual wealth. The core premise to Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of social capital
evolves around his analysis of the basis of societal order. Bourdieu’s very first
definition of social capital was focused on “social relationships which will provide, if
necessary, useful ‘support’” (Bourdieu, P. 1977, p.503). He then elaborated and
redefined the above thought while acknowledging the prominence of social networks.
Bourdieu defines social capital as: “the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue
to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationship of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, P.
Wacquant, L. 1992, p.119).
Bourdieu recognizes the significance of social nets treating them as the main sources
of social capital. He argues that an individual should endeavour by all appropriate
means to secure his social contacts hence sustaining the magnitude of his social

15. capital (Field, J. 2008). In some respects, Bourdieu perceives social capital as a
supplementary element of cultural capital (Robbins, D. 2000). Bourdieu’s way of
thinking about social capital has always been heavily grounded in the concept of the
social class division within a society (Field, J. 2008). Building upon Marxist
philosophy, Bourdieu claims that all existing forms of capital are embedded in, and
“transubstantiated” by, economic capital (Bourdieu, P. 1986, p.242)
Bourdieu tried to find an answer to the question of how social capital could possibly
breed social inequality if mingled with any other kind of capital. In his provisional
notes, Bourdieu stresses the issue of inequality generated by disproportionate
distribution of the sources of social capital (which Bourdieu mainly relates to the
unequal educational achievement) (Bourdieu, P. 1980, cited in Field, J. 2008). The
levels of one’s social capital are in some way dependent upon his input of economic
or cultural capital, but more important is his ability to “mobilise by proxy the capital
of a group (family, select club etc.)” (Bourdieu, P. 1980, cited in Field, J. 2008, p.19).
Nevertheless, albeit these three forms of capital are strictly connected with one
another, Bourdieu argues that social inequality is engendered predominantly by social
capital (Field, J. 2008). In his further deliberations, Bourdieu thinks of symbolic
capital as a core reason for uneven division of cultural and social assets (Moore, R.
2008). For that matter, since the level of cultural capital conditions the amount of
one’s social capital it will consequently contribute to the disproportionate acquisition
and unequal access to social networks thus reinforcing social inequality. Therefore,
although people can use their social contacts driven by the same objective (private
interests), the potential benefits they can attain are determined by the value (quality)
of their social networks (Field, J. 2008).

16. From Bourdieu’s point of view, both cultural and social capitals represent the product
of “accumulated labour,” which “takes time to accumulate” (Bourdieu, P. 1986,
p.241). Furthermore, Bourdieu recognises the dominant and powerful role of social
ties in the process of accruing social capital. He puts an emphasis on both their scope
and steadiness. As stated by Bourdieu, social capital is an “aggregate of the actual or
potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network” (Bourdieu, P.
1986, p.248). Bourdieu focuses on the density of individuals’ networks, which value
hinges on the number of social contacts they can create, and the levels of other
capitals they can potentially make accessible to an individual. In Bourdieu’s own
words, "The volume of social capital possessed by a given agent ... depends on the
size of the network of connections that he can effectively mobilize and on the volume
of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed…by each of those to whom
he is connected" (Bourdieu, P. 1986, p.249).
According to Bourdieu, people situated in highly respectable professions, such as
doctors and lawyers, can use their “capital of social connections, honourability and
respectability” for accomplishing, for instance, their career goals (Bourdieu, P. 1984,
p.122). Thus, he suggests that less privileged individuals who lack the necessary skills
while relying only on their educational qualifications may face a problem to preserve
their social capital in the case of ‘devaluation of credentials’. That is because, as
Bourdieu argues, if they lack the valuable connections, their depleted cultural capital
may decrease their knowledge about “fluctuations of the market in academic
qualifications” (Bourdieu, P. 1984, p.142). Furthermore, from the Bourdieuan
perspective, people have different personal predispositions to acquire cultural capital,
which is predetermined by the initial volume of their “embodied” (skills, knowledge),

17. or “institutionalized” (qualifications) cultural capital (Bourdieu, P. 1986, pp.243-248).
Bourdieu argues that economic capital can grow instantly (e.g someone can become
rich overnight by winning a lottery). In contrast, the acquisition of cultural capital
requires the investment of time, personal motivation, and aptitude (Bourdieu, P.
1986). Thus, it can be argued that Bourdieu’s concept can be successfully utilized to
explain how, for example, new migrants manage to use education to move from
relatively underprivileged positions to the position when they become confident
enough to build sparse but extensive social networks, which can enhance their access
to diverse social resources.
Since Bourdieu argues that social capital should be treated as a direct outcome of
accumulated labour, an individual is required to constantly strive to utilize all possible
resources (such as time, skills) in order to make his contacts work, thus assuring their
stability and permanence. The collective effort and cooperation is what, according to
Bourdieu, conditions the existence of solidarity within social networks. For social
connections to be productive and thus profitable in the long run, people must feel
obliged to assist one another under any circumstances (a tenet of reciprocity) (Field, J.
2008).
Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of social capital may seem individualistic as, from his
point of view, people tend to treat their social networks as a form of long-term
investment, which is expected to be beneficial in many ways. Although Bourdieu
views social capital as a collective phenomenon, he nevertheless argues that “Conflict
is built into society” (Ovenden, K. 2000).

18. He puts a great emphasis on conflicts and the power relations within social structures,
which increase the capacity of a social actor to enhance his personal interests
(Bourdieu, P. 1984).
Bourdieu’s work on social capital is primarily focused on analysing how the elite
groups exploit their connections motivated by profiting from its potentiality.
Therefore, he argues that social ties of people from other classes or with lower status
are unable to generate any kind of profit, thus being meaningless and valueless (Field,
J. 2008). For that reason, Bourdieu’s theory of social capital has been proved
relatively metaphorical and conjectural and thus only selected elements of Bourdieu’s
notion can be applied to practical research (Schuller, T. et al. 2000).

19. 1.2.2 Coleman - Social Capital in Creation of Human Capital
James Coleman is widely regarded as the founder of social capital although Bourdieu
is known to have been working on a similar theory at the same time and Coleman
himself names Glen Loury, Nan Lin and Mark Granovetter as the originators
(Coleman, J. 1988).
Coleman’s model of social capital is deeply rooted in the philosophy of structural
functionalism. Hence, his work alludes to a specific kind of community – “one
characterised by strict, traditional values, rigorous discipline, and hierarchical order
and control” (Dika, S.L. Singh, K. 2002, p. 34).
Coleman proposed the following conceptualization of social capital:
Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a
variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They
all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain
actions of individuals who are within the structure (Coleman, J. 1988,
p.98; 1994, p. 302).
Four most important forms of social capital identified by Coleman (1988, pp. 302-
305; 1994, pp. 304-311) comprise:
a) Obligations, Expectations and Trustworthiness of Structures. This can be
described as doing things for others and them helping you out, possibly in
repayment (a reciprocal relationship).

20. b) Information Channels/Potential. This could be described as divulging
some information which may be of use in the future (e.g. one individual
may wish to have certain knowledge but is not prepared to pay the price of
obtaining it, even if that price is only an investment of time).
c) Norms and Effective Sanctions. This is the establishment of standards and
values to be shared by a group or community.
d) Authority Relations. This is the leadership of a skilled or knowledgeable
leader which benefits those he is leading. Ultimately, he becomes a very
powerful individual who does not only increase his social capital, but the
social capital of the whole group.
Coleman (1988, 1994) considers social capital as a powerful attribute (rather than
property) of individuals and, simultaneously, of the group to which they belong. Its
measurable dimensions encompass: diversity and strength of ties between social
actors (evident in a form of obligations and expectations), social norms directly
related to trust, as well as access to and density of information channels.
In contrast to Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s investigations regarding the role and benefits of
social capital have been mainly focused on non-elite, lower class, disadvantaged
peoples5
. The adoption of this approach contributed to the greater understanding and
wider applicability of the concept itself.
For Coleman, social capital should be treated as a resource as its fundamental
principle is based on the notion of reciprocity (reciprocal agreement) expected from
the members of the collaborating social networks. The expectations of reciprocity as
well as a high degree of trust, shared morals, and values leads to the success and

21. development of existing social contacts (Field, J. 2008). Coleman aimed at combining
the main aspects of the theory of social capital stemming from sociology with those of
human capital having its roots in economics (Schuller et al. 2000).
Furthermore, Coleman was heavily influenced by the work of Gary Becker who
incorporated into his study of human capital6
the framework of rational choice theory.
(Becker, G. 1964). He thus explored, utilised, and elaborated the framework of
rational choice theory ultimately applying it to his concept of social capital. Rational
choice (or rational action) theory proclaims that all participants of social life seek to
gain individual profit and thus social interaction is treated as a form of exchange
(Reference……). Rational choice theory asserts a highly individualistic and
egocentric model of human behaviour governed by self- interest and ruthless
competition, where every individual is pursuing his own ideas without showing any
consideration for the misfortune of others.
Building upon that concept, Coleman, however, used the notion of social capital as a
means of identifying and presenting the circumstances under which people manage to
cooperate, since for him, social capital is an essential precondition for promoting (via
family norms, for example) development and advancement of human capital as well
as educational achievement (Field, J. 2008).
Initially, in the paper titled “Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital”,
Coleman attempted to explain the relationship between the two whilst stressing the
importance of the process in which social capital contributes to the progression of
human capital (Coleman, J. 1988). Coleman believes that there is a strong linkage and

22. interconnectedness between social and human capital, which according to him are
“often complementary” (Figure 1) (Coleman, J. 1994, p.304).
In the aforementioned paper, Coleman (1988) considers social capital as a valuable
resource, which can be acquired through an individual’s social contacts.
Based on the conventional economic model distinguishing between private and public
goods, Coleman explains the reason why the successful maintenance of social capital
strictly hinges on the cooperation of groups of people.
Social capital builds up over a period of time as relationships grow and this is of
benefit to all involved in the social group, often, in Coleman’s writing, a family
(Coleman , J. 1991). Although recognising that there could be negative aspects to
social capital he saw it fundamentally as a public good that could not only benefit
those who make the effort to realise it but all members of the group (Colman, J.
1988).
Coleman further argues that both human and physical capital always involve
unerringly private goods, which are utilized, managed and exploited by individuals
for their private interests. By contrast, social capital is, for Coleman, quintessentially a
public good, which is created and developed by combining a collective effort, and
which may be beneficial for all the individuals, who not necessarily contributed to the
achieved result, but who belong to the given social structure (Coleman, J. 1988).
According to Coleman, dense or reciprocal social contacts are indispensable,
especially in the process of creation of norms of reciprocity, which endorse a

23. collective organisation offering protection or gain to its members (Coleman, J, 1994).
Coleman gave a further definition of social capital when discussing the theory of
rational choice sociology. Utilising his earlier paper he redefined social capital as,
the set of resources that inhere in family relations and in community social
organisation and that are useful for the cognitive or social development of
a child or young person. These resources differ for different persons and
can constitute an important advantage for children and adolescents in the
development of their human capital. (Coleman 1994, p. 300).
It is difficult to rationalise the pursuit of self-interest inherent in the rational choice
theory with the apparently unselfish desire of building social capital. Coleman
addresses this apparent disparity by arguing that social capital arises not because
actors make a calculating choice to invest in it but as “a by-product of activities
engaged in for other purposes.” (Coleman 1994, p. 312).
Coleman’s theory of social capital is perhaps the most difficult to define as it exists in
the structure of relations between actors or individuals. It is intangible and yet its
results are real. Coleman states that whereas physical capital is tangible as it can be
seen and touched, human capital is less tangible as it is embodied in the skills and
knowledge of a person and social capital is less tangible still as it exists in the
relations between individuals. He also states that, in the same way as physical and
human capital can be productive, social capital can be productive, giving the example
of a group of trusting and trustworthy individuals being able to achieve more than
another group of individuals lacking these qualities (Coleman, J. 1994).

24. Generally speaking, in Coleman’s understanding, social capital has a propensity to
dwell in relationships among actors, rather than being located in the individuals
themselves. Thus, it could be argued that, in a way, social capital can be both an
individual (it benefits individuals) and social (it is a product of a collective action)
phenomenon as the two are inevitably related to one another.
The trust, obligations, or information mentioned earlier (Coleman, J. 1994) cannot
possibly exist in the absence of individuals implementing or transacting them.
Besides, individuals would be unable to exercise trust or enforce norms or get full
access to information if separated from the rest. Also, social capital brings about
social changes since it gives people an opportunity to interact socially and act together
towards achieving a collective goal. Ultimately, it also provides the grounds for the
growth and expansion of collective action and civic organisations.

25. 1.2.3 Putnam – Social Capital, Immigration and Ethnic Diversity
Putnam is regarded as one of the most influential advocates of social capital (Field, J.
2008). In 1993, when he had been studying the differences in society between North
and South Italy, he defined social capital as “features of social organisation, such as
trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating
coordinated actions.” (Putnam et al. 1993, p.167). He elaborated on this by saying that
social capital contributes to collective action by punishing those who do not comply,
encouraging strong values of reciprocity, allowing the free flow of information, taking
into account past success as a result of collaboration and acting as a template for
future collaboration. (Putnam et al. 1993).
For Putman (1993, 1995, 2000, 2007; Putnam et al. 1993) social capital is built upon
the following components: reciprocity, moral obligations and norms of cooperation,
social values (particularly trust in the community); civic engagement (participation
and use of civic networks); local civic identity (sense of belonging and solidarity
within the group); and social networks (number, size and density of personal,
voluntary and state networks). Taking into account the above elements we can deduce
that in social networks of citizens’ activity (especially voluntary organisations), norms
and social values (trust) are the most essential features of social life enabling
participants to act together more efficiently to pursue shared objectives.
Furthermore, Putnam believes that social capital can be measured in three dimensions:
vertical vs horizontal ties (Putnam, et al. 1993) refer to the hierarchical level of
individuals in a network and the extent of relationships between those at a similar

26. level or at different levels (as regards power or status); strong vs weak ties (Putnam, et
al. 1993), where strong ties clearly create greater cohesion amongst network members
but, as Granovetter (1973) has shown, there are benefits in weak ties as they involve a
wider and more varied set of connections; bridging vs bonding, where bridging ties
bring together a wide variety of members, whereas bonding ties link similar members
(Putnam,R. D. 2000, 2007)
Similarly to Coleman’s, Putnam’s (1993a, 1995, 2000, Putnam et al. 1993) concept of
social capital originates from functionalist theory (especially in terms of its focus on
social integration), but it is also influenced by notions of pluralism and
communitarianism. Moreover, both Putnam (1993b, 2000, 2007) and Coleman (1988,
1994) argue that social capital reinforces positive social control. Thus, they claim that
it is a family’s and community’s duty to nurture such characteristics as trust, shared
information, norms, and values. Following Coleman’s lead, Putnam argues that
Social capital refers to connections among individuals - social networks
and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In
that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic
virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” demonstrates that civic
virtue is at its most potent when it resides in a strong network of
reciprocal social relations. Indeed, a society of many virtuous but isolated
individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Putnam, R. D. 2000,
p. 19).

27. Therefore, the strength of a social network is thought to benefit and protect its
members (Bian, Y. 1997). Conversely, the benefits of weaker networks have been
advocated by others: Granovetter (1973) suggests that weaker rather than stronger ties
are more likely to create opportunities for accessing novel information. Lin (2008), in
her social resources theory, suggests that open or expansive networks are more likely
to bring about diversity of embedded resources. Similarly, Burt (1992, 2001)
maintains that by building bridges and reaching out wider, different and presumably
better resources might be found which will bring benefits to the members.
More recently, Putnam (2007) also offered a “lean and mean” definition of social
capital, which represents exclusively “social networks and the associated norms of
reciprocity and trustworthiness” (p.137).
Generally speaking, Putnam’s deliberations concentrate on two issues: the strength of
the ties in a network and the trust within them. He theorises that “externality” is the
key to the benefits of social networks and trust. Similarly to Coleman he suggests that
collaboration of individuals in a community will be beneficial to the whole of the
community, not only those who collaborate (Putnam, R. D. 2000).
Putnam further contends that the rules of conduct, norms and obligations are
maintained and enforced by social networks. The essence is the expectation of
generalised reciprocity: “I’ll do this for you without expecting anything specific back
from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me
down the road” (Putnam, 2000, p. 21). Nonetheless, this arrangement only operates in
a community of trust since trustworthiness, as Putnam puts it, “lubricates social life”
(Putnam, R, D. 2000, p.21).

28. With respect to immigrants and diversifying societies, Putnam argues that
“immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital”,
thereby creating a situation where “trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism
and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer” (Putnam, R. D. 2007, p.137).
However, as trust is a primary requirement for the successful implementation of social
networking, it may be very hard for newly arrived migrants to access dense networks
in a host society, consequently they may prefer to stick to their co-ethics, and the
environment they are familiar with, which in turn may lead to social exclusion and
isolation of immigrant communities.
Putnam suggests that, in comparison with human and physical capital, social networks
have value (particularly to those who belong to these networks).
Putnam suggests that even in the labour market people tend to look for employment
using social connections they can rely upon. Our social capital is mainly composed of
social networks we possess and consequently social groups to which we belong
(Putnam, R. D. 2007). Therefore, social networks by giving us adequate support can
also assist us in achieving our goals. Putnam recognises that a high level of
individuals’ social capital is reflected in the welfare and wellbeing of the entire
society (Putnam, R. D. 2000).
Putnam has analysed associations between and impact of immigration and ethnic
diversity on social capital. He claims that growing numbers of immigrants bring about
greater diversification of societies, which, according to Putnam, is “inevitable…and
over the long run…also desirable” (Putnam, R. D. 2007 p.138). He claims that well-

29. established migrant communities are capable of harmonising with the rest of society
while giving a basis for new identity formation. At the same time, ethnic diversity and
migrants’ cultural contribution become very valuable for the wellbeing of accepting
societies as they “are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and
developmental benefits” (Putnam, R. D. 2007, p.137). On the other hand, however,
Putnam recognises that temporary migration movements are less desirable since they
entail destructive consequences for the entire society evident in a form of subverted
social stability and impeded social capital (Putnam, R. D. 2007 p.138). Above all,
Putnam emphasises that “emigration devalues one’s social capital, for most of one’s
social connections must be left behind (Putnam, R. 2000, p.390).
In addition, Putnam identifies two contrasting philosophies delineating the impact
ethnic diversity may have on social interactions. The first one called the contact
hypothesis relates to the importance of social contacts between people from various
ethnic and racial backgrounds. It proposes that the more we interact with people from
other ethnic and racial backgrounds, the more we understand and respect their
cultures, and trust them. It proclaims that diversity eliminates the in/out group
distinction and “enhances out-group solidarity or bridging social capital, thus
lowering ethnocentrism” (Putnam, R. 2007, p.144), and
In contrast, the second one called the conflict theory suggests that close contact with
people from distinct nationalities (ethic heterogeneity) is more likely to lead to
mistrust and wariness among peoples. Consequently, it implies that diversity fosters
the in/out group distinction, out-group distrust and simultaneously “strengthens in-
group solidarity or bonding social capital, thus increasing ethnocentrism” (Putnam, R.

30. 2007, p.144). Likewise, Putnam refers to the constrict theory, which purports that
diversity (as well as immigration) may undermine solidarity both within and outside a
given group, consequently lowering levels of bonding and bridging social capital
(Putnam, R. D. 2007).
At this point, we can re-introduce Putnam’s division of social capital into bonding, as
regards social relationships with “people who are like you in some important way”
(homogeneous people with respect to shared ethnicity, age or gender) (Putnam, R.
2007, p.143), and bridging as regards social relationships with “people who are unlike
you in some important way” (heterogeneous people) (Putnam, R. 2007, p.143). He
also claims that the two can happily co-exist. Hence it allows a parallel to be run
between high bonding and high bridging and between low bonding and low bridging.
(Putnam, R. 2007).
Putnam also suggests that although diversity, per se, does not lead to separation
within or outside a group or ‘bad race relations’, it entails social seclusion and
feelings of insecurity. He then indicates that it may as well affect civic engagement,
social relationships (bridging and bonding), and even people’s lifestyles (Putnam, R.
D. 2007). At this point, it is worth mentioning that active and willing participation of
citizens within a community is believed to be crucial for the development of social
capital and for the functioning of a society (Putnam, R. D. 2007)
Putnam (2007) maintains that whilst mistrust is more common in the neighbourhoods
with higher levels of crime and poverty, people living in poorer areas are
simultaneously more likely to be afflicted by ethnic diversity than the affluent. Also,
he argues that people living in economically disadvantaged regions/ localities are

31. usually less engaged in societal and public life in general. Since the association
between economic inequality and social capital seems to be far more complicated and
uneven than that between ethnic diversity and social capital, it is hard to identify the
actual dependence between the two. He further argues that there is no direct link
between ethnic diversity and economic inequality and thus the latter has no impact on
the correlation between diversity and social capital (Putnam, R. D. 2007).
Nonetheless, Putnam (2007) recognizes the possibility that those migrants who are
strictly dependent on their co-ethics may inevitably find themselves in a
disadvantaged economic situation. Although, this situation may be improved if
migrants get an opportunity and have courage to form social nets outside their own
closed community. However, this claim has not been supported as yet with any
empirical evidence (Ryan el al. 2008 p.676).
From Putnamian perspective, social distance is what conditions the quality and
effectiveness of social interactions. The smaller the distance the more willingly people
cooperate and the greater is the feeling of integrity “common identity, closeness, and
shared experiences” (Putnam, R. 2007, p.159). Accordingly, in the reverse situation
people feel distant and suspicious of one another. Hence, Putnam claims that social
distance hinges on to social identity, which is constantly being socially modified and
redefined.
He argues that “the relationship between (identity and social capital) is almost
certainly powerful and reciprocal” (Putnam, R. D. 2007, p.159), as our identity is
bound to have an effect on our social contacts (and thus social networks). Building
upon Putnam’s argument, we may assume that immigrants’ ethnic identity (a static

32. characteristic) and the country/place to which they migrate can automatically
determine social distance between them and the host society. Putnam claims that our
identity can be socially reconstructed after a certain period. However, as we shall see,
for migrants, whilst adapting to the new setting, ethnic identity may actually become
less important. Putnam further argues that peoples’ perceptions of racial and ethnic
divisions have been constantly changing over the years.
Putnam recognises that in an ongoing scenario of global migration and diversification
of societies there is an urgent need for reconstruction of social identities which,
however, concerned not only immigrants, but also the receiving societies, especially
so as to minimise social distance (Putnam, R. D. 2007). Putnam contends that it is
vital for modern societies to redefine in a broader context the meaning of ‘we’. As a
result, Putnam proposes that shared identity should encompass a creation of “a new,
more capacious sense of ‘we’ (and) a reconstruction of diversity (but without)
bleach(ing) out ethnic specificities” (Putnam, R. 2007, p.164). He is convinced that a
society (as a whole) would implement a positive approach to (new) immigration and
would value it more, if only immigration policy undertook constructive actions, which
would entail redefinition of ethnic identities initiating the formation of a new, shared
identity (Putnam, R. D. 2007).
1.2.4 Social networks and the support they provide
In order to gain a better insight into and understanding of migrants’ social networks
and their role in the generation of social capital, it is important to recognise the
complexity and the function of social networks while taking into consideration and, at

33. least briefly, identifying the different types of social support they may provide. Based
on the typology offered by Schaefer’s et al. (1981, cited in Oakley, A. 1992), we can
distinguish between three subsequent categories of social support.
Firstly, emotional support, which is sought usually from relatives or a partner and
concerns getting help with psychological difficulties one may experience including
nostalgia or despair. Emotional support may also be provided through close and long-
lasting relationships with a family or friends who do not necessarily live in one’s
immediate environment (Granovetter, M 1973) This kind of support, obtained from
kith and kin back home, is usually most effectively exercised through the regular use
of modern means of communication (Horst, H. 2006): in particular the Internet.
Secondly, informational support, which involves assistance with queries such as
which medical centre to go to, how to choose a good school, university or how to get
a National Insurance Number (as regards Polish migrants), can be provided by, e.g.
informal networks, acquaintances or neighbours who live nearby and thus are more
familiar with the services available locally (Information Channels (Coleman, J. 1988,
p.104).
Lastly, instrumental support, which involves getting help with finding the right
employment or suitable accommodation and can be obtained either through close ties,
transitory connections, or ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter, M. 1973).

34. Conclusion
Although I have analyzed the theories proposed by Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam, it
has been difficult to apply certain aspects of these philosophies to my specific area of
study although, as background research, it has been useful. Thus, because of the
ambiguity and limitations of the concepts it was important to identify the specific
function of both local and transnational networks by differentiating between
emotional, informative and instrumental support they may offer. However, despite the
differences between the theories they all emphasize the significance of social
networks and reciprocal relationship.
It can be gathered from the above concepts that relations among individuals are
widely recognised as the building blocks of social capital. Such relations offer
opportunities for individual members to benefit or for the group to achieve common
goals. To put it another way, members, and their interactions, form the basis of social
capital, which have micro-consequences for the members as well as macro-
consequences for the group.

35. Chapter 2
Background
2.1 Dynamics of Polish migration to the United Kingdom in the
context of EU Enlargement
During this chapter I will outline the trends in migration movements from Poland to
the UK. I will identify the root causes of this migration and present the migratory
strategies adopted by Polish migrants and their main characteristics.
The integration process of Poland and the European Union started in the early 1990s
and was prompted by Poland’s parliamentary elections in 1989, which introduced
fundamental changes in migration patterns for Poland within the EU (Okólski, M.
2007). During that period, the outflows of migrants from Poland were significantly
lower compared with the current state (Kepinska, E. 2007). Prior to the 1990s
migration movements in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) 7
were
restricted, allowing only minor, work-related migrations within the region
(Kaczmarczyk, P. Okólski, M. 2005).
With Poland’s accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004, Poland exported a
large number of migrants to the EU labour markets, and the United Kingdom became
the main destination for Polish migrant workers (Okólski, M. 2007). Then again, we
have to remember that Polish migration was well under way before 1 May 2004
(Duvell 2004; Górny, A. Ruspini, P. 2004; Morawska, E. 2002; Okólski, M. 2001;
Triandafyllidou, A. 2006).

36. Official statistics show that in 2006 there were about 318,000 Poles living in Britain
(Ippr, 2007). According to the Home Office (2008), emigration from Poland to Britain
reached its peak in the second half of 2006 (Figure 2). However, the inflows of Polish
migrants were extremely high until the second quarter of 2007 when, reportedly,
thirty-two per cent of the total number of Poles who emigrated that year travelled to
Britain (Table 1) (Kepinska, E. 2007).
Polish nationals are one of the largest national groups in the UK (Salt, J, Millar, J.
2006). They are now in fourth place in comparison with 13th
position prior to the
accession (Ippr, 2007). According to official British statistics, in the single year of
2007, 96,000 Polish citizens migrated to the UK, which constituted about 17% of the
total migration (of 577,000) in that year (National Statistics, 2008). Overall, based on
statistics, 60% of the entire inflow of immigrants to the UK from the A8 ‘new’
member states have migrated form Poland (Home Office, 2006). Nevertheless, the
information provided by the range of British sources is inconsistent and variable
(Okólski, M. 2007). If we take into account the undocumented immigrants, who did
not register with the Work Registration Scheme, (WRS)8
the number may go up to a
million Polish migrant workers. Nevertheless, in the history of Polish migration, post
2004 migration has been the largest mass migration of Poles into the UK since the
post Second World War migration when the estimated number of Polish migrants in
1951 reached 162,000. (Drinkwater, M et al. 2006).
According to Labour Force Survey (2006) over 85% of recent Polish migrants are
young, aged between 16 and 25 (42.9%) and 26 to 35 (42.5%) with a dominance of
male workers (over 60%) (Table 2). In terms of the place of residence, London was

37. the main destination for migrants prior to the accession but the trend has shifted after
2004 with people preferring to live in other parts of the UK, largely in the East and
South East (Table 3)( Drinkwater et al. 2006). Also, migrating women are statistically
better educated than men, and this trend has continued since the enlargement (Table
4).
2.2 Identifying root causes of post-2004 Polish migration to the UK
Economic ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors9
are usually considered as primary motives for
emigration. Therefore, based on the hypothesis offered by M. Okólski (2007) we can
identify the following factors responsible for the recent Polish migration. Firstly,
economic liberalisation, which led to increased flexibility of labour markets and less-
restricted labour movements. In the case of Poland, it also resulted in Poland’s instant
access to the UK’s labour market (economic ‘pull’ factor10
). Another reason was the
high demand for specialised, but also ‘cheap’ labour in the EU15 countries. The
number of vacancies in Britain reached nearly 700,000 in the first quarter of 2006
(Figure 3). Okólski (2007) also assumes that high unemployment rates in the new
member states (which in Poland was around 19% in 2003 (Figure 4)), could have
been a stimulus for workers to migrate and accept minimum wages in low skilled
professions (economic ‘push’ factor11
). What is more, low wage levels in Poland,
persistently high youth unemployment, better educational prospects, chances to learn
new skills and improve the language motivated young people (often students) to
migrate to the UK (Drinkwater et al. 2006).

38. 2.3 Migratory strategies adopted by Polish migrants
We can distinguish two main types of migration into the UK: economic/labour
migration and non-labour migration. The latter type includes “migration for
settlement” (i.e. family reasons, better standard of living), or motivated by personal
development (study, better career prospects) (Kaczmarczyk, P. Okólski, M. 2005).
A study focused on post-accession Polish migration to Britain identified four, most
common migratory strategies12
adopted by Polish migrants (Eade, et al 2006).
The first, most popular strategy, embraced by 42 per cent of migrants is termed
Searcher’s strategy. It is based on the idea of intentional unpredictability (Eade et al.
p.12), which concerns leaving all possible options open including remaining in the
UK, going back to Poland if the economic situation improves, or migrating to another
country. Thus, since Searchers adopt a flexible approach to their future migratory
movements, they aim at generating social and economic capital in both their home
country and the UK.
Three subsequent strategies were chosen by a comparable percentage of migrants:
(20, 16, and 22 per cent respectively).
The second strategy is concerned with the short-termed, seasonal migration
movements, circular migrants who usually are employed in low-paid, low-skilled
occupations (because of its circular character it was nicknamed Stork’s migration).

39. Besides, as suggested by Eade et al. (2006), Storks tend to build and function within
dense Polish social networks which may promote a rise of an in-group conflict and
antipathy among its members.
The third type, termed Hamster’s strategy, involves migration to the UK motivated by
the urge to earn enough money in order to invest it back in Poland (e.g. opening a
private business, etc.). Hamsters, similarly to Storks, live in close-knit Polish
communities and they believe that their migration will help them to amass high levels
of social capital back home.
The last strategy (Stayer’s strategy) concerns all Polish migrants who plan to settle
down and stay permanently in the UK. As the members of this group are the most
eager to live and work in the UK for good, they accentuate the openness of the British
occupational class system and its accessibility to those most determined, competitive
and ambitious Polish migrants. They also emphasise that migration gives migrants an
opportunity and increases their potential to build up other forms of capital so that,
ultimately, they become capable of effectively accumulating and preserving high
stocks of social capital (Eade et al. 2006). Similar migration strategies of Polish
migrants were also noted in the field studies carried out by Ryan et al. (2007, 2009).
While many Polish migrants decide to settle down and stay permanently in the UK,
Eade et al. (2006) note that post-accession Polish migration to Britain remains
predominately short-termed, cyclical, unstable, and thus difficult to assess. By using
the concept introduced by Martin and Taylor (1996) (regarding rapid and temporary
migration movements), we can recognise that this migration has the form of a
“migration hump”.13

40. Conclusion
With Poland’s accession to the EU, Poland exported a large number of migrants to the
EU labour markets, mainly Britain. The core factors responsible for the recent Polish
migration were economic liberalisation of the UK’s labour market and a high demand
for cheap and specialised workers, combined with a difficult economic situation in
Poland (high unemployment, very low wages). Polish migration to the UK is
predominately short-termed and circular, based on the idea of intentional
unpredictability. Thus, we can distinguish between four most common types of
migration: Searchers’, Storks’, Hamsters’, and Stayers’ strategies.
Chapter 3

41. The Experiences of Recent Polish Migrants in the UK. Social
Network Building and Generation of Social Capital
In this chapter I will look at the experiences of recent Polish migrants in the UK with
regard to their network building strategies and the generation of bonding and bridging
social capital. I will analyse the role of cultural and human capital in this process. I
will examine the dynamism and complexity of the process of network formation, the
role of dense networks of co-ethnics and transnational ties and the varied support they
provide. I will also consider the importance of the diverse skills that migrants utilise
in preserving and reinforcing their social networks in different locations.
The research conducted recently by Ryan et al. (2008) was focused in particular on
analysing the experiences of the new wave of Polish migrants in London. The main
objective was to analyse the complexity of the process and various factors
conditioning the formation of social networks, which play a crucial role in migrants’
adaptation to the newly entered setting. They argue that social networks as a vital
source of social capital can provide an individual with different types of social
support (Ryan et al. 2008). The form and the effectiveness of this support are, in turn,
conditioned by the diversity, size, and type of social ties. They further assume that
networks may give a strong foundation for the establishment and preservation of
migrants’ communities. At the same time, it could also, possibly, lead to the greater
incorporation of the close-knit migrants’ groups into the dense networks of the host
society.
Their earlier study (Ryan et al. 2007), demonstrates that Polish migrants very often
tend to live and work exclusively within closed family networks. Ryan et al. (2007)
have also discovered that, for some Polish migrants, maintaining transnational nets

42. with their families in Poland is more important than making social acquaintances in
Britain, especially if they do not plan to stay there for a long time. They further
suggest that as a result of transnational migration, families may breakdown, but over
time may become reconfigured again (Ryan et al. 2009).
Thus, Ryan et al. in three studies stress the significance of transnational networks in
terms of emotional support (phone calls, e-mails, text messages), as well as practical
support, which can be provided by close family members. Since propinquity is
important for certain forms of support (Ryan et al. 2009), sometimes it requires a
physical relocation (at least temporarily) of family members (Ryan et al 2008). For
instance, in the need of childcare, mothers often move to Britain to help their
daughters with raising children (Ryan et al. 2007, 2008, 2009). Women play a key
role in securing the preservation of family ties and assuring the wellbeing of its
members. Their engagement in family life has also been emphasised by Edwards, R.
Giles, V. (2005) and Reynolds, T. Zontini, E. (2006).
As family or kinship networks are long-lasting, hierarchical and more formal they are
usually based on trust, reciprocity, but also obligations (Jordan, B. Duvell, F. 2003).
In line with Putnam et al. (1993) and Coleman’s (1988) argument they thus give a
strong basis for the creation of social and human capital. Nonetheless, apart from
being a core source of emotional support, they may also be a cause of strain and
tension (Ryan et al. 2009).
As Polish migrants value family ties more, the friendships they make in Britain are
usually distant, purely motivated by the need to get informative support and

43. sometimes additional support concerning accommodation or employment (Ryan et al.
2007). This attitude, as noted by Ryan et al. (2007) was initiated by older generations
of Poles since their interest was to get information they needed at the time without
underlying intentions to build close friendships.
In accordance with the constrict theory, presented by Putnam (2007), the more
distinct and ethnically diverse the society is, the less faith individuals put in the
genuineness and authenticity of this society thus being reluctant to interact socially
with its members. Consequently, they become more suspicious, particularly, of the
‘outsiders’14
, but also their co-ethnics. Based on Putnam’s argument, Ryan et al.
(2008) suggest that migrants, by staying exclusively within their ethnic groups, may
eventually form a close– ended environment fostering ghettoization (Kelly, P. Lusis,
T. 2006). Since ghettoization not necessarily introduces the need to occupy the same
territory / location, it can simply refer to the networks of co-ethnics “linked by
language, culture, and nationality” (Ryan, L. et al. 2008, p. 679). To some extent, this
hypothesis has been proved true in the case of Polish migrants living in the UK. That
is because they have a tendency to establish very close relationships with fellow Poles
(bonding social capital understood as ethnic solidarity), who they rely upon in terms
of emotional, informative, and instrumental support, even though often, the support of
co-ethnics is inaccurate and unreliable (Ryan et al. 2007). At the same time,
ghettoization and hostility towards other ethnic groups may lead to unavoidable
isolation of a particular ethnic group from the rest of society (Putnam, R. D. 2000).
That can be an instance of, what Nannestad et al. (2008) identifies as negative
bonding capital (expelling bridging social capital), hindering integration and breeding

44. social inequality among Poles (Ryan et al. 2008), thus lowering the social capital of a
community as a whole.
Putnam et al. (1993) Putnam (1995, 2007) and Coleman (1994) propose that
trustworthiness is an indispensable element conditioning a smooth and successful
functioning of social networks. Putnam (2007) also argues that trust is more likely to
arise within dense, homogeneous communities. Nonetheless, the example of Polish
migrants reveals that there is substantial mistrust within larger groups of Poles,
specifically targeted at people from outside the group of close relatives. Yet
surprisingly, the Poles with high levels of ‘bonding’ capital have the most judgmental
and sceptical opinions about their co-ethnics (Ryan, L. et al. 2008).
There is no evidence proving the applicability of the conflict theory to the study of
Polish migrants. In the clustered groups of Poles, individuals tend to distrust the
fellow members as well as the ‘outsiders’ (Ryan et al. 2007, 2008; Eade et al. 2006).
Only in tight-knit family networks based on mutual reciprocity is trust generated.
However, Poles living in such networks are usually provided with all the necessary
support. Thus, because of their secure and stable family situation, although they may
feel ‘alienated’ from the British society, they are not suspicious of or hostile towards
other Polish migrants or ethnic minorities (Ryan et al. 2008). This situation is more in
line with what Coleman (1988) sees as closure. All members of this small family
group are in a close relationship, which allows them to generate social capital between
one another and generate certain levels of human capital. Nonetheless, by contrast to
Coleman’s (1988) conviction about the desirability of closure, rather than increasing
migrants’ human capital, it seems to circulate it within that network. This precludes

45. migrants from interactions with people from different backgrounds, although many
Poles would value working in a multi-ethnic environment as they see this as an
effective way of acquiring new skills, by the exchange of symbolic resources (social
capital as an investment) (Bourdieu, P. 1986) and experiences, which, in turn,
increases their human capital (Garapich, M. P. 2005). Moreover, as suggested by
Kolankieiwcz, dense ties or ‘closure’ are often associated with an “amoral feminism
and clientelism”, which can have negative consequences (Kolankiewicz, 1996, cited
in Schuller et al. 2000, p.8). That is where the family, as suggested before, becomes a
source of strain and tension (Ryan, et al. 2009). This example also opposes Putnam’s
(2007) argument that high bonding goes hand in hand with high bridging.
Coleman (1994) and Putnam (2007) suggest that restricted access to economic
resources is less detrimental if combined with high levels of bonding social capital. In
contrast, other researches claim that in the case of high generation of solely bonding
social capital, migrants may become very disadvantaged in socio-economic terms
(Wierzbicki, S. 2004). Some Polish migrants’ groups are distant from non- Poles and
interact only with their co-ethnics. By doing so they put themselves in a
disadvantaged economic position and they develop feelings of distrust towards the
‘wider’ Polish community, which triggers inter-group competition and antagonism
among Poles (Ryan et al. 2008).
Despite the temporal character of Polish migration, after some time, the Polish
community may become better established and integrated into British society. As it
has been noted earlier (Eade et al. 2006), Polish migrants are enthusiastic about
multiculturalism and living in a diverse society (particularly younger people as

46. “perhaps (they are) less upset by diversity than older generations” (Putnam, R. D.
2007, p.154)). For that reason, in the long term, it may be worth taking on a more
positive approach as offered by the contact hypothesis. This hypothesis assumes that
people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, after having prolonged contact
with one another, become more tolerant and familiar with differences they were
initially reluctant to accept (Putnam, R. D. 2007). Hence, Polish migrants may
become more accepted by the British and also learn to accept other ethnically diverse
groups as they both gain a deeper understanding of each other’s cultures and ways of
life.
It can be deduced from Bourdieu’s philosophy that an individual who belongs to a
certain ethnic group can fully benefit from this membership only if it provides him
with an open access to wider social networks and thus bridging social capital.
Nonetheless, since the members of the same ethnic group may have different levels of
access to bridging capital, it is important to establish what factors determine this state
of affairs. From Bourdiean perspective, individuals’ participation in social networking
varies since networking requires effort and the investment of time and resources
(Bourdieu does not take the networks for granted). Consequently, it leads to an
assumption that migrant’s circumstances and skills (cultural capital) he possesses can
either ease or restrict his fostering of wider social ties, which are, according to
Bourdieu (1986), a basis of social capital.
Thus, as some Polish migrants do not have the necessary skills (i.e. they lack the
knowledge of the English language and thus they have low self-esteem and their

47. confidence is shattered) (Ryan et al. 2008), their initial levels of ‘embodied’ cultural
capital result in their inability to forge weak ties.
Similarly to Bourdieu Cox’s (2000) argues that in order for migrants to access larger
and more complex social networks (bridging), individual agents have to employ the
networking skills and strategies they already possess, or work on improving them and
utilise the acquired skills in due course.
Subsequently, after some period (thanks to the investment of time and resources
(Bourdieu, P. 1986)) e.g. after improving linguistic skills, as Ryan et al. (2008) argue,
some Poles become capable of establishing ‘weak’ ties. This, in turn, proves that
Putnam’s (2007) assertion regarding co-existence of bonding and bridging capital can
be applied to interpersonal networking of Polish migrants in Britain. In this situation,
bonding capital does not restrict migrants from building wider networks, and so it can
be regarded as positive bonding capital (Nannestad et al. 2008)
Better educated Poles and highly qualified professionals are more capable of building
both vertical and horizontal bridging capital. Besides, they are in the group of Poles
who have the least contact with their co-ethnics, as their language proficiency allows
them to ‘find their own ways’ to fit into and to function in the British society without
much help.
According to the research, they even prefer to forge bridging networks (both
horizontal and vertical ‘weak ties’) with the ‘outsiders’ (Ryan et al. 2008).
Other Poles who have increased potential to build up their bridging capital are
mothers because, through their children’s school or nursery, they can access many

48. interest groups already established by other mothers and get involved in activities
usually concerned with childcare (Ryan et al. 2007, 2008).
Besides, good educational background (‘institutionalised’ cultural capital (Bourdieu,
P. 1986) and working in a highly skilled occupation considerably increase one’s
chances of getting valuable work experience (amplifying their human capital
(Coleman, J. 1988), and capability to obtain various supports from different sources
simultaneously. Hence, it mitigates one’s dependence on Polish ethnic groups and
puts more emphasis on the role of people from other ethnic backgrounds and the
constructive support they may offer (Ryan et al. 2007).
Ryan, L. et al (2007, 2008, 2009) stress also that the majority of Poles come to the
UK on their own, having no pre-migration networks. By contrast, those who join their
families are in a better situation as they can count on their relatives in terms of
practical and informal support. The great importance of having existing social
networks (e.g. with fellow Poles) prior to arrival in the UK was also noted in the
studies conducted by Jordan and Duvell (2003).
Nevertheless, we should also consider other issues, which may be preventing migrants
from expanding their bridging networks, thus reducing their chances of successful
incorporation of their migrant community into the British society. Ryan et al. (2008)
suggest that one of them may involve the reception of Polish migrants by the British
public. They suggest that while its positive reactions towards migrants could speed up
the integration process, its lack of acceptance could eventually result in migrants

49. having a restricted access to and limited participation in the social and public life of
the host society.
Ryan et al. (2007) also note that there is a lack of substantial provision for Polish
migrants, which if available, could assist and accelerate the process of their
adjustment to and integration into British society.
Conclusion
Social networks established by Polish migrants, both locally and transnationally, have
been proved to be fluid and hence bound to change over time. They may grow
stronger, be more complex, dynamic or become weaker while losing their importance
and eventually cease to exist after a certain time. Besides, since information provided
exclusively by Polish co-ethnics is often imprecise and misleading, it is very
important for migrants to move beyond close-knit networks and try to establish
bridging social capital with other ethnic groups.
Since Putnam (2007) and Coleman (1994) put an emphasis on the steadiness and
permanence of social relationships, they claim that social capital will not have strong
foundations if built upon ‘individual mobility’ or when associated with immigration.
In the example of Polish migrants we could observe that the very characteristics of
migrants’ social nets are their fluidity and uncertainty, which entails a need to provide
new migrants with constructive support and accurate provision for their social needs
(Ryan, et al. 2008).

50. As we could see, social capital can either promote mutual cooperation for the benefit
of members, or have destructive social consequences (i.e. by breeding inequality). It
may be manifest in the form of unequal access to, and an unequal distribution of, the
benefits of social networks. As Ryan et al (2007) note, the most important factors
conditioning the extension of bridging social capital by Polish migrants include:
language (which insufficient knowledge limits career prospects), held profession and
family circumstances respectively. Albeit many Poles find it difficult to escape the
tight-knit circle of co-ethnics, some migrants (by investing their time and resources)
do eventually augment their social networks. They may initially be acquainted to
exclusively fellow Poles, but with a bit of courage and self-determination they
manage to break this closed circle.
Chapter 4

51. Polish Ethnic Identity, Social Trust and Accumulation of Social
Capital by Polish Migrants in the Context of EU Enlargement
In this Chapter I will look at the way Polish migrants in Britain see themselves and
how they view their relationships with other Poles (both in Britain and in Poland) and
the British public. I will analyse how these relationships affect the migrant Poles’
ability to build bonding and bridging social capital. I will look at how strong is Polish
ethnic identity and how sometimes Poles are prepared to surrender it, preferring to be
seen as white Europeans as they see whiteness as their ‘passport’ to better integration
and greater social capital. I will also consider if and, if so, how accession to the EU
has changed the situation for Poles migrating to Britain.
Based on Phinney’s (1989) definition, ethnic identity refers to “an individual’s sense
of self as member of an ethnic group and the attitudes and behaviours associated with
that sense” (p.37). “…it is not a fixed categorization, but rather a fluid and dynamic
understanding of self and ethnic background…constructed and modified as
individuals become aware of their ethnicity, with in the large (socio-cultural) setting”
(Phinney, J. S. 2003, p.63).
According to Eade et al. (2006) Polish migrants’ attitude towards their ethnic identity
can be defined as “individualised and situational” (p.15). The study reveals that the
majority of Poles living in Britain (especially the young) do not think that their ethnic
identity is important as, according to them, it should not be a predominant
characteristic that could perhaps determine the way in which they are perceived by
others. They define themselves as European citizens rather than merely Polish, as a

52. result of their enthusiastic approach to multiculturalism, living in a diverse society,
and adoption of the Searchers’ strategy.
It appears that many Polish migrants (in particular Storks and Hamsters) are ‘torn
between two worlds’. These Poles stress the importance of their social networks in
both Poland and Britain (Eade et al. 2006, Ryan et al. 2008, 2009). Although the
majority is more attached to the Polish community back home they see many
advantages deriving from bonding and informal social networks in the UK, which are
regarded as indispensable when it comes to social or informational support (Ryan et
al. 2008, Garapich, M. P. 2008b).
Yet, there is a great degree of hostility involved in the social relations between Polish
people living in Britain. Reportedly, 60% would not work for a Polish employer, 80%
think that many Poles are responsible for the negative opinions British public may
have about the Polish community in the UK and, lastly, 62% stated that it is better not
to trust or depend on other Poles. The authors stress that these kinds of perceptions,
exacerbated by a ‘direct competition’ with one another, may be destructive,
undermining the stability and cohesion of Polish community (Eade et al. 2006). In
addition, as noticed by Eade et al. (2006), migrants’ hostility towards one another
increases the deterioration of their ethnic identity. Duvell (2004) also argues that
some of the practices exercised by Polish migrants, targeted at their compatriots, are
deceiving - founded on disbelief and constant rivalry. He claims that there is a lack of
cooperation and integrity within the Polish migrant community. Accounts of lack of
help and rivalry among Polish migrants conform to the descriptions in other studies
(Ryan, L. et al. 2007, 2008; Spencer et al. 2007; Garapich, M. P. 2005 ).

53. Following Putnam’s (2007) argument, (ethnic) diversity may create feeling of
insecurity, afflict social relationships or even people’s lifestyles. In the case of Polish
migrants, apart from their ethnicity, we should also take into account diverseness and
multiformity within the Polish community which, according to Garapich (2008b),
have a direct impact on immigrants’ civic participation, inclusion and community
construction.
The lack of integrity, trust, civic engagement and local civic identity, as Putnam et al.
(1993) and Putnam, R. D. (1993a, 2007) suggest is destructive of social capital.
Hence, the instability of the Polish community (affected by the conflicting interests
between its members) will result in a decrease of the community’s social capital. Yet
if social capital is regarded as a collective good embedded in individuals’ relations
and thus benefiting all the individuals belonging to the particular social structure
(Coleman, J. 1988), it can be deduced that in the situation where in-group relations
are harmed, the diminishing capital of the group (macro-level) will consequently
erode social capital of the individual social actors (micro-level) by reducing their
access to diverse social resources. Following this line of thought, insecurity and
unsteadiness rooted in social contacts between Polish migrants combined with
fragmentation of the community into separate sub-groups is bound to affect not only
the community but also relations between individual Poles and thus their individual
social capital.
Nonetheless, the critical and negative perceptions of their co-ethics appear to
contradict their network building strategies, which denotes that a large number of
Poles lives in the clustered Polish communities (Ryan et al. 2007, 2008).

54. Polish migrants assume that coming from the same ethnic group does not guarantee
that social relations with fellow citizens will be based on trust and genuine intentions.
If social capital is rooted in the social struggles (Bourdieu, P. 1984), the symbolic
exchanges between Poles embedded in different power positions (1st
generation v 3rd
generation), breed disparate understandings of their ethnic identity in relation to
British and Polish society (Garapich, M. P. 2008b). As we can see in this scenario,
ethnicity, instead of being an aspect that should effectively integrate Polish migrants,
works as a deterrent, distancing them even more from one another (Eade et al. 2006).
Putnam (2007) claims that people’s relations can be strongly influenced by their close
environment being less stable and secure in diverse societies. Albeit many Poles
express positive attitudes towards multiculturalism, living in a heterogeneous society
seems to trigger the feeling of mistrust and hostility. Additionally, because of the
adoption of circular and temporal migration strategies (Storks, Hamsters), many
Poles, leading dual, transnational lives, do not aim at building durable or long lasing
relationships in Britain. This, in turn, may contribute to a greater destabilisation of the
Polish community in the UK. That is where we can see the relevance of the argument
proposed by Putnam (2007), which asserts that temporary migration movements are
less desirable as they often entail destructive consequences for the society by
undermining social stability and thus impeding its social capital.
What characterises an ethnic group is the set of shared norms, networks and values.
Since that, according to Putnam et al. (1993) and Coleman (1988) can be defined as
social capital, we could hypothesise that ethnicity equals social capital.

55. Although, it seems that some Poles do think of themselves in terms of ethnic
solidarity, on many occasions they prefer not to reveal their ethical background, as
they do not want to be critically judged by British people (Eade et al. 2006). They
think that it may potentially limit their opportunities in the labour market thus
preventing them from increasing their human capital. Thus, it can be argued that the
way in which Polish migrants think of their ethnicity is paradoxical.
On the one hand, they use it as a resource so as to access extensive social networks.
They expect expressive returns by investing in relationships which, if reciprocal,
should automatically augment their social and economic capital (social capital as a
long-term investment (Bourideu, P. 1986)).
On the contrary, however, Poles see their ethnicity as a source of exploitation,
exclusion, and disappointment (Eade et al. 2006). Since we assumed that ethnicity
equals social capital, Poles view of ethnicity as a source of exclusion, would conform
to Bourideu’s argument seeing social capital as a main cause of social inequality.
Polish ethnic identity and in-groups solidarity thus occurs to be an abstractionist
concept, not fully implemented by migrants. Also, the ethnic categorising and
stereotyping by others raise a feeling of vulnerability, as it is difficult for them to
overcome the image of the ‘primitive’, uneducated Polish worker (Eade et al. 2006,
Spencer, et al. 2007).
Moreover it appears that the horizontal ethnic ties are being challenged and replaced
by the vertical or hierarchical ties forming generational (Garapich, M. P. 2008b), and

56. inter-group class divisions among migrants constructed on the basis of their
occupation in the UK and the educational and class status in Poland (Eade et al.
2006).
Furthermore, Eade et al 2006 in their research show that, albeit some Poles believe in
the myth of a meritocratic (Garapich, M. P. 2008b), and classless British system, the
majority is strongly convinced about the existence of ethnic and racial division and
hierarchy, particularly in London. Thus, they prefer to label themselves as ‘white’
Europeans rather than Polish. As follows, fifty-four per cent thinks that their
whiteness is a powerful attribute, which helps them to feel a part of and blend into the
‘white’ part of British society. They believe that it distinguishes them from non-white
British minorities, which they feel are less privileged than the white ones (Eade et al
2006).
Hence, for Poles ‘whiteness’ or Europeanness is also an asset enhancing their
prospects to generate bridging social capital by facilitating their ability to forge weak,
but often valuable ties with indigenous British people. Rather than think of
themselves as an ethnic group they endeavour to stress their resemblance to British
people by manifesting, what Hany- Lopez (1998) termed: “White-racial self-
consciousness” (p.159). Thus, the idea of whiteness associated with a higher social
status, is being endorsed by the majority of Polish migrants (Eade et al. 2006).
The experience of being positively received by the British public has resulted in
Poles’ equally enthusiastic attitudes towards multiculturalism (Table 5). Nonetheless,
while the majority of Poles enjoy living in a diverse British society, about one third of

57. them perceives ethnic diversity as ‘abnormal’ and is not ready to accept cultural and
ethnic differences. Hence, whereas the majority of Poles tolerate the presence of
different cultures and customs, some of them are reluctant to accept ethno–
differentialism15
, and racial and ethnic diversity (existing in big cities such as
London). (Eade et al. 2006). Subsequently, the latter group opposes the idea of
miscellaneous society, they regard other races with disdain which is clearly a sign of
racism, bigotry and ethnocentrism still existent among Polish migrants and targeted at
other ethnic minorities (Eade et al. 2006), especially Black and Asian people (Spencer
et al. 2007).
In line with Bourdieu et al. (1999) suggestion, social or cultural capital brought by
new immigrants from their country of origin, instead of helping them, may actually
inflict social inequality. Less educated Poles may be precluded from engaging in
(horizontal) bridging and linking, because of the low levels of both ‘embodied’ and
‘institutionalised’ cultural capital (Bourdieu, P. 1986) (brought from Poland), which
may in turn diminish their potential to amass social capital. Moreover, their
disinclination to hone their language skills merged with a strong reliance on their
fellow Poles exacerbates their unprivileged position. Furthermore, their low social
capital may breed social inequality by preventing them from having equal access to
other valuable social networks (Bourdieu, P. 1980, cited in Field, J. 2008).
Nonetheless, for the majority, social interaction and active network building with
people from varied backgrounds increases their awareness of and tolerance towards
other ethnic minorities. Even those less eager to accept ethnical and cultural
differentialism believe that living in a diverse society has helped them to overcome

58. reservations or prejudices they had when they first arrived in the UK (Eade et al.
2006). This is another example of the aptness of the contact theory (Putnam, R. D.
2007).
Putnam (2007) also notes that well-established immigrant communities are capable of
harmonising with the rest of society, what gives a basis for new identity formation.
Ergo, Poles’ ability to integrate with one another and into the British multicultural
society creates solid grounds for the formation of a stable and prosperous community
in the UK.
According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, H. Turner, J. 1979), being exposed to
various social and cultural contexts, influences one’s perception of oneself and thus
one’s identity. Consequently it can be said that migrants’ ethnic identity, exposed to
the new setting, is being re-constructed and re-defined by the same social influences.
Similarly, Putnam (2007) notes that an individual’s identity (ethnic, religious, social),
is being continuously shaped by outside influences, which are extremely powerful in
ethnically and racially diverse communities. Putnam (2007) argues that our identity is
determined by our sense of who we are. At the same time, our sense of who we are,
is shaped by the people we know (Field, J. 2008). Thus, it can be argued that our
identity is being de-constructed and re-constructed by the members of social networks
to which we belong. Therefore, there is a need for a social re-formation of Polish as
well as other ethnic identities (including British) into a collectively shared one. In
Putnam’s (2007) accounts it does not entail an erosion of the core values and ideals

59. distinctive for particular ethnic groups. Conversely it is more about a construction of
“permeable, syncretic (and) ‘hyphenated’ identities”, which could encourage
immigrant inclusion into the host society as well as mutual adaptation and integration
between the host and migrant communities (Putnam, R. D. 2007, p.161).
Since shared norms and values are indispensable for the building of a cohesive society
(Coleman, J. 1988, Putnam et al. 1993), the fact that Poles are often recognised in
terms of their ‘cultural proximity’16
(Fomina, J. Frelak, J. 2008), as white Europeans,
sharing similar religious beliefs (Christianity), brings them closer to the British
society whilst impelling the integration process. However, concurrently they struggle
to confront their own fears rooted in their conviction about being discriminated
against because of their ethic background. They do not want to be marginalised or
excluded from the social life because of that (Eade et al. 2006). They want to be more
like British people, fit better into their society, share common identity which they
hope will lessen the social distance between them (as immigrants) and ‘the rest’ of
society (Putnam, R. D. 2007). The minimisation of social distance is thus very
important since the smaller the distance, the greater the feeling of “common identity,
closeness, and shared experiences” (Putnam, R. D. 159).
Notwithstanding the benefits of Poland joining the EU (Ryan et al 2007, 2008;
Garapich, M. P. 2005, 2008a, 2008b), Duvell (2004) questions the reasons for
Poland’s accession to the EU assuming that the free labour movements could have
been responsible for the current state of affairs (potentially encouraging the ruthless
competition). On the contrary, Garapich (2006, 2008a) argues that lack of freedom
before accession, including restrictions in legislation imposed on Polish migrants

60. (resulting in illegal migration and residence), led to a disadvantaged position within
British labour market. Also, the lack of freedom for Poles, including their inability to
form official groups and local communities, was responsible for the adaptation of
“‘Darwinian’ life strategies” (Garapich, M. P. 2008a p.747), a defensive position, and
envy (Garapich, M. P. 2005, 2008a). Constant exploitation at the workplace
additionally aggravated the migrants’ position, provoking even greater rivalry
(Spencer et al. 2007).
Therefore, acceptance of Poland by the EU can be treated as a move initiating the
growth in the level of integration of Polish community into British society. This
argument can be supported by Ryan et al (2007) research findings, which imply that
coming to Britain before the Enlargement raised many problems for Polish people. If
combined with an unknown language or not having established social networks before
the arrival a lack of informational and instrumental support ensued. In this uncertain
situation, Polish migrants often felt intimidated and manipulated by other Poles and
their employers. Working ‘illegally’ in the host country had resulted in frustration,
inability to forge ties or institutionalised networks, strict dependency on Polish nets
(because of illegal stay), vulnerability and constant competition for scarce resources
(Garapich, M. P.2005, 2008a).
Therefore, especially for those who lived in the UK before accession, unlimited
labour movement throughout the UK, gave a chance of re-establishing migratory
social capital through the active network building (spatial and temporal networks
(Ryan et al. 2008)), socialising, launching businesses and founding Polish
associations and communities (Garapich, M. P. 2005, 2008a). Besides, it accelerated

61. migratory flows, which gave a new dimension to the meaning of migrants’
transnational networks, and social fields between Poland and the UK (Garapich, M. P.
2008b). It has also given migrants a greater freedom to generate bridging social
capital by escaping the tight-knit, closed groups of Polish co-ethics being frequently
regarded as a main source of inbuilt inequity, bias and exploitation. As their reliance
on the fellow Poles has diminished they could abstain from the group and seek
employment away from the community (Garapich, M. P. 2005, 2008a), thereby
boosting their human and cultural capital. Overall, Poland’s accession to the EU
occurred to be a crucial step towards improving migrants’ career prospects, their
wellbeing and quality of life (Ryan et al. 2008), creating and reinstating paths for
greater immigrant inclusion (Favell, A. Hansen, R. 2002).
Conclusion
Caught in the ongoing inter-group power relations and class struggle, Poles strive to
amalgamate their responsibilities towards co-ethics with the pursuit of individualistic,
selfish aims. At the same time, they continue to be tied to their community, which is
evident in mutual connectedness through the same migration chains, exchange of
symbolic and economic resources, as well as distribution of informational and
practical support. Polish migrants are prepared to surrender their ethnic identity in
favour of being seen as white Europeans because they see ‘whiteness’ or
Europeanness as a way of generating bridging social capital with the indigenous
British people. On the one hand, they see their ethnicity as a resource to access
extensive social networks. But on the other hand, they also perceive it as a source of

62. exploitation, exclusion, and disappointment. Although the accession to the EU has
accelerated the integration process it has not erased the fact that in the face of the
strictly capitalist nature of the British labour market the importance of migrants’
networks and their migratory social capital has successfully overpowered the
sentiment towards ethnic affiliation.
Chapter 5
The Role of the Migration Industry and the New Media in the
Process of Integration of Polish Migrants into British Society,
Network Building and Generation of Social Capital

63. During this chapter I will analyse how the migration industry and the new media
influence and affect Polish migrants’ incorporation into the British society. I will
consider to what extent their potential to build social networks and amass social
capital is governed by these influences and I will pay particular attention to the
important roles played by the internet and the ethnic press.
The birth of the migration industry can be dated back to the early nineties, when the
new legislation (European Agreement ratified in 1994) allowed migrants, from the
accession states, to set up their own businesses within the EU. This escalated Polish
migrants’ participation in the social and economic life of the UK. (Duvell, F. 2004).
In the year 2003, Home Office recorded a significant rise of 156 per cent in the
number of self-employed Poles in Britain (Drinkwater, M. et al. 2006).
The immigration advisors preparing for the inflow of the new migrants had to adopt
innovative strategies (operative and effective advertising) in order to meet the
expectations and demands of the new clientele. That was achieved by the use of
media culture, which could easily reach all new immigrants.
Recent Polish migrants are usually perceived as distanced and unwilling to undertake
further steps towards their integration into British society. But it seems that their very
active participation in the labour market gave Polish ethnic media a great chance to
intensify and expedite the integration process as it contributed to a “spread (of)
information assisting in fuller integration” (Garapich , M. P. 2008a, p.744).
Garapich (2008a) argues that the ‘migration industry’17
has played a crucial role in the
process of integration and adaptation of Polish migrants into the ‘host’ society. As