Entrena Durán, Francisco

Lannoo, Steven

Verhaeghe, Pieter-Paul

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Urban v. Rural Variation In Social Capital Evidence from Belgium & Spain   Steven Lannoo (UG) Francisco Entrena Durán (UGR) Pieter-Paul Verhaeghe (UG) This presentation   Theoretical framework  Our conceptualization of SC  Urban-rural contrast as constraint and opportunity  Methods  Some results and early conclusions  Social Capital  Bourdieu, Lin, ...: (not Putnam, Fukuyama, …)   “Social Capital as a form of Capital”   Resources  money, goods, time, information, …  Invested  put at disposal of others  intention: return  In Social Relationships Literature: urban influence on social relations   Erosion  Change  Composition effect  No effect (1) City life erodes SC Density Heterogeneity Scale Attenuation of primary relations Less exchange of social resources (2) City life changes SC Density Heterogeneity Scale Increase in freedom for relation building Less traditional ties More modern ties (2) City life changes SC Less traditional ties / More modern ties (1) More SC friends and acquaintances., less from family (2) More SC for well-off, less for less well-off (3) More SC for everybody (self-chosen ties = better ties) (3) City-life attracts other people   younger, wealthier, …  compositional: disappear after control individual level variables (4) City-life = Rural Life  Never has been different  Countryside is urbanized  Transportation  Communication  Devision of labour  -> Attenuation of rural ‘way of life’ (Pahl) Methods   Social Capital Measurement:    Position Generator (Nan Lin)   “do you know a doctor?”  Resource Generator (Van der Gaag)   “do you know someone who can give medical advice?” Data & Analysis  Student Data  2400 Belgian students  1850 Spanish students   Multilevel Analysis  190 municipalities in Belgium  ??? In Spain Urban Zones Urban Living Area Urban zone Agglomeration Nuclear City • Urban zone • Commuters’s Living Zone • Agglomeration • Suburban zone • Nuclear City • City outskirts • City center • Densly populated Neigbourhoods Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE pFIXEDaIntercept 49.26 0.09 0.000 50.01 0.16 0.000 49.97 0.16 0.000 50.23 0.23 0.000 50.21 0.23 0.000Sex -0.28 0.12 0.022 -0.27 0.12 0.025Age 0.25 0.03 0.000 0.25 0.03 0.000Origin -0.10 0.19 0.594 -0.12 0.19 0.534Residence 0.29 0.14 0.041 0.30 0.14 0.035Status Parents 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.05 0.01 0.000Education MotherNo secundary  -1.65 0.30 0.000 -1.64 0.30 0.000Only secundary -0.80 0.19 0.000 -0.81 0.20 0.000Higher = referenceSpaceCentral Aggl. = referenceSuburban municipality -0.69 0.27 0.010 -0.95 0.26 0.001 -0.77 0.24 0.002 -0.73 0.24 0.003Commuters' municipality -0.86 0.22 0.000 -0.89 0.23 0.000 -0.67 0.22 0.003 -0.65 0.21 0.003Rural municipality -1.05 0.22 0.000 -0.77 0.24 0.002 -0.77 0.21 0.001 -0.75 0.21 0.001% non-Belgians -0.71 2.38 0.767 -2.39 2.12 0.262 -2.38 2.17 0.275Average Fiscale Income (€ 1000) 0.24 0.05 0.000 0.10 0.05 0.031 0.10 0.05 0.026Space*Status ParentsSuburban zone 0.00 0.01 0.914Commuters' zone -0.01 0.01 0.550Rural zone -0.01 0.01 0.406RANDOMaσ2r 9.71 3.12 9.72 3.12 9.70 3.11 8.64 2.94 8.62 2.94σ2u0 0.38 0.62 0.000 0.25 0.50 0.001 0.18 0.42 0.005 0.09 0.30 0.088 0.00 0.29 0.237σ2u5 0.09 0.01 0.290ρ 3.77% 2.51% 1.82% 1.00% 1.00%MODEL FITbDeviance 11982.15 11962.27 11945.41 11327.57 11325.53n° estimated parameters 3 6 8 15 20χ219.88 0.000 16.86 0.000 617.84 0.000 2.04 0.844aEstimation Procedure = Restricted Maximum LiklihoodbEstimation Procedure = Full Maximum LiklihoodModel3Compositional EffectsModel4Interaction Effect0-modelRandom InterceptModel1Effect of SpaceModel2Controll 2nd LevelAverage Network Status Entire Network -  Belgium Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE pFIXEDaIntercept 47.74 0.12 0.000 48.16 0.16 0.000 48.28 0.19 0.000 48.54 0.34 0.000 48.54 0.34 0.000Sex 0.22 0.20 0.262 0.22 0.20 0.271Age 0.21 0.04 0.000 0.21 0.04 0.000Origin -0.33 0.36 0.357 -0.31 0.36 0.390Residence 0.20 0.24 0.407 0.21 0.24 0.390Status Parents 0.01 0.01 0.133 0.00 0.01 0.924Education MotherNo secundary -1.00 0.50 0.047 -1.02 0.5027 0.042Only secundary -0.40 0.25 0.104 -0.39 0.25 0.112Higher = referenceSpaceCentral Aggl. = referenceSuburban municipality -0.47 0.34 0.164 -0.82 0.36 0.024 -0.76 0.39 0.053 -0.78 0.40 0.052Commuters' municipality -0.52 0.27 0.055 -0.74 0.31 0.017 -0.69 0.35 0.049 -0.71 0.36 0.049Rural municipality -0.66 0.26 0.014 -0.65 0.30 0.031 -0.76 0.35 0.034 -0.77 0.36 0.034% non-Belgians -3.29 2.53 0.196 -4.77 2.80 0.089 -4.54 2.78 0.103Average Fiscale Income 0.16 0.06 0.011 0.08 0.07 0.232 0.08 0.07 0.233Space*Status ParentsCentral Aggl. = referenceSuburban zone 0.04 0.02 0.082Commuters' zone 0.02 0.02 0.436Rural zone 0.02 0.02 0.303RANDOMaσ2r 29.47 5.43 29.48 5.43 29.44 5.43 29.14 5.40 29.14 5.40σ2u0 0.07 0.25 0.486 0.03 0.17 >.500 0.03 0.17 >.500 0.07 0.27 >.500 0.00 0.01 >.500σ2u5 0.06 0.25 0.367ρ 0.24% 0.10% 0.09% 0.25% 0.22%MODEL FITbDeviance 14354.37 14348.98 14344.20 13914.50 13912.52estimated parameters 3 6 8 15 20χ25.39 0.145 4.78 0.092 429.70 0.000 1.98 0.852aEstimation Procedure = Restricted Maximum Likl ihoodbEstimation Procedure = Ful l  Maximum Likl ihoodRandom Intercept Effect of Space Controll 2nd Level Compositional Effects Interaction Effect0-model Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4Acquiantances Average Network Status Aquiantances -  Belgium Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE p Parameter SD/SE pFIXEDaIntercept 50.93 0.14 0.000 51.50 0.24 0.000 51.76 0.27 0.000 51.20 0.39 0.000 51.20 0.39 0.000Sex -0.37 0.30 0.217 -0.32 0.30 0.280Age 0.68 0.08 0.000 0.69 0.08 0.000Origin 0.70 0.36 0.051 0.62 0.36 0.082Residence 0.33 0.26 0.206 0.34 0.26 0.185Status Parents 0.02 0.01 0.112 0.06 0.01 0.000Education MotherNo secundary -1.46 0.69 0.035 -1.38 0.69 0.046Only secundary -0.66 0.32 0.038 -0.70 0.32 0.028Higher = referenceSpaceCentral Aggl. = referenceSuburban municipality -0.89 0.62 0.152 -1.45 0.60 0.017 -1.16 0.60 0.055 -1.12 0.59 0.059Commuters' municipality -0.63 0.31 0.044 -1.08 0.37 0.005 -0.87 0.37 0.019 -0.81 0.36 0.023Rural municipality -0.93 0.34 0.008 -1.06 0.41 0.011 -0.94 0.40 0.019 -0.91 0.39 0.019% non-Belgians -7.77 4.88 0.113 -8.73 4.59 0.058 -9.03 4.48 0.044Average Fiscale Income 0.20 0.12 0.087 0.09 0.11 0.427 0.10 0.11 0.355Space*Status ParentsCentral Aggl. = referenceSuburban zone -0.02 0.03 0.361Commuters' zone -0.05 0.02 0.028Rural zone -0.08 0.02 0.000RANDOMbσ2r46.80 6.84 46.74 6.84 46.64 6.83 44.46 6.67 44.26 6.65σ2u00.07 0.27 0.093 0.05 0.23 0.121 0.05 0.21 0.170 0.03 0.17 0.267 0.02 0.14 0.294σ2u50.00 0.01 >.500ρ 0.15% 0.12% 0.10% 0.06% 0.05%MODEL FITDeviance 15588.77 15581.95 15574.42 15021.86 15009.68n° estimated parameters 3 6 8 15 20χ2 6.82 0.078 7.53 0.023 552.56 0.000 12.18 0.032aEstimation Procedure = Restricted Maximum LiklihoodbEstimation Procedure = Full Maximum Liklihood0-model Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4Random Intercept Effect of Space Controll 2nd Level Compositional Effects Interaction EffectAverage Network Status Friends-  Belgium 444648505254565816 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90Social capital from friends (average occupational prestige level) Highest occupational status of the parents Central agglomerationSuburban zoneCommunters' zoneRural zoneAverage Network Status Friends -  Belgium Interpretation  Scale of city = network opportunity  … for students 

Urban-rural variation in social capital: evidence from Belgium and Spain

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2074823/file/2074855.pdf

Urban-rural variation in social capital: evidence from Belgium and Spain

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography