Diversity: Good or Bad?

by Matt Flaherty

This is from an article (not available for free online) by a leading scholar in the field, Robert Putnam. (Putnam, R. D. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30.2 (2007): 137-174.) Unsurprisingly, it turns out that there are both good and bad effects of diversity. The summary is that:

In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Here's the good news:

Creativity in general seems to be enhanced by immigration and diversity (Simonton 1999).

Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O’Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O’Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.

Immigration is generally associated with more rapid economic growth. The economics profession has debated the short-run economic consequences of immigration for native workers. While there are important distributional effects to be considered, especially the impact of immigration on low-wage native workers in the US, the weight of the evidence suggests that the net effect of immigration is to increase national income. One recent study, for example, suggests that the income of native-born Americans rises more rapidly, ceteris paribus , if they are living in places with more immigrants than if they are living in places with fewer immigrants. 4

In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the babyboom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7).

...immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South, partly because of remittances from immigrants to their families back home and partly because of the transfer of technology and new ideas through immigrant networks. So powerful is this effect that despite ‘brain drain’ costs, increasing annual northward immigration by only three percentage points might produce net benefits greater than meeting all our national targets for development assistance plus cancelling all Third World debt plus abolishing all barriers to Third World trade (World Bank 2005; Pritchett 2006).

And the bad:

In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate:
• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news
media.
• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform
groups.
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective
action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
• Fewer close friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment’.

Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more , but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. Note that this pattern encompasses attitudes and behavior, bridging and bonding social capital, public and private connections.

Putnam takes care to emphasize that these negative effects may only occur in the short to medium run, while in the long run he thinks responses to diversity are likely to improve. His closing practical thoughts:

• Tolerance for difference is but a first step. To strengthen shared identities, we need more opportunities for meaningful interaction across ethnic lines where Americans (new and old) work, learn, recreate, and live. Community centers, athletic fields, and schools were among the most efficacious instruments for incorporating new immigrants a century ago, and we need to reinvest in such places and activities once again, enabling us all to become comfortable with diversity.
• Most immigrants want to acculturate – to learn English, for example. Expanding public support for English-language training, especially in settings that encourage ties among immigrants and natives of diverse ethnic backgrounds, should be a high priority.
• Since the long-run benefits of immigration and diversity are often felt at the national level (scientific creativity, fiscal dividends, and so forth), whereas the short-run costs (fragile communities, educational and health costs, for example) are often concentrated at the local level, there is a strong case for national aid to affected localities.
• Our field studies suggest that locally based programs to reach out to new immigrant communities are a powerful tool for mutual learning. Religious institutions – and in our era, as a century ago, especially the Catholic church – have a major role to play in incorporating new immigrants and then forging shared identities across ethnic boundaries. Ethnically defined Scandinavian social groups (such the Sons of Norway or the Knights of Columbus or Jewish immigrant aid societies) were important initial steps toward immigrant civic engagement a century ago. Bonding social capital can thus be a prelude to bridging social capital, rather than precluding it. To force civic and religious groups who work with immigrants to serve as enforcement tools for immigration laws, as some have suggested, would be exceptionally counterproductive to the goal of creating an integrated nation of immigrants.