Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust

Uppsala University, Master’s Thesis,
Department of Government, Minor Field Study,
Autumn Semester 2014 30 ECTS
Author: Johan Mellström
Supervisor: Sven Oskarsson
Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust in Post-apartheid Space:
An Analysis of Capetonian Neighbourhoods

2

Abstract

The point of departure is the scholarly debate on how ethnic diversity affects social trust.
Previous studies supports three hypotheses: the contact theory, the conflict theory and the
constrict theory. Missing from this research are more nuanced measures of trust and particular
focus on neighbourhood level. This gap is addressed in a case study on post-apartheid South
Africa – aiming to explain the causal nature of the diversity effect in the city of Cape Town.
Through cross-case analyses and a field survey study, no support for the conflict theory or the
constrict theory is found. Instead, the reality in post-apartheid space seems to correspond
more with revised parts of the contact theory. Here, ethnic diversity is more likely to
strengthen social trust than decrease it.
Keywords: Social Capital, Social Trust, Ethnic Diversity, South Africa, Cape Town, Post-
apartheid, Segregation, Desegregation.

3

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Research Question 6
1.2. Disposition 7
2.1. The Contact Theory 8
2.2. The Conflict Theory 10
2.3. The Constrict Theory 11
2.4. Hypotheses 12
3.1. The Mother City: Cape Town 14
3.2. Social Trust in South Africa: Previous Studies 16
4. Data and Measurement 18
4.1. The Cape Area Study 19
4.2. Social Trust: Dependent Variables 20
4.2. Neighbourhood-level 21
4.3. Neighbourhood characteristics 22
4.4. Ethnic Diversity: Definition and Measures 24
4.5. Individual characteristics 25
6.1. Intra-Ethnic Trust 30
6.2. Inter-Ethnic Trust 31
6.3. Neighbourhood Trust 32
7. Tracking Causality: Minor Field Study 36
7.1. Typical Case 36
7.2. Identifying Grassy Park 37
7.3. The Cape Flats: Locating Grassy Park 37
7.4. The so-called ‘Coloured’ Population 39
9. The Survey Experiment 42
9.1. Dependent Variable 43
9.2. Experimental conditions 43
10. The Survey 44
10.1. Dependent variables 44
10.2. Individual-level explanatory variables 44
11. Results and Analysis 45
11.1. The Sample and Descriptive Statistics 45
11.2. Results: The Survey Experiment 47
11.3 Results: The Survey 49
12. Discussion 52
13. Conclusion 57
14. Literature 59

4

List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1. The Contact Theory and Social Trust 10
Figure 2. The Conflict Theory and Social Trust 11
Figure 3. The Constrict Theory and Social Trust 12
Figure 4. Geography Area Hierarchy Model 2001 22
Figure 5. Ethnic Diversity and Intra-Ethnic Trust 26
Figure 6. Ethnic Diversity and Inter-Ethnic Trust 27
Figure 7. Ethnic Diversity and Neighbourhood Trust 28
Table 1. Cape Town Population Growth, by Ethnic Composition 15
Table 2. Number of people in each province by ethnic group 16
Table 3. CAS Sample by EA profile 19
Table 4. Predicting Intra-Ethnic Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables 30
Table 5. Predicting Inter-Ethnic Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables 32
Table 6. Predicting Neighbourhood Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables 33
Table 7. Realised sample compared to total population of Grassy Park 46
Table 8. Descriptive statistics from survey sample 46
Table 9. Survey Sample by Control Group and Treatment Group 48
Table 10. Predicting Social Trust from Survey Experiment 48
Table 11. Predicting Social Trust from Survey Experiment with Control Variables 49
Table 12. Predicting Inter-Ethnic Trust from Inter-Ethnic Contact 50
Table 13. Predicting Intra-Ethnic Trust from Inter-Ethnic Contact 51
Map 1. Map of Group Area Demarcation in Cape Town 38
Map 2. Grassy Park and Researcher’s Random Route Sample 42
Abbreviations
ANC African National Congress
BEE Black Economic Empowerment
DA Democratic Alliance
EA Enumerator Area
EFF Economic Freedom Fighters
NP National Party
R South African Rand

5

Acknowledgements
There are many people who have helped me throughout the process of writing this thesis. In
Cape Town, I would like to thank my friends and all those people who willingly gave their
time to share their thoughts with me during the survey interviews. I want to thank Mapanya
Sogoni and everyone else at Project Playground for inspiration. Further, my gratitude goes to
Heal the Hood in Grassy Park who introduced me to my field guide, Shaun Engels.
In Sweden, I want to thank my supervisor Sven Oskarsson for his knowledge and guidance. I
want to mention Andrew Carryer and Torsten Kjellgren for reading and commenting. I also
want to thank Molly Mellström for graphic design and Marie Rogg for endless conversation
and encouragement.
For financial support, making my fieldwork in South Africa possible, I thank SIDA and
Göransson-Sandviken.

6

1. Introduction
While the positive effects of social capital as key resource for society have been widely
acknowledged (e.g. Fukuyama 1995, Putnam 2000), its origins and causes remain contested.
One particularly lively debate focuses on the impact of ethnic diversity. Such queries become
significant for policymakers all across the world, not least due to globalization and the
progressing multi-ethnic transition in virtually any modern society. International integration
has important implications for social policies within a wide array of fields and effects
governance on international, national and local level. In such a process, once ethnically
homogenous neighbourhoods are finding themselves increasingly heterogeneous. How does
this affect social trust?
Scholars disagree on the subject. Advocates of the contact theory argue that ethnic diversity
and intergroup contact yield positive returns in social trust. Such beliefs are opposed by
supporters of the conflict theory claiming ethnic diversity and interaction solely foster trust
for the in-group, whilst having negative effects on inter-ethnic trust. Putnam (2007), however,
claims that ethnic diversity reduces all types of social trust. Result from his study in the US
recognize the constrict theory proclaiming people residing in ethnically diverse
neighbourhoods to ‘hunker down’ and trust everyone less.
The state of South Africa offers an interesting and in many ways unique arena for social
capital research. Since the end of apartheid legislation and the birth of the Rainbow Nation,
South Africans have been looking for new ways to address one another. Despite attempted
social restructuring policies commissioned by post-Apartheid governments; social, spatial and
economic landscapes continue to be dominated by racial-space divisions in the post-1994 era
(Kotze & Donaldson 1997).
1.1. Research Question
As Putnam (2007:163) analyses data from the US, he proposes to test his claim in different
contexts, as such applications are valuable to chart the conditions under which the linkage
between ethnic diversity and social trust becomes more or less significant. Scholars have
responded and several more or less replicating studies have been conducted with different
outcomes (e.g. Lancee & Dronkers 2008, Gesthuizen et al. 2009, Sturgis et al. 2011,
Gundelach 2013, Koopmans & Veit 2014).

7

Musterd (2003) suggests that the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust is
stronger in more polarized societies, such as the US, than in Western European countries
where welfare states have been more successful in reducing social and spatial inequality. As a
result, this thesis seeks to investigate the contemporary relationship between ethnic diversity
and social trust in post-apartheid South Africa. Particular focus will be on Cape Town - once
the most ethnically integrated city in South Africa, but at this point, one of the most
segregated (Besteman 2008:45). The central questions of this thesis are: Does ethnic diversity
and contact between different ethnic groups have negative or positive impact on levels of
social trust? How does ethnic diversity affect social trust in post-apartheid context?
1.2. Disposition
Following this introductory chapter, the theoretical framework of this thesis will be delineated
and connected to previous research on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social
trust. In chapter 3, the South African context will be outlined and linked to the topic. Chapter
4 will describe the research design and introduce data and variables. Thereafter, bivariate
correlations will be presented in chapter 5, followed by multivariate regressions and analysis
in chapter 6. In order to answer the research questions, a minor field study was conducted in
South Africa between October and December 2014. The study focuses on a survey and a
survey experiment that is introduced in chapter 7. Chapter 8 outlines the fieldwork and the
sample that was collected, whilst Chapter 9 and 10 present the measures. In Chapter 11, the
results are analysed. The following chapter broadens the discussion and connects the results
with the survey interviews. Finally, in chapter 13 conclusions and suggestions for future
research will be summarized.

8

2. Theory & Earlier Research

Much recent attention within the social capital literature has focused on the effects of ethnic
diversity on social trust at the level of the individual. Two mainstream theoretical bodies with
diametrically opposed perspectives have traditionally influenced academic scholars: the
contact theory and the conflict theory. While the contact theory argues that ethnic diversity
reduces ethnocentric attitudes and fosters inter-ethnic trust, the conflict theory proclaims
ethnic diversity to solely produce intra-ethnic trust and increase inter-ethnic distrust (Putnam
2007:141).
Furthermore, Putnam (2007) has claimed support for a third option based on his findings in
the United States. The constrict theory suggests that people residing in more ethnically
diverse neighbourhoods not only decrease inter-ethnic trust, but also intra-ethnic trust.
2.1. The Contact Theory
The main-outline of the contact theory is that contact with unlike people creates more out-
group trust. When individuals have regular interaction with the out-group; in-group-out-group
biases and ethnocentrism fade. As individuals have more contact with people of other ethnic
backgrounds, they reduce our prejudice and begin to trust members of that group more. The
contact theory stems from the intergroup theory, originally explicated in social psychologist
Gordon Allport’s work The nature of prejudice (1954). It claims that in-group definitions can
be reconceptualised and broadened. In-groups are defined as any cluster of people who can
use the term collectively and with the same significance. In order to have maximum effects on
trust, the contact situations with the out-group need to be under appropriate circumstances.
The contact theory highlights five particularly important conditions for contact:
• Equal status: Both group members should have the same background, qualities and
characteristics to minimize prestige and rank in the group.
• Common goals: Both groups should share a common goal that can be reached by
pooling their resources.
• Inter-group cooperation: Both groups should work together without competition in the
pursuit for their common goal.

9

• Support of laws and norms: Both groups should encourage egalitarian attitudes
explicitly endorsed by authorities.
• Personal interaction: Contact interaction should involve informal and personal
interaction with members from the out-group (Forsyth 2010:431).
Pettigrew (1998:70) adds to the original contact hypothesis by specifying the processes by
which trust changes. The development of intergroup contact operates through the following
interrelated processes: learning about the out-group, changing behaviour, generating affective
ties and in-group reappraisal.
The contact theory has been tested rigorously over a longer period of time. Deutsch and
Collins (1951) analysed inter-group contact in the US by studying White housewives’
attitudes towards Black neighbourhood residents in one segregated and one desegregated
housing project. The authors found that White women in desegregated projects had more
positive attitudes for interracial housing. Van Dyk (1990) concluded that rural White
Afrikaans-speaking housewives with closer contact to Black African domestic workers had
more favourable attitudes towards Black Africans in general. As contact situation during the
final days of Apartheid conspicuously violate the optimal criteria for positive contact, these
conditions should not be regarded as essential for the contact theory. Contact situations that
meet optimal conditions are, nonetheless, more effective in reducing prejudice. That is,
prejudice is minimal when intergroup contact is maximal (Pettigrew & Tropp 2006).
The main outline of the contact theory is that in-group trust does not necessarily require
hostility towards the out-group. Minimal parts of the intergroup theory literature have focused
on the effects on the in-group, that is intra-ethnic trust, in the process of out-group interaction.
Wilder and Thompson (1980:600) found that changes in out-group and in-group contacts had
non-significant impact on in-group evaluations, which were more resistant to change. Yet,
optimal intergroup contact that leads to more interaction with the out-group has been argued
to be reciprocally related to less contact with the in-group and, hence, less in-group bias and
membership pride (Pettigrew 1998:73).
Intergroup contacts reduce feelings of threat and anxiety related to intergroup contexts and
future cross-group interactions. Reducing negative feelings, which stem from peoples’ fear
about how to act and how they might be perceived, signifies the means by which intergroup

10

contact reduces prejudice and increases trust (Pettigrew & Tropp 2006). In addition,
longitudinal studies have indicated that prejudice reduction endure over time. In a more recent
cross-national analysis, Gundelach (2013) found particularly strong support for the contact
theory in countries where ethnic diversity had been a long-standing feature of society and
where positive intercultural exchange across groups had led to mutual understanding and
trust.
Figure 1. The Contact Theory and Social Trust
Furthermore, members of majority and minority groups of society might respond differently
to intergroup contact. In a meta-analytic study, Pettigrew and Tropp (2005) found
significantly different contact-prejudice effects for members of groups with different societal
status. In particular, members of ethnic groups with minority status showed weaker contact-
prejudice relationships than members of majority status groups.
2.2. The Conflict Theory
The conflict theory suggests the opposite effects of ethnic diversity on trust. When the ethnic
context is more diverse, out-group distrust and in-group trust seems to be fostered. The more
contact individuals have with people unlike themselves, the less they trust the ‘other’ and
stick to the ‘own’. Blumer (1958) suggested that race prejudice derives from racial groups’
contention over limited resources instead of being a set of feelings lodged in individuals.
Numerous scholars have since contributed to this group-based dimension to racial prejudice
(Giles & Evans 1986, Brewer & Brown 1998, Bobo 1999, Bobo & Tuan 2006).
On the national and local level, various empirical studies have pinpointed the negative impact
of ethnic diversity on social trust and other growth enhancing factors. Cross-country
comparisons have demonstrated that more ethnically heterogeneous countries exhibit lower
levels of social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005, Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006). Easterly and
Levine (1997) showed that more racially fragmented states have lower economic growth and
pinpointed Africa’s weak economic performance as a major explanatory factor. Additionally,
Ethnic Diversity Inter-ethnic Contact Inter-ethnic Trust

11

Collier and Gunning (1999) emphasized Africa’s ethno-linguistic fractionalization as key
determinant for the deficit of public goods and lack of social capital, yet only in non-
democratic regimes which cannot cope with ethnic politics (Collier 2000). Among Sub-
Saharan manufacturing firms, Fafchamps (2004) found ethnic heterogeneity to be associated
with ethnic bias in trade credit usage, which negatively impact market institutions’ economic
performance.
Furthermore, studies have showed that “productive” public goods provision (schools, roads,
hospitals etc.) is lower in more racially fragmented cities in the US, whereas spending on
public employment is larger (Alesina et al. 1999, 2000). Moreover, individuals residing in
more ethnically diverse cities are associated with lower levels of trust in ‘other’ people
(Alesina & La Ferrara 2002, 2005).
On the local community level, ethnic diversity has been negatively correlated with monetary
and time contributions to local community organizations in Indonesia and Israel and to
voluntary fundraising among primary schools in Kenya (Okten & Okonkwo-Osili 2004,
Brender 2004, Miguel & Gugerty 2005). In Peruvian micro finance organizations, ethnic
heterogeneity has also been linked with higher default rates (Karlan 2003).
Figure 2. The Conflict Theory and Social Trust

2.3. The Constrict Theory
The constrict theory argues that neither the contact theory, nor the conflict theory are truthful
in corresponding to social reality in ethnically diverse societies. Based on his study in the US,
Putnam (2007) claims that ethnic diversity reduces both inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic trust. In
the short-run, there is a trade-off between ethnic diversity and community. Moreover,
ethnically diverse settings trigger allergic ‘hunker down’ reactions that cause anomie and
social isolation. The causality between ethnic diversity and social trust is stringent and linear.
In communities where ethnic diversity is higher, social trust is lower.
Ethnic Diversity Inter-ethnic Contact Inter-ethnic TrustEthnic Diversity Social Isolation Inter-ethnic Distrust
Intra-ethnic Distrust
Ethnic Diversity
Limited Resources
Inter-ethnic Contact
Inter-ethnic Distrust
Intra-ethnic Trust

12

The shared assumption within social capital literature has long been that in-group trust and
out-group trust are negatively correlated. Based on this general view, out-group and in-group
relationships would be inversely correlated in a zero-sum relationship; more in-group ties,
less out-group ties and vice versa. In his study, Putnam (2007:144) refuses this assumption
and recognizes in-group and out-group attitudes not to be reciprocally related, but
independent. According to him, virtually none of the wide range of studies on social trust has
actually measured in-group trust, but assumed non-evidentiary the inverse variation with out-
group trust. As a result, the possibility that ethnic diversity, at the same time, can reduce both
in-group and out-group trust need to be acknowledged. The more diverse the people we live
around, the less we trust them. In more diverse settings, residents distrust not merely the
people that look like them, but also the people that do.
Putnam’s claims have been tested ever since, occasionally in modified versions on the
national level (Gesthuizen et al. 2009). Results from replicating studies outside the US point
in different directions, nevertheless impugning any universalistic claims. Leigh (2006) used
Australian data and found similar results. Furthermore, he argued that linguistically diverse
neighbourhoods have stronger negative effect on trust than ethnically diverse
neighbourhoods. Sturgis et al. (2011) found no significant effect of ethnic diversity on
generalized trust when sampling 25,000 individuals in Britain, while Lancee and Dronkers
(2008) concluded that Putnam’s findings also are valid for European welfare states, like the
Netherlands. As the Dutch case is not to be considered a European outlier, they assume no
reason that their conclusion is not true for other EU member states.
Figure 3. The Constrict Theory and Social Trust
2.4. Hypotheses
To sum up, previous research on the impact of ethnic diversity and social trust formulate the
following three hypotheses:
Ethnic Diversity Inter-ethnic Contact Inter-ethnic TrustEthnic Diversity Social Isolation Inter-ethnic Distrust
Intra-ethnic Distrust

13

• The contact hypothesis: Ethnic Diversity strengthens inter-ethnic trust and lowers
ethnocentrism.
• The conflict hypothesis: Ethnic Diversity weakens inter-ethnic trust but strengthens
intra-ethnic trust.
• The constrict hypothesis: Ethnic Diversity weakens inter-ethnic trust and intra-ethnic
trust.
3. South Africa: Context and Data
Ending apartheid was a protracted and violent process. The negotiations during its dying days
in the late 1980s and early 1990s included various proposals from different stakeholders on
the basis to regulate conflict along ethnic lines. In order to secure coalitional power, the
National Party (NP) led by de Klerk anticipated a Tricameral Parliament based upon Arend
Lijphart’s idea of consociationalism. According to Lijphart (1977:88), multiethnic societies
can transform into stable democracies when clear boundaries but co-operation among political
leaders between different ethnic groups are institutionalised. Alike the conflict theory, the
consociational approach stress boundaries to restrict mutual contact and, hence, limit the risk
of enmity between significant segments. The South African consociational state was,
however, opposed by academic scholars such as Donald Horowitz (1991) and, moreover, the
African National Congress (ANC) itself. In his influential work A Democratic South Africa?
Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society, Horowitz (1991) argues for an integrative
approach to a stable democracy where political institutions instead are encouraging contact
and integration across ethnic borders. Such approach is closely linked to the contact theory.
The first multi-racial elections in 1994 and the subsequent reconciliation process involved
rigorous criticism towards the ethnic categorisation of apartheid legislation. Such ethnic
classification has, nevertheless, overlapped into the post-1994 era that continues to record
self-defined population group identity. The main explanation is to be able to measure progress
from the launched economic programs for ‘people disadvantaged from apartheid’, including
programs of affirmative action such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) (James
2013:29). As a result, South Africa has enumerated residents by ethnicity in all censuses since
1902. In the last census 2011, Statistics South Africa asked every individual to describe

14

themselves in terms of one of five population groups: Black African, White, Coloured,
Indian/Asian or Other (Stats SA 2011 Census).
3.1. The Mother City: Cape Town
The city of Cape Town is the oldest and second most-populous city in South Africa. It serves
as the legislative capital and the seat of the National Parliament. Due to its strategic position
and development as an important trading post, the city has a long history of interaction
between ethnically diverse people. When the Portuguese, Dutch and English shipmen started
to round the Cape in the 15th
century, the Khoi pastoralist had already lived in the area for
approximately one thousand years. In 1652, when the Dutch East Indies Company established
their first settlement on the Cape, immigrants from Holland and Germany arrived together
with imported slaves, primarily from other Dutch colonies in the Indian Ocean. During the
Napoleonic Wars, Britain took control over the Cape Colony and transformed Cape Town
into a British colonial port town. In the end of the 19th
century, the subcontinent experienced a
“mineral revolution” that triggered rapid migrant influx. Most immigrants were British, but
also Indian, Eastern European (especially fleeing Jews) and Africans from across Southern
Africa. Following the Second Boer War, Britain established the Union of South Africa that
declared its self-governance in 1931 and its independence as the Republic of South Africa in
1961 (Seekings et al. 2005, Worden et al. 1998).
Compared to other regions in the Union of Southern Africa, the Cape’s constitution
incorporated a system of non-racial qualified franchise. This was initially diluted by the
imposition of national legislation and later wholly eradicated. The Apartheid system was, in
many ways, a response to the ongoing interaction between the White and Coloured population
in the Cape region. The small Black African minority had already been segregated in separate
residential areas in the 1890s. Only with the onset of Apartheid in 1948, however, was Cape
Town transformed into a completely racialised city. The Population Registration Act from
1950 identified the four racial groups – White, Black African, Indian and the so-called
‘Coloured’ – and formalised their immediate segregation. Apartheid constituted prohibitions
on sex and marriage between White and Coloured people and reduced ‘inter-racial’ contact
throughout strict racial segregation programs. Group Areas Acts, implemented in 1957,
forced up to 150 000 so-called ‘Coloured’ people to move to housing estates on the Cape

15

Flats, whereas the Black African population was entirely removed from the city (Seekings et
al. 2005:4, Dhupelia-Mesthrie 2014:353).
The mixture of apartheid engineering and rapid population growth changed Cape Town’s
geography dramatically. The population grew from half a million in the 1940s to two million
during the 1980s. Moreover, growth has been significantly diverse in different racial
categories. Forced removal of ‘surplus coloureds’ from the Western Cape and increased
immigration caused the construction of more housing areas on the Cape Flats. The Black
African population, which had been deprived their citizenship and lacked residential rights
under the pass laws, lived in the city illegally - either in the backyards of formal townships or
in informal settlements. First in 1985, when the Apartheid regime recognised its influx control
failure, new housing for the Black African population was initiated in Khayelitsha (Seekings
et al. 2005:7).
Post-Apartheid Cape Town has continued its expansion outwards on the urban periphery.
Since 1996, the population has increased by 46 percent, reaching 3,7 million inhabitants in the
2011 census (Stats SA 2011).
1996 2001 2007 2011Population
Group Total % Total % Total % Total %
Black African 644,181 25.1 919,584 31.7 1,219,981 34.9 1,444,939 38.6
Coloured 1,239,943 48.4 1,392,594 48.1 1,538,315 44.0 1,585,286 42.4
White 543,425 21.2 542,555 18.8 676,447 19.3 585.831 15.7
Indian/Asian 37,882 1.5 41,516 1.4 62,354 1.8 51,786 1.4
Total 2,563,095
*
96.2 2,893,249 100 3,497,097 100 3,740,026 100
Table 1. Cape Town Population Growth, by Ethnic Composition (Stats SA)
Note: * In the 1996 Census, 97,664 (3.8%) were unspecified
The contemporary city of Cape Town is ethnically diverse, deeply unequal and highly
segregated. Diversity and inequality remain interlinked; there is a significant relationship
between ethnicity and class and racial divisions are also cultural divisions (Seekings et al.
2005:6). While small residential desegregation has been reported inside other metropolitan
cities such as Johannesburg or Durban (eThekwini) most spatial space in Cape Town remain

16

ethnically homogenous. This accounts for the City Bowl, as well as for most suburbs and
townships (Naude 2010, Hunter 2010).
Table 2. Number of people in each province by ethnic group (millions) (Stats SA 2001)
Since its origin up to today, the character and social composition of Cape Town continues to
differentiate compared to other provinces in contemporary South Africa. Due to its location
on the Cape, the demographic profile of the Western Cape has been continuously atypical
with a significant population identified as so-called ‘Coloured’. Moreover, since 2009, the
Western Cape Province is the only province in South Africa governed by the opposition party
the Democratic Alliance (DA). The ANC governs the remaining eight provinces (Electoral
Commission South Africa 2014). If South Africa is argued to be an exceptional case, then
Cape Town could be argued as a specific case within South Africa.
3.2. Social Trust in South Africa: Previous Studies
There are many studies that have examined social trust in post-Apartheid South Africa on the
micro-level. Key case studies include Oldfield (2004), who interviewed residents in the
desegregated township of Delft South about their integration experiences. Delft South was
constructed in 1996 when Coloured and Black South African families were relocated from
other segregated townships. Despite the fact that legacies of segregation had persisted,
Oldfield found that other identities simultaneously were constructed spurring processes of

17

ethnic integration at intra-neighbourhood level. On a micro-level, Delft South could thus be
read as a beacon of hope for the general discourse on racial integration in South Africa.
Similar case studies have been conducted in other ethnically mixed neighbourhoods. In
Fisantekraal, Burgoyne (2008) found housing-centred conflicts and community politics to be
characterised by racial tensions, whilst Lemanski (2006) reported strong inter-ethnic
connectedness in Westlake Village. According to Lemanski, the main factors for such
integration were the strong sense of collective local identity, the shared patterns of everyday
movement and the relatively high socio-economic standard in Westlake Village as an
upmarket suburb. In many ways, this makes Westlake Village an atypical case since most
ethnically mixed neighbourhoods are low-income neighbourhoods.
Robins (2002) analysed the attempt to create an ethnically integrated space connecting Joe
Slovo Park, mainly resided by Black Africans, the coloured middle-class income community
Phoenix and the white neighbourhood Milnerton. It resulted in the building of high security
walls, separating Phoenix from Joe Slovo Park, further entrenching tensions along ethnicity
and class lines. Seekings et al. (2010) investigated the social consequences of ethnically
mixed neighbourhoods in metropolitan Cape Town for the Department of Local Government
and Housing. The study conducted more than 50 in-depth interviews with residents in
selected neighbourhoods with a variation in ethnic heterogeneity. The findings reported a
general low level of quality of community, defined in terms of social conflict and social
capital, but found no significant evidence that social capital would be lower in more
ethnically diverse neighbourhoods than in less mixed ones.
Some quantitative studies have been conducted on social capital in South Africa. Jooste
(2005) investigated the stock of social capital in Cape Town using data from the 2003 Cape
Area Study that surveyed 588 adults in metropolitan Cape Town. She found more bonding
(intra-ethnic) forms of social capital appear than bridging (inter-ethnic) forms. The level of
generalized trust was reported as low, yet in line with surveys on national level such as World
Value Survey (WVS) and Afrobarometer. The study explored respondents’ perception on
neighbourliness framed by general helpfulness of neighbours, trust in neighbours to keep an
eye on the home of another and reliance on neighbours to stop a possible break in. The study
concluded that ‘neighbourly trust’ was significantly higher in Cape Town compared to the
national-level measured in other surveys by Afrobarometer and WVS. Posel and Hinks (2011)

18

investigated South African racial variation in measures of trust using the National Income
Dynamics Study (NIDS). They found considerable racial variation in self-reported trust that,
nonetheless, reduced dramatically when income variables were included in multivariate
context.
4. Data and Measurement
There is restricted accessibility to individual-level data on social trust in South Africa. The
Afrobarometer conducts a comparative series of national public attitude surveys on
democracy, markets and civil society in Africa. Over the years, surveys have included
questions on trust. Focus has been on institutional trust with the exception of a few questions
on general trust and trust in immigrants. Moreover, data is scarce and limited to provincial
level. In the latest round, the question “how much do you trust your neighbours?” was added
to the survey. In the Western Cape (n = 264), 27 percent responded ‘a lot’, which was the
highest percentage rate reported among all provinces (Afrobarometer 2011).
The data provided by the WVS contains numerous questions about social trust, nevertheless,
not on intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic trust. Furthermore, the data, which in the latest wave
contained 344 respondents from the metropolitan area of Cape Town, is only published on
aggregated national level hence making it inapplicable (WVS 2013).
In the first wave of the NIDS, several relevant questions on social trust are included. The
study conducts a nationally representative survey that combines household and individual
level questionnaires. It is unfortunately not geo-coded on neighbourhood level but offers only
the contextual variable ‘household cluster’ that captures about 20 households in each cluster
(NIDS 2008).
One exception is the Cape Area Panel Study, an ongoing study series with different surveys
about life in Cape Town. The 2005 Cape Area Study (CAS) surveyed approximately 1200
households on a range of aspects related to social trust. Most questions on social trust had
previously not been included in the survey. As the survey is geo-coded, it is possible to
capture both respondents’ social trust as well as neighbourhood and individual characteristics
(Seekings et al. 2005).

19

4.1. The Cape Area Study
This thesis’s main data source is the 2005 CAS. It compromises a survey of households
spread across metropolitan Cape Town. It was designed as part of an ongoing study series
about Cape Town, as well as an international, multi-city study of aspects of urban life with
focus on diversity and inequality (Seekings et al. 2005:2).
The CAS sample was designed to provide a representative sample of 1200 adults using a two-
stage cluster sample design. At first, a stratified sample of 70 ‘enumerator areas’ (EAs) was
selected by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). The EAs were demarcated by Stats SA during
the 2001 Population Census and are small geographic units of manageable size, designed to
be homogenous in housing type and size. The EAs form the census’s lowest level of
geographic unit with the ambition to cover all areas of the country (i.e. no gaps in between).
In 2001, there were approximately 4450 EAs in metropolitan Cape Town, each area
comprising between 50 and 200 households (Stats SA 2001, Seekings et al. 2005:11).
In the CAS sample, the EAs were categorised by settlement type (formal, informal and small-
holding) and racial composition (according to population group of the head of the household).
The final sample design selected eleven informal Black settlements, 15 Black urban
settlements, 20 Coloured urban settlements and 24 urban White settlements (Seekings et al.
2005:13).
EAs
Informal settlement - Black 11
Urban settlement - Black 15
Urban settlement – Coloured 20
Urban settlement - White 24
Total 70
Table 3. CAS Sample by EA profile (Seekings et al. 2005)
In the second stage, a sample of households was drawn within the chosen EAs using aerial
photos. On each EA map, one random start point that was selected where the first interview
was conducted. Based on the start point, every nth
household on the ground was chosen based
on the calculation to sample 30 households, defined as a group of permanent residents ‘eating
from the same pot daily’, in each EA. Within the household fieldworkers were given
instructions to use the “next birthday rule”. This rule selects the individual over the age of

20

eighteen who has the next birthday as the household’s individual respondent (Seekings et al.
2005:17).
The CAS survey consists of nine modules (A to H) of which several are of relevance for this
thesis. Module A captures information about the respondent’s neighbourhood, while module
B, C, D and F includes questions about social attitudes on race and culture, relationships with
other neighbours and community engagement. Each interview took between 90 and 120
minutes to complete (Seekings et al. 2005:23).
4.2. Social Trust: Dependent Variables
In contrast to most previous studies on ethnic diversity and social trust, both inter-ethnic and
intra-ethnic trust will be used separately to test the hypotheses. According to Gundelach
(2013:126), most studies that have tested the contact and conflict theory in the past tend to
have focused on the dependent variable generalized trust, traditionally captured by the
question: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you
need to be very careful in dealing with people?” The respondent is asked to choose one of two
options: “Most people can be trusted” or “You can never be too careful when dealing with
others”. It remains, however, ambiguous whether this abstract standard attitude captures the
whole spectra of social trust and particularly out-group trust (i.e. inter-ethnic trust). Rather,
the framework has been intergroup contact and conflict theory. Moreover, measures of
generalized trust are often blurred by particularized trust, as survey respondents tend to think
first of people like themselves and on people they know when replying to the standardized
question causing generalized trust to be less generalized than theoretically assumed (Torpe &
Lolle 2011).
While it seems more suitable to operationalize the constrict hypothesis using generalized
trust, it is more disputable for testing the relationship between ethnic diversity and inter-
ethnic trust. This means that a differentiated perspective on social trust towards out-group
trust, might strengthen support for the contact theory and weaken evidence for the conflict
hypothesis that currently dominate both academic and public debate (Gundelach 2013:127).
In order to complement research on ethnic diversity and social trust this thesis employs
measures on inter-ethnic trust and intra-ethnic trust that does not represent trust and caution as

21

binary alternatives. To be able to compare the results with the established discourse approach,
the following variables will be used:
Intra-ethnic trust
How many people from your racial group can be trusted? The respondents could indicate
their level of trust on a scale with response options ranging from “none/almost none of them
can be trusted” (1) to “most of them can be trusted” (5).
Inter-racial trust
How many people from other racial groups can be trusted? The respondents could indicate
their level of trust on a scale with response options ranging from “none/almost none of them
can be trusted” (1) to “most of them can be trusted” (5).
Trust in neighbours
Most people in this neighbourhood can be trusted. The respondents could reply to the
statement on a scale with response options ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly
agree” (5).
4.2. Neighbourhood-level
Scholars have commented on the methodological shortcomings of recent studies on ethnic
diversity and social trust. Dawkins (2010:210) pinpointed that Putnam’s ‘neighbourhoods’ are
not de facto based on neighbourhood-level, but on statistical correlation that for the most part
represents metropolitan areas, and in some cases, entire states. He argues that local
segregation should be analysed separately from metropolitan diversity as different ethnic
groups can be present in a large metropolitan area, but neighbourhoods can nevertheless be
composed chiefly of residents from a single ethnic group. In order to measure the actual
impacts of ethnic diversity on social trust, it becomes relevant to capture attitudes on micro-
level. As a result, this thesis aims at investigating the effects of ‘ethnic diversity’ on smaller
units of analysis than Putnam, namely on sub-place level.

22

Although the 2005 CAS data set provides fruitful possibilities to use the individual as the unit
of analysis, linking the respondent’s social attitudes to neighbourhood characteristics, it is of
uneven quality and needs to be examined before it can be used. This is certainly true about
fieldworkers’ recording on respondents’ location, where thorough inspection has been made
in order to correct spelling mistakes and to locate the exact community. To be able to analyse
ethnic diversity and social trust on broader neighbourhood-level, the population recording in
the smaller EAs have been replaced by the demographic composition of ‘sub-places’ from the
2001 population census. Sub-places are the next spatial level up from the EA and can be a
section of a township, a suburb, smallholding, sub-village, ward or informal settlement. This
layer was introduced in 2001 to cater for small-scale statistics. At the time of the census, there
were 21 243 sub-places in South Africa (Stats SA 2001).
Figure 4. Geography Area Hierarchy Model 2001 (Stats SA)
Following such change in spatial unit analysis, some EAs have been amalgamated as they fall
under the same sub-place. The remaining 52 sub-places are hereafter referred to as
neighbourhoods. In most cases, this spatial unit should capture individuals’ daily patterns and
interaction with other neighbourhood members more accurately than the EA units - which can
be as small as 50 households.
4.3. Neighbourhood characteristics
The 2001 census includes a range of indicators representing the characteristics of each
neighbourhood. It specifically measures each neighbourhood’s socio-economic status based
on aggregated levels of income, education and occupational status from the individuals
SA
Provinces 9
Metropolitan Area
& District Council
6
47
231
25
3109
21 243
80 000
Local Municipality
& District Area
Main Place
Sub-Place
Enumeration Area

23

residing in each area. Controlling for socio-economic differences among areas is necessary
given that previous studies have shown that local ethnic diversity correlates with poverty and
social inequality (Delhey and Newton 2005). A composite indicator, referred to as the SES-
indicator, will be conducted by summarizing the arithmetic averages of the four indicators:
• Percentage households earning less than the annual household subsistence level
• Percentage adults with highest education level (less than matric)
• Percentage of economically active population that is unemployed
• Percentage of labour force employed in elementary/unskilled occupations
The SES-indicator takes on a value ranging from 0 to 1. The higher value, the higher socio-
economic status in neighbourhood.
In addition, a service indicator, which reflects aggregated levels of basic household service in
each neighbourhood, will be used. The service indicator is calculated by summarizing the
arithmetic averages of the five indicators:
• Percentage of households living in informal dwellings
• Percentage of households with no access to electricity for lightning
• Percentage of households with no flush or chemical toilet
• Percentage of households with no potable water on-site or in-dwelling
• Percentage of households with no refuse removal by local authority weekly or less
The service indicator ranges from 0 to 1. The higher value, the higher basic household service
in neighborhood.
Another control variable will be neighbourhood population density, measured in number of
residents per km2
. Several studies have shown that residents in dense urban areas have lower
trust levels (e.g. Lancee & Dronkers 2011). Although all sampled neighbourhoods are nested
within the Cape Town metropolitan area, they naturally exhibit different levels of ‘urbanity’.
Furthermore, according to Koopmans (2014:96), immigrants tend to concentrate in the more
urban areas, which may confound ethnic diversity effects.
Moreover, the measures cover the age structure of the neighbourhood as the percentage share

24

of residents over the age of 55. Previous studies have shown that older people tend to be more
trusting (e.g. Putnam 2007, Lancee & Dronkers 2011).
4.4. Ethnic Diversity: Definition and Measures
The sociology of ethnicity and race frequently interact and overlap. A common approach is to
interpret the term race as an aspect of the socially constructed concept ethnicity. According to
Jenkins (1997), ethnicity and race are easiest interpreted as interchangeable concepts.
Hereafter, this thesis will solely use the term ethnicity when referring to either of the
concepts.
Based on the fractions of ethnic groups that reside within each sub place, it is possible to
construct a Herfindahl concentration index of ethnic diversity. The index aims at summarizing
the relevant features of ethnic diversity of a country or community. The Herfindahl index is a
standard measure of ethnic diversity and should be interpreted as the likelihood that any two
individuals randomly selected from a given community will be from the same ethnic group
(Putnam 2007:167). To calculate the index, one sums the squared proportion of each ethnic
group, and subtracts this total from one:
The index ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of 0 representing no diversity at all. In this area,
every individual belongs to the same ethnic group. The value 1 represents total heterogeneity.
In this neighbourhood, all individuals belong to different ethnic groups.
The index is based on data from the 2001 census. In other words, there is a four year gap
between the point at which neighbourhood diversity was reported, and the point at which the
survey was conducted. It is plausible that demographic changes have taken place within
neighbourhoods over this time. However, as the time period is relatively short, such changes
have most likely had minimal effect on ethnic composition.
i
i 1

25

The basic fourfold categorization of population groups that is used in public and private
discourse in contemporary South Africa will be adopted. This typology includes: Black
African, Coloured, White and Indian or Asian (Lehohla 2003:4).
There are reasons to question the adequacy of the Herfindahl index, as it is insensitive to
some potentially relevant aspects of ethnic variation. These become particularly significant
when comparing ethnic landscapes using cross-case studies. Posner (2004:85) illustrates this
drawback by using two hypothetical communities, the first consisting of two ethnical groups
of equal size, and the second with three ethnic groups containing two-thirds, one-sixth and
one-sixth, respectively. These communities will most certainly be characterised by different
ethnic dynamics and features, yet the Herfindahl formula would calculates the same index of
0.5.
4.5. Individual characteristics
In addition to neighbourhood characteristics, control variables at the individual level have
been included. These individual level covariates have been found to correlate with social trust
in previous research (Sturgis et al. 2011:24). Moreover, the variables are virtually equal to the
controls used by Putnam (2007). The following individual controls will be used:
• Age
• Gender
• Self-defined ethnicity
• Years in school up to grade 12
• Enrolment in higher education
• Satisfaction with living standard
• Household income

26

5. Bivariate Regression
For expository reasons, this thesis starts out by linking neighbourhood diversity to levels of
social trust. The unit of analysis in the bivariate analyses is neighbourhood. Five
neighbourhoods (with n<10) have been excluded, but the remaining 46 have been arrayed
according to their ethnic diversity and average levels of trust. In the multivariate analysis,
however, the individual will be used as the unit of analysis.
Figure 5. Ethnic Diversity and Intra-Ethnic Trust
Figure 5 asks respondents how many from his or her own racial group that can be trusted. It
shows that, before controlling for other variables, there is a positive relationship between
ethnic heterogeneity and intra-ethnic trust. The share of residents, that trust ‘some’ or ‘most
of the people’ from their own ethnic group, is for example 86 percent in highly diverse
Mowbray, whereas it is 43 percent in the homogenous neighbourhood of Harare, Khayelitsha.
In more ethnically heterogeneous neighbourhoods, individuals seem to trust people from their

27

own ethnic group more. This is statistically significant (p-value 0.001). The value of the beta
is 0.55 and R-square is 0.23.
Figure 6 asks respondents how many from other ethnic groups that can be trusted. Here too,
the plot shows a positive relationship. In neighbourhoods where ethnic diversity is higher,
trust in people from other ethnic groups is also higher. Inter-ethnic trust is relatively high in a
diverse neighbourhood such as Plattekloof, while it is relatively low in a homogenous
neighbourhood such as Langa. In more heterogeneous neighbourhoods, residents seem to trust
people from other ethnic groups more. This is statistically significant (p-value 0.002). The
value of the beta is 0.67 and R-square is 0.21.
Figure 6. Ethnic Diversity and Inter-Ethnic Trust
In Figure 7, respondents are asked about trust in people in their neighbourhood. Although
some respondents may understand neighbourhood differently than what is captured by the
independent variable, there seem to be little or no correlation between ethnic diversity and
neighbourhood trust. In other words, ethnic composition does not appear to impact on

28

inhabitants’ trust in their neighbours. This relationship is non-significant (p-value 0.319). The
value of the beta is 0.23 and R-square is 0.02.
These illustrations are inconsistent with the constrict theory and the conflict theory. Diverse
settings seem to trigger out-group trust - not distrust. This corresponds with contact theory
that implies that contact with people unlike us creates more out-group trust.
Figure 7. Ethnic Diversity and Neighbourhood Trust
It could be that this theory is more consistent with social reality in contemporary South
Africa. However, being solely bivariate representations of the relationship between ethnic
diversity and social trust, such prima facie findings could also be spurious and hence caused
by other confounding variables. In order to exclude this possibility, one must control for other
variables. In the following section, a multivariate regression analysis will be presented
including relevant controls at individual and neighbourhood level.
Moreover, the correlation between inter-ethnic trust and intra-ethnic trust is extremely strong.
Individuals that trust people from their own ethnic group, also seem to trust people from other
ethnic groups more.

29

6. Multivariate Regression
Three multivariate regression analyses will be conducted, with three different dependent
variables: intra-ethnic trust, inter-ethnic trust and neighbourhood trust. The purpose of
moving to the individual level of analysis is to be able to investigate an individual’s social
connectedness both from his or her neighbours’ characteristics (ethnicity, age, poverty etc.)
and his or her personal characteristics (ethnicity, age, education, income etc.). This approach
pinpoints the issue whether it is who is living in a community that matters, that is a
compositional effect, or who they are living around that matters, that is a contextual effect
(Putnam 2007:151).
In the multivariate analyses, the dependent variables will be computed as dummy
dichotomous variables (categories 1-3 will be re-coded as 0; 4-5 as 1). Using a dummy
variable is, on the one hand, a viable method to treat the original coding (3 = don’t know, see
chapter 4). On the other hand, it is possible to argue against the usage of dummy variables in
view of the fact that information is not exhaustively applied when categories are
amalgamated. To respond to possible loss of information, the robustness of the relationship
between ethnic diversity and social trust will be tested by conducting additional multivariate
analyses using both the original coding and a four-point scale variable (where option 3 has
been eliminated) as dependent variables.
Moreover, approximately 20 % of respondents provided no answer to the income question.
Missing values for individual level data on earnings are normal due the sensitivity of the topic
(e.g. Sturgis et al. 2011:24, Lancee & Dronkers 2011:101). There are several methods to
impute missing values, which all, nonetheless, introduce certain bias towards the existing
data. In order to first analyse the missing data, a dummy variable is created (0 = income; 1 =
missing). By testing the significance of the dummy in multivariate analysis, it is possible to
detect whether or not the data are systematically missing. Since the dummy variable is not
significant, a mean imputation is used where missing values are replaced with the mean value
for all other cases.

30

6.1. Intra-Ethnic Trust
The purpose of the multivariate analysis is to predict intra-ethnic trust from the standard
individual and aggregate-level variables. Table 4 shows that the positive relationship between
ethnic diversity and intra-ethnic trust remains when controlling for other variables. The effect
remains significant when using the original five-point scale.
Table 4. Predicting Intra-Ethnic Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables
B S.E. t Sig.
Census Tract Herfindahl Index 0.35 0.13 2.65 0.008
Census Tract SES-indicator -0.05 0.17 -0.29 0.769
Census Tract Percent Over 55 0.79 0.28 2.82 0.005
Census Tract Service Indicator -0.16 0.13 -1.24 0.216
Census Tract Population Density 1.63 2.50 0.65 0.513
R’s age .00007 .001 0.07 0.943
R’s satisfaction with current .006 .005 1.15 0.251
standard of living
R’s education (years) .005 .006 0.68 0.497
R has studied at higher -0.05 0.38 -1.36 0.175
education
R’s time living in neighbourhood -0.02 0.01 -1.27 0.205
R is female 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.688
R’s ethnicity: Coloured -0.17 0.16 -1.00 0.315
R’s ethnicity: Black -0.16 0.17 -0.93 0.359
R’s ethnicity: White -0.06 0.16 -0.41 0.682
R’s household income 0.03 0.02 1.85 0.064
R’s missing income data 0.03 0.04 0.79 0.430
(Constant) 1.46 0.18 8.16 0.000
Notes: Question was ‘How many people from your racial group can be trusted?’
N = 1154. Adj. R2
= 0.055.
At first glimpse, it seems like the contextual variable census age is a strong predictor. Not
surprisingly, there is more intra-ethnic trust among inhabitants of neighbourhoods with older
population. Other contextual variables, however, such as socio-economic status, provision of
basic household services and population density are non-significant when controlling for
other variables.
Neither does intra-ethnic trust seem to be moderated by the individual-level variable ethnicity.
None of the four ethnic groups show any significant correlation with trust. As a result, being
Coloured, Black, White or Indian or Asian strikes as completely unrelated to trust in the own

31

ethnic group. The same holds for gender: women do not appear to be more trusting than men
or vice-versa.
In terms of the individual-level variable age, it appears to be non-significant. To test whether
the effect of age on intra-ethnic trust could be non-linear, the control variable age2
is created.
When added to the model, it shows a positive non-significant effect, whilst the standard
variable age now shows a negative non-significant effect. Such pattern would, if significant,
suggest a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between age and intra-ethnic trust, that is trust
decreases with age to a certain point, after which both variables increase together.
Moreover, the dummy variable for missing household income is non-significant. Hence, if
there is any systematicity for the missing values in the income variable, it does not seem to
affect the results. Although weak in both effect and significance, Table 2 illustrates a positive
relationship between household income and intra-ethnic trust: the well-off seem to be more
trusting.
Surprisingly, education does not seem to have any significant effect on trust levels when
controlling for other variables.
6.2. Inter-Ethnic Trust

When turning to multivariate analysis in Table 5, the relationship between ethnic diversity
and inter-ethnic trust weakens. When controlling for other variables, the effect of ethnic
diversity is no longer significant on the 95-percentage level but on the 90-percentage level.
There is, nonetheless, a persistent positive effect and ethnic diversity does not seem to be
unrelated to inter-ethnic trust. Instead, the overall pattern seems to be that people residing in
ethnically heterogeneous neighbourhoods are more trusting in other ethnical groups. When
computing the same model with the optional dependent variables, the relationship vanishes.

Moreover, the pattern of magnitude and significance is similar in many respects to the result
for the intra-ethnic model. Yet again, one strong predictor is neighbourhood population age,
whereas individual-level age (or age2
) does not seem to have any effect. The contextual
variables socio-economic status and population density are non-significant. At the same time,
provision of basic household services shows negative effect on inter-ethnic trust, which
contrasts the variable’s strongly significant and positive bivariate effect. Yet, this result does

32

not necessarily suggest that better access to water, electricity and basic sanitation is impacting
negatively on individuals’ trust levels. On the contrary, the variable could be interpreted as
confounding for other variables and thus canalised through the effects of for example
satisfaction with current living standards. This individual-level variable satisfaction with
current standard of living is significant and exhibits a positive effect on inter-ethnic trust. That
is, satisfied individuals are more trusting.
Table 5. Predicting Inter-Ethnic Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables
B S.E. t Sig.
Census Tract Herfindahl Index 0.24 0.13 1.77 0.077
Census Tract SES-indicator 0.24 0.18 1.31 0.191
Census Tract Population Density -2.47 2.53 -0.97 0.330
R’s age .0001 .0001 1.34 0.180
R’s satisfaction with current 0.01 .006 2.37 0.018
standard of living
R has studied at higher -.007 0.04 -0.17 0.863
education
R’s time living in neighbourhood -0.02 0.02 -1.42 0.155
R is female 0.03 0.03 1.08 0.281
R’s ethnicity: Coloured 0.04 0.17 0.28 0.779
R’s ethnicity: White 0.09 0.17 0.53 0.595
R’s missing income data 0.04 0.04 0.98 0.325
(Constant) 1.35 0.23 5.83 0.000
Notes: Question was ‘How many people from other racial groups can be trusted?’
N = 1150. Adj. R2
= 0.12.
There is no difference in inter-ethnic trust between men and women or between any of the
ethnic groups. Neither have any significant effect on inter-ethnic trust, nor does income or
education.
6.3. Neighbourhood Trust

Table 6 shows that, when controlling for other variables, the effect of ethnic diversity on
neighbourhood trust is non-significant. In other words, ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood

33

does not significantly predict lower trust in the neighbourhood. The strongest predictors are
instead other contextual variables such as socio-economic status and neighbourhood
population age. There is no significant effect of population density or provision of basic
households services.
Table 6. Predicting Neighbourhood Trust from Individual and Contextual Variables
B S.E. t Sig.
Census Tract Herfindahl Index -0.17 0.14 -1.16 0.245
Census Tract SES-indicator 0.57 0.19 2.98 0.003
Census Tract Population Density -8.40 2.64 -0.32 0.750
R’s age .002 .001 1.70 0.088
R’s satisfaction with current .009 .006 1.53 0.127
standard of living
R has studied at higher -0.03 0.04 -0.83 0.409
education
R’s time living in neighbourhood .007 0.02 0.42 0.673
R is female -0.04 0.03 -1.23 0.221
R’s ethnicity: Coloured -.006 0.18 -0.04 0.971
R’s ethnicity: Black 0.30 0.17 1.68 0.093
R’s ethnicity: White 0.07 0.17 0.40 0.687
R’s missing income data .009 0.04 0.22 0.829
(Constant) 0.97 0.25 3.99 0.000
Notes: Question was ‘Can most people in the neighbourhood be trusted?’
N = 1096. Adj. R2
= 0.09.
Furthermore, education, time living in the neighbourhood and household income are non-
significant. Compared to previous models, the individual-level variables age and ethnicity are
significant, albeit on the 90-percentage significance level. In other words, they can be
interpreted as weakly significant. The model shows that Black South Africans seem to be less
trusting and that older people are more trusting. However, when adding the control variable
age2
to the model, the effect of age is negative and both variables are non-significant.
The results are more or less identical when using both the original five-point scale and the re-
coded four-point scale variable for neighbourhood trust. This confirms the robustness of the
findings: ethnic diversity does not have any effect on individuals’ trust in neighbours.

34

6.4. Discussion
A first conclusion is that the results presented challenge the claims of Putnam and the
constrict theory (2007) and other scholars arguing that ethnic diversity reduces social trust
(Leigh 2006, Koopmans & Veit 2014). The on-going trend of worrisome reports on the
potentially eroding trust among citizens in multi-cultural societies is, in other words, not to be
considered as universalistic evidence. Instead, the findings corresponds more with claims of
Sturgis et al. (2011) and Gundelach (2013). In contemporary Cape Town, the ethnic diversity
of neighbourhoods does not have any negative effects on neither intra-ethnic nor inter-ethnic
trust.
Moreover, individuals residing in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods do not trust their
neighbours less. In many ways, such results could be argued as expected due to certain
weaknesses in operationalization. It could be argued that neither the conflict theory nor the
contact theory is well captured by the variable neighbourhood trust. As mentioned earlier,
data on this variable has been partially included since it has been used in previous research to
test the similar hypotheses. The findings suggest that future operationalization should rather
focus on measures capturing inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic trust.
The primary conclusions to be drawn from the analyses are that diversity-trust relationships
rather tend to be characterised by its weak or even positive nature. Residing in ethnically
diverse neighbourhoods increases intra-ethnic trust and potentially also inter-ethnic trust. This
does not correspond with either the conflict theory nor constrict theory. Rather, the findings
can be linked to the contact theory arguing that in-group trust does not necessarily requires
hostility towards the out-group and that ethnic diversity can foster social solidarity and have
positive effects on social trust.
When individuals make contact with people unlike them under appropriate circumstances,
prejudice will decrease and inter-ethnic trust will increase. The core mechanism of the theory
is the impact of contact on trust. Increased out-group contact is expected to lower
ethnocentrism that relates to in-group ratings, which, nonetheless, are predicted to be resistant
to change. This does not mean that the expected outcome of the contact hypothesis is a
negative or even non-significant relationship between ethnic diversity and intra-ethnic trust,
but merely that diversity has an eroding effect on the in-group/out-group distinction.

35

Therefore, it is in many ways ambiguous to interpret the contact theory’s predication on the
effect of ethnic diversity on intra-ethnic trust.
Despite the fact that virtually none of the studies within social capital literature has focused
on intra-ethnic trust, it has been assumed to vary inversely with positive or negative inter-
ethnic contact. As the constrict theory recognizes the possibility that ethnic diversity can
reduce both in-group and out-group trust, the reverse possibility also needs to be
acknowledged; in more diverse settings, residents trust the people that look like them and also
the people that do not. If more contact with the out-group does not necessarily mean less
contact with the in-group, the effect of ethnic diversity on intra-ethnic trust should not be
negative. This does not necessarily call for a fourth theory on the topic, yet it stipulates the
need for a modified version of the contact theory that is compatible with both high levels of
out-group interaction as well as high levels of in-group interaction.
Taken together, the overall patterns on the effect of ethnic diversity on social trust points in a
weak positive direction. According to the contact theory, this could reflect the non-optimal
conditions for contact between ethnically diverse people in contemporary South Africa. Inter-
group contact is at maximum when common goals, equal status between groups, inter-group
cooperation, support of laws and customs are optimal. If such conditions are not wholly
established, trust for the ‘other’ can nonetheless strengthen, albeit be weaker in its effect
(Pettigrew & Tropp 2006).
To sum up, the prima facie findings from the multivariate regression reject support for the
constrict hypothesis as well as the contact hypothesis. The findings seem to correspond
stronger with the contact hypothesis. In spite of this, due to shortcomings of the Cape Area
Study and quantitative studies on the topic in the past, it is not yet safe to say that relationship
between ethnic diversity and social trust is not spurious and, even more, that the reality of
ethnic diversity in South Africa relates to the mechanisms of the contact hypothesis. Social
trust is indeed a multifaceted and complex concept. In order to proceed, more specific aspects
need to be targeted and more precise measures need to be designed. To answer the question
how ethnic diversity affects social trust in post-apartheid space, further investigation on the
causal order between the variables is required.

36

7. Tracking Causality: Minor Field Study
So far, this thesis has confirmed that ethnic diversity does not seem to impact negatively on
social trust. Rather, any effect seems to be of a positive nature. At this point, most cross-case
studies on the link between ethnic diversity and social trust have discontinued. This inquiry’s
aim is, however, to search more profoundly for insights into the causal process of the effect of
ethnic diversity and trace the causal order.
According to Uslaner (2011), it is not necessarily ethnic diversity per se that has negative
impact on social trust, but the social segregation that often comes with it. In order to answer
questions about how ethnic diversity de facto impacts social trust, it is fundamental to move
beyond analysis of cross-sectional survey data. The contact theory relies on the assumption
that intergroup contact attenuates prejudice. However, such an assumption is dependent on the
quality of the actual contact. For that reason, scholars pinpoint the need to also control for
‘type of contact’ and not merely ‘contact’. Koopmans and Veit (2014:93) argue that since
inter-ethnic contact may reinforce inter-ethnic distrust; positively, neutrally and negatively
connoted measures of inter-ethnic contact must be included.
To be able to identify the causal mechanisms of ethnic diversity, this thesis continues with a
case study that implements a survey experiment. Without such design, it is problematic to
detect any causal order in the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Trustful
individuals may for example interpret interpersonal contacts more positively than less-trustful
individuals, which would reverse the relationship. When using an experimental design, it
becomes possible to control time order and locate mechanisms between variables. The case
study aspires to test mechanisms in two ways using: 1) a survey experiment that aims at
identifying causality and causal order; 2) a survey that combines traditional survey questions
and more specific aspects of interpersonal contacts; 2) Moreover, such approaches are
responding to problems of previous research on ethnic diversity and social trust that involves:
1) the causal order between ethnic diversity and social trust; 2) imprecise measures
concerning the quality of interpersonal contacts.
7.1. Typical Case
One problematic aspect of case studies is empirical generalization. To mitigate such
drawback, a typical case method is used where the case selected could be understood as

37

representative for the broader population, in this case Capetonian neighbourhoods. The main
criterion for a typical case is its ‘typicality’ on several vital factors (Gerring 2007:91). Hence,
the case in point ought to reflect representativeness in terms of ethnic diversity, the significant
co-variables and be positioned close to the regression line.
7.2. Identifying Grassy Park
The most typical case available is Grassy Park. The Herfindahl index of ethnic diversity
(0.115) is near the mean value (0.145).1
Furthermore, the intra-ethnic trust value (0.7) is close
to the predicted value (0.67), whilst the inter-ethnic trust value (0.60) is near the predicated
value (0.54). In addition, Grassy Park constitutes the most fitting values on the relevant
covariates.
7.3. The Cape Flats: Locating Grassy Park
The de facto racial segregation of Cape Town pre-dates the apartheid legislation of the NP.
The Native Land Acts in 1913 and the Native Urban Areas Act in 1923 were aimed at
enforcing separated living spaces for the Black African population. Stricter controls against
the integration of the Coloured and Indian population arouse during the 1940s and culminated
in the Asiatics Land Tenure Act, also known as the Ghetto Act, in 1946. By the time the NP
came to power in 1948, parts of an Apartheid apparatus had already been installed. The Group
Areas Act - one of the central pillars of apartheid engineering – was enacted in 1950 and
implemented in Cape Town in 1957. The core of the implementation was to legitimize
evictions and relocations of non-Whites from what were now official White Group Areas.
This resulted in the mass removal of the non-White population to practically uninhabited
areas outside the city. (Saff 1998:56). All the southern suburbs, except lower Wynberg were
declared for Whites only. Prior to World War II, Cape Town had been the least segregated
city in whole South Africa and the southern suburbs had been ethnically diverse.
Approximately half of the population had been classified as White (Besteman 2008:45).
At this point, however, the so-called Coloured residents across Cape Town were relocated to
the second ring of new housing projects on the sandy windswept dunes southeast of the city
known as the Cape Flats – nicknamed the dumping ground of Apartheid. In order to further

1
As expected, the Herfindahl index has changed in Grassy Park between the 2001 and 2011 census. In the 2011
census the index had increased to 0.21. One of the reasons is most likely the amount of the so-called Coloured
category that identify as Other.

38

reduce integration, the new neighbourhoods were distinctly separated from the first ring of
White suburbs by highways, open areas, power stations and railroad lines (Besteman
2008:47). During the mass removals between 1950 and 1980, Apartheid policies removed as
many as 150,000 people to the Cape Flats (Dhupelia-Mesthrie 2014:353).
Map 1. Map of Group Area demarcation in Cape Town (Oldfield, 2003:193)
One of the Coloured Group Areas on the Cape Flats was named Grassy Park. Prior to the
‘construction’ of Grassy Park, the area had been rural and chiefly belonged to the farm
Montagu’s Gift. In the 1920s, it was sparsely populated by residents who lived on the sandy
windswept dunes, many whom belonged to families, who each owned about 16 acres of land.
The first shop was built in 1917 on the corner of Victoria Road and Klip Road and became
the focal point of the community. In 1949, there were only four street lights in the entire area.
These were situated at Klip Road, Lake Road, the Keys and Busy Corner - the intersection
located on the corner of Victoria Road and 5th
Avenue. In 1947, the Muslim community of the
area built the Masjid Ahmadiya Mosque that still serves the large Muslim community in
Grassy Park today (Williams 1996).

39

In the 1960s, the Cape Town City Council began constructing housing projects in
neighbouring areas on the Cape Flats such as Bonteheuwel or Retreat. Because of its status as
rural, the Cape Divisional Council had control over Grassy Park (Williams 1996). Grassy
Park never became subject to the same proportions of mass construction and relocation that
occurred in other neighbourhoods on the Cape Flats. In comparison to bordering
neighbourhoods such as Parkwood or Lotus River, where people were ‘dumped’ in greater
magnitudes, Grassy Park was considered more of a middle-class area (Williams 1996). One
reason was Grassy Park’s location on the southern Cape Flats dunes - close to the lakes more
known as the vleis. The vleis’ value had not been left unnoticed by the government who
decided to occupy the major Zeekoevlei and turn it into a White group area. Furthermore, an
official no-man’s land zone of 100 metres was implemented in 1965 that separated Grassy
Park from the holiday waterfront houses (Western 1996:100).
The Apartheid government’s plan was to move the non-White population east of the Simon’s
Town train line and demarcate a ‘natural border’. The area of Grassy Park was zoned for so-
called ‘Coloureds’ in what became an anomalous arrangement that also allowed ‘Cape
Malays’ to stay, despite the declaration of separate Malay Group Areas. This caused the
incorporation of the Cape Malay into the Coloured racial category (Bickford-Smith et al.
1999:170).
7.4. The so-called ‘Coloured’ Population
The conventional wisdom in both pre-apartheid and apartheid South Africa was that the
White, African, Indian and Coloured grouping were distinct racial groups with separated
historical trajectories. Moreover, there was a high degree of consensus - both within and
outside the coloured community - on the ethnic label coloured and the concept colouredness.
The essentialist paradigm on the coloured population highlighted its ancestry from
miscegenation between European settlers and various labouring classes of African and Asian
origin. Besides a genetic link to the white dominant population, a cultural link was also
emphasized. During the first decades of the 20th
century, most contestations rather
concentrated on whether the coloured community should align themselves with the Afrikaans-
or English-speaking group of the white population. First in the 1930s, there was a substantial
move towards black unity and the accentuated idea of non-Europeanness. It entailed a class-
based identity that emphasized black majority and consciousness. Such instrumentalist

40

approach that highlighted the artificial concept of colouredness and the divide-and-rule tactics
by the white supremacist state gained particular support in the post-Soweto era. In the 1980s,
there was a scholarly approach to a social constructionism paradigm that criticized the
instrumentalist theorist to observe colouredness as primordial and not the outcome of
complex interplay between historical, social, cultural and political factors. Such an approach
has more recently been amended by postcolonial and postmodern theory, which link
creolisation theory to the concept of coloured identity (Adhikari 2009).
8. Sample and Fieldwork
The common use of convenience samples of subjects (e.g. college students) within social
capital research has long been criticized for its lack of generalizability. Recently, researchers
have strived more intensely to include non-traditional subjects that say more about other
social groups to the sample (Ortmann 2005:52).
For drawing such a sample in Grassy Park, the random route method was used. This is a
broadly applied procedure for sampling households without complete lists of household
registers. The aim is to minimize selection biases by receiving a random starting point and
then select every nth
household. The coordinates for central Grassy Park were imported into a
GIS Random Point Generator, which generated a random starting point at the location 123 4th
Avenue. The first survey was conducted at this address with the person who opened the front
door. From this starting point, every 2nd
household on the street was selected. Shops, places of
worship, schools and business premises were excluded from the procedure.
The researcher carried out fieldwork in Grassy Park from morning to evening between the
24th
of November and the 2nd
of December 2014. A total of 103 surveys were completed: 51
in the control group and 52 in the treatment group. Some households refused to participate in
the survey, mainly due to lack of time or irritation concerning the survey questions. The
response rate was approximately 67 percent. The hospitality in many houses was touching –
respondents offered everything from cold beverages to favourite books. As always, there was
a trade-off between efficiency and profundity.

41

Due to the safety situation in Grassy Park, a local guide whom also spoke Afrikaans was
contacted who could assist throughout the entire fieldwork process. Certain no-go areas were
crossed out from the map, including most of the infamous 7th
Avenue where gangsterism and
drug business are particularly located. Different types of security installations dominate the
street landscape of Grassy Park and the majority of houses are gated and often guarded by a
dog. At each household, the residents were asked to participate in a survey that had been
developed to collect data on neighbourhood contact in Grassy Park. The researcher introduced
himself as a student from Sweden interested in social trust in Capetonian neighbourhoods.
More importantly, the respondents were guaranteed anonymity and that information would be
used only for a school project that was not associated to any governmental project. The
majority of respondents insisted to carry out the survey together with the researcher inside the
house, whilst some only agreed to participate through the gate or the window. It could be
argued that certain biases always exist when conducting trust surveys; it is less likely that less
trusting persons will participate in the survey.
Each respondent was given the option to have the questions read out and filled in by the
researcher. For the most part respondents accepted the offer. Others insisted to read and fill
out the survey themselves. The amount of time required completing the survey varied
between ten minutes to roughly one hour. Some respondents found the survey more
demanding than others and needed the questions repeated multiple times. The main reason for
the ‘longer sittings’ was, however, the fact that many respondents wanted to discuss and
explain their answers and share more thoughtful opinions regarding ethnic diversity, contact
and trust. When respondents wanted to engage in more profound conversation during the
survey interview, they were kindly asked to wait until after the survey was completed.
Consequently, many survey interviews virtually transitioned into semi-structured interviews.
Although the methodology of this thesis is of quantitative character, the outcome of such
interviews unpacked a mix of processes that demonstrated the complexity of ethnic diversity
and social trust in post-apartheid space. As a result, this thesis will integrate the material from
such interviews in the analysis to further elucidate and portray peoples’ experiences.

42

Map 2. Grassy Park and Researcher’s Random Route Sample
9. The Survey Experiment
The survey experiment provides the opportunity to test whether or not there is a causal
relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust.
The survey experiment methodology attempts to distinguish cause and effect and supply
inferences about real-life attitudes and behaviour. Moreover, it offers the possibility to move
away from selection effects and unobserved heterogeneity. In the “experiment”, respondents
are assigned to different experimental conditions, which have been deliberately manipulated
in the survey instrument (Gaines et al. 2007:4). This thesis randomly assigns respondents to
one of two groups: the control group and the treatment group.

43

In their study on social trust in Germany, Koopmans and Veit (2014) used virtually the same
survey experiment design and found significantly lower levels of trust in the treatment group,
than in the control group. According to them, their study was the first to provide causal
evidence of a cognitive link between ethic diversity and trust. Furthermore, by using virtually
the same instructions and information material, a comparison of the results has been
facilitated.

9.1. Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is the widely-used and validated trust measure “the lost wallet”. It is
commonly used to measure trust in neighbours. The benefit of such measure is, besides its
reference to a realistic situation, its reference to a specific social setting, namely respondents’
neighbourhood.
The respondents are asked the following question: “If you lost your wallet containing your
address and 200 Rand somewhere in your neighbourhood, how likely is it that the wallet
would be returned with nothing missing from it?”. Respondents are asked to answer using a
scale from 0 (not at all likely) to 10 (vey likely).
9.2. Experimental conditions
Both groups were introduced with the following sentence: “South African neighbourhoods are
different. In some neighbourhoods residents are very similar; in others they are very different
from each other.” In the control group, respondents were directly asked the wallet question
without any further reference to ethnic diversity.
To expose respondents to experimental stimuli, the treatment group were made salient the
ethnic diversity of Grassy Park. Here, the preface continued: …”because they belong to
different population groups - some are for example Coloured, some are Black African and
others are White or Indian.” As Koopmans and Veit (2014:95) stress, the idea is to highlight
ethnic diversity without framing any ethnic group positively or negatively.

44

10. The Survey
As mentioned earlier, the contact theory relies on the assumption that intergroup contact
attenuates prejudice. To test the causal mechanisms of the theory, respondents are asked to fill
out information regarding their real-life interpersonal experiences. Focus is on regularity and
quality in respondents’ contact with people from other ethnic groups and how this affects
social trust. In his study of an informal settlement in Cape Town, McDonald (2002:113)
found that the most common type of interpersonal interaction was meeting on the street. As a
result, encounters in the public space will be combined with more meaningful relationships.
In order to balance the survey interviews, identical questions for the in-group were added for
most variables.
10.1. Dependent variables
The dependent variables - inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic trust - are virtually identical to the
measures in the multivariate analysis. Respondents were asked about their trust in people that
belong to their own ethnic group / other ethnic groups. This time, a scale ranging from 0
(none of them) to 10 (all of them) was used.
10.2. Individual-level explanatory variables
Four measures of different types of interpersonal contact were used. These range from
strongly positive (friendships), through weakly positive (acquaintances) and neutral
(encounters) to negative (unpleasant experiences) and are similar to the mediating variables
used by Koopmans and Veit (2014:95).
Inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic friendship
Respondents were asked about how many of their friends, circumscribed as “people outside
the family” that belong to their own ethnic group / other ethnic groups. The variable ranges
from 0 (none) to 4 (more than ten).

Acquaintances in neighbourhood
Respondents were asked about how many acquaintances, circumscribed as “people whose
names one knows and with whom one regularly talks when coming across them” in

45

neighbourhood that belong to their own ethnic group / other ethnic groups. Similarly, the
variable ranges from 0 (none) to 4 (more than ten).
Encounters in neighbourhood
Respondents were asked how often they encounter people from other ethnic groups when
visiting restaurants, bars, coffee places in the neighbourhood / public parks, squares and
stores in your neighbourhood. The variable ranges from 0 (seldom or never) to 3 (very often).
Unpleasant experiences
Respondents were asked if and how often they have had unpleasant experiences, for example
in the form of harassment or unfair treatment, with people that belong to their own ethnic
group / other ethnic groups. The variable ranges from 0 (seldom or never) to 3 (very often).
11. Results and Analysis
To begin with the survey sample will be presented. Following this, the results of the survey
experiment, as well as the outcome of the survey questions, will be analysed using OLS
regression. Thereafter follows a discussion where the results of the survey interviews are
analysed in relation to the contact hypothesis.
11.1. The Sample and Descriptive Statistics

Overall, the realised sample corresponds with the actual population of Grassy Park. As
expected, there are small lop-sided gender and age profiles. In surveys where households are
sampled, women are more likely to be interviewed. Partially because they are more readily
available, but previous studies have also found that women are less likely to refuse
participation than men (Seekings et al. 2005:20).
Similarly, there is a slight disproportional sample of elderly people and people aged 35-64
years - the latter group consisting the highest employment rate. Since most of the fieldwork
had to be conducted during daytime due to safety restrictions, such lopsidedness is likely to
be caused. None of the above mentioned differences are, however, statistically significant.
The sample mean age is 43 years, whereas the standard deviation is 17 years.

46

Table 7. Realised sample compared to total population of Grassy Park
(Stats
South
Africa,

2011)

In terms of ethnicity, the sample seems to compromise too many respondents defining
themselves as Indian or Asian and White. These differences are statistically significant. It is,
nevertheless, possible that a significant share of the census category ‘other’ comprises
residents that also could be categorised as Indian or Asian. The South African ethno-racial
classifications, stemming from the Apartheid-era, are indeed both ambiguous and disputed.
Aside from such skewness, the realised sample matches well with the actual ethnic
composition of Grassy Park.
Table 8. Descriptive statistics from survey sample
Mean Std. Dev.
Friends (in-group) 3.65 0.70
Friends (out-group) 2.52 1.45
Acquaintances (in-group) 3.34 0.90
Acquaintances (out-group) 2.31 1.43
Encounters 1 (out-group) 1.47 1.07
Encounters 2 (out-group) 1.53 1.09
Unpleasant experiences (in-group) 0.90 1.00
Unpleasant experiences (out-group) 0.72 1.02
Out-group-index 1.96 0.92
In-group-index 3.49 0.67
Intra-ethnic trust 5.00 2.99
Inter-ethnic trust 3.83 3.02
Trust to return wallet 1.20 2.05
Note: N = 103
Realised Sample
%
2011 Census
(18+) %
Male 44.66 47.50Gender
Female 55.34 52.50
18-34 38.83 37.80
35-64 46.61 49.50
Age
65 + 14.56 12.80
Coloured 87.38 88.00
Black African 6.80 7.70
Indian / Asian 4.85 1.90
White 0.97 0.30
Ethnicity
Other 0.00 2.20

47

In the sample, the average respondent reports between 6 - 10 friends from the own ethnic
group and between 2 – 5 friends from other ethnic groups. The same mean holds for
acquaintances in the neighbourhood.
Moreover, the average respondent reports that he or she ‘sometimes’ encounters people from
other ethnic groups in public spaces in Grassy Park. The mean values for unpleasant
experiences are generally low, with a slightly higher mean reported with people that belong to
the same ethnic group. Both variables are, however, captured by the same frequency group:
‘seldom or never’.
In terms of the dependent trust variables, intra-ethnic trust is reported as 5 on the positive
scale ranging from 0 – 10, whereas inter-ethnic trust is reported as 3.83. Regarding the trust to
return a lost wallet, the mean is 1.20 on the identical scale. Approximately 10 percentages
perceived the likelihood to return a lost wallet with nothing missing from it as 5 or higher.
Compared to trust level elsewhere in the world, such mean can be considered as low. Yet, in
relation to national-level, the mean corresponds more. One comparison is the approximate 5
percentages of South Africans that answered ‘yes’ to the question: “In the city or area where
you live, imagine that you lost your wallet and it was found by someone else. Do you think
that your wallet (and your valuables) would be returned to you if it were found by a
stranger?” in a nation-wide Gallup World Poll in 2007. Out of 86 countries across the world,
South African trustworthiness was listed as tenth from the bottom (Gallup 2007).
11.2. Results: The Survey Experiment
To recall, in the survey experiment, the main dependent variable is “the lost wallet”. Not only
does the survey experiment variable explore differences between respondents exposed to the
experimental stimuli that salient ethnic diversity and respondents in the control group, it also
provides another approach to test effect and causality of ethnic diversity on social trust. The
survey experiment provides the possibility to test the causality between ethnic diversity and
social trust. Based on this thesis’s earlier findings, the effect of the treatment group, that is
ethnic diversity, is expected to be positive on trust.

48

Table 9. Survey Sample by Control Group and Treatment Group
Note: N = 103
Before the findings from the survey experiment are displayed, Table 7 is presenting the
sample results from the randomisation. Although there is a slight lopsided profile of women
in the treatment group, there are no significant effects of systematic differences between the
control group and the treatment group.
Table 10. Predicting Social Trust from Survey Experiment

B S.E. t Sig.
R’s part of treatment group 0.98 0.39 2.50 0.014
(Constant) 0.70 0.28 2.52 0.013
Notes: Question was ‘If you lost your wallet containing your address and 200 Rand
somewhere in your neighbourhood, how likely is it that the wallet would be returned with
nothing missing from it?’ N = 103. R2
= 0.06
As earlier mentioned, the general level of neighbourhood trust is low, both in the treatment
group and the control group. The result from the survey experiment shows, however, that
respondents who were exposed to the experimental stimuli in the treatment group, reported
significantly higher levels of trust than respondents in the control group. This contradicts the
results in the virtually identical survey experiment conducted by Koopmans and Veit
(2014:105). The cognitive salience of ethnic diversity seems to causally increase social trust
rather than decrease it. When respondents are reminded about ethnic diversity in the
neighbourhood, trust levels are higher. The effect is close to a full scale-step on the ten-point
scale.
Control Group
(n=51)
Treatment
Group (n=52)
Male 25 21Gender
Female 26 31
Age Sample mean 41.82 44.51
Coloured 44 46
Black African 4 3
Indian / Asian 2 3
Ethnicity
White 1 -

49

Table 11. Predicting Social Trust from Survey Experiment with Control Variables
B S.E. t Sig.
R’s part of treatment group 0.94 0.40 2.35 0.021
R’s age .008 0.01 0.68 0.499
R is female 0.09 0.40 0.22 0.829
R’s ethnicity: Coloured 0.93 2.04 0.46 0.649
R’s ethnicity: Black 0.01 2.19 0.00 0.996
R’s ethnicity: Indian or Asian -0.35 2.26 -0.15 0.878
(Constant) -0.48 2.13 -0.23 0.822
Notes: Question was ‘If you lost your wallet containing your address and 200 Rand
somewhere in your neighbourhood, how likely is it that the wallet would be returned with
nothing missing from it?’ N = 103. R2
= 0.04
Due to the slight lopsided profile of women in the randomisation, the background variables
are included in the survey experiment model. The effect of the treatment group remains.
11.3 Results: The Survey
The survey is implemented to further examine the mechanisms of the contact theory. It
unpacks the aspects of interpersonal interaction in order to investigate the mechanisms of the
theory.
In order to minimise measurement errors in the multivariate analysis, some of the individual-
level explanatory variables of interpersonal contact are indexed. Since there is no clear-cut
measure that captures the rather ambiguous make-up of positive contacts, it becomes more
fruitful to include several intercorrelating items. In this case, inter-ethnic friendships, inter-
ethnic acquaintances and inter-ethnic encounters are amalgamated. These variables are
certainly expected to consist measurement errors; it is for example problematic to investigate
the mediate effect of friendship on social trust when controlling for acquaintances. When
correlating variables are indexed, however, such measurement errors automatically decrease.
For this reason, the additive index, the out-group-index is created. The index ranges from 0 to
4, the higher value, the more positive contact experiences with people from other ethnic
groups.
In order to estimate the reliability and internal consistency of the out-group-index, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated. The Cronbach’s alpha is based on
intercorrelations among the variables in the index and varies from 0 to 1. When

50

intercorrelation increases, the Cronbach’s alpha increases. An index is usually considered
acceptable when internal consistency is estimated < 0.6 and good < 0.7. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the out-group-index is estimated to just over 0.7.2
Furthermore, supplementary items could have been necessary to capture negative contacts
more precisely. However, since the questionnaire had limited space, the chief variable for the
contact hypothesis, that is positive contacts, was prioritized. Similarly, it could have been
even more rewarding to include several underlying indicators to measure the main dependent
variables inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic trust. Due to the more established and recognized
measures of these variables, however, it was decided to stick to single indicators.
An index is created for intra-ethnic contact referred to as the in-group-index. The index takes
account of the variables intra-ethnic friendships and intra-ethnic acquaintances. Similar to the
out-group-index, the in-group-index ranges from 0 to 4. The higher value, the more positive
contact experiences with people from the own ethnic group. The Cronbach’s alpha for the in-
group-index is estimated to 0.58.
Table 12. Predicting Inter-Ethnic Trust from Inter-Ethnic Contact
B S.E. t Sig.
R’s positive inter-ethnic contacts 0.48 0.32 1.53 0.130
R’s negative inter-ethnic contacts -0.64 0.30 -2.09 0.039
R’s age .009 .017 0.49 0.627
R is female -0.23 0.62 -0.38 0.706
R’s ethnicity: Coloured -4.32 2.99 -1.44 0.152
R’s ethnicity: Indian or Asian -2.50 3.31 -0.76 0.451
(Constant) 7.40 3.19 2.31 0.023
Notes: Question was ‘How many people from other population groups can be trusted?’
N = 103. Adj. R2
= 0.04
Taken together, the result from the multivariate analysis reflects the expected specular
outcome of the contact theory in terms of positive and negative contacts. It shows, however,
that there is no significant relationship between the number of positive inter-ethnic contacts
and inter-ethnic trust. Despite the overall positive patterns, which are analogous to the

2
The pairwise correlations between the three items are 0.53 (inter-ethnic friendship and inter-ethnic
acquaintances), 0.35 (inter-ethnic friendship and inter-ethnic encounters 1), 0.30 (inter-ethnic friendship and
inter-ethnic encounters 2), 0.41 (inter-ethnic acquaintances and inter-ethnic encounters 1), 0.22 (inter-ethnic
acquaintances and inter-ethnic encounters 2) and 0.46 (inter-ethnic encounters 1 and 2).

Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust

Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust

Similar to Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust (20)

Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust