Why trust? A mixed-method investigation of the origins and meaning of trust during the COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark.

Trust is highlighted as central to effective disease management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Denmark seemed to embody this understanding. Characterizing the Danish response were high levels of public compliance with government regulations and restrictions coupled with high trust in the government and other members of society. In this article, we first revisit prior claims about the importance of trust in securing compliant citizen behaviour based on a weekly time-use survey that we conducted during the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic (2 April-18 May 2020). Analysis of activity episodes, rather than merely self-reported compliance, both reconfirms the importance of institutional trust and nuances prior suggestions of detrimental effects of trust in other citizens. These survey-based results are further augmented through thematic analysis of 21 in-depth interviews with respondents sampled from the survey participants. The qualitative analysis reveals two themes, the first focusing on trust in others in Danish society and the second on the history of trust in Denmark. Both themes are based on narratives layered in cultural, institutional and inter-personal levels and further underline that institutional and social trust are complementary and not countervailing. We conclude by discussing how our analysis suggests pathways towards an increased social contract between governments, institutions and individuals that might be of use during future global emergencies and to the overall functioning of democracies.

Contested Boundaries: Explaining Where Ethnoracial Diversity Provokes Neighborhood Conflict.

Concerns about neighborhood erosion and conflict in ethnically di- verse settings occupy scholars, policy makers, and pundits alike; but the empirical evidence is inconclusive. This article proposes the contested boundaries hypothesis as a refined contextual explanation focused on poorly defined boundaries between ethnic and racial groups. The authors argue that neighborhood conflict is more likely to occur at fuzzy boundaries defined as interstitial or transitional areas sandwiched between two homogeneous communities. Edge detection algorithms from computer vision and image processing allow them to identify these boundaries. Data from 4.7 million time- and geo-coded 311 service requests from New York City support their argument: complaints about neighbors making noise, drinking in public, or blocking the driveway are more frequent at fuzzy boundaries rather than crisp, polarized borders. By focusing on the broader sociospatial structure, the contested boundaries hypothesis overcomes the "aspatial" treatment of neighborhoods as isolated areas in research on ethnic diversity.

Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size.

Ethnic diversity is typically measured by the well-known Hirschman-Herfindahl Index. This paper discusses the merits of an alternative approach, which is in our view better suited to tease out why and how ethnic diversity matters. The approach consists of two elements. First, all existing diversity indices are non-relational. From the viewpoint of theoretical accounts that attribute negative diversity effects to in-group favoritism and out-group threat, it should however matter whether, given a certain level of overall diversity, an individual belongs to a minority group or to the dominant majority. We therefore decompose diversity by distinguishing the in-group share from the diversity of ethnic out-groups. Second, we show how generalized entropy measures can be used to test which of diversity's two basic dimensions matters most: the variety of groups, or the unequal distribution (balance) of the population over groups. These measures allow us to test different theoretical explanations against each other, because they imply different expectations regarding the effects of in-group size, out-group variety, and out-group balance. We apply these ideas in an analysis of various social cohesion measures across 55 German localities and show that both in-group size and out-group diversity matter. For the native majority as well as for persons of immigration background, the variety component of diversity seems to be more decisive than has formerly been acknowledged. These findings provide little support for group threat and in-group favoritism as the decisive mechanisms behind negative diversity effects, and are most in line with the predictions of theories that emphasize coordination problems, asymmetric preferences, and network closure.

Can competing diversity indices inform us about why ethnic diversity erodes social cohesion? A test of five diversity indices in Germany.

An ever-growing number of studies investigates the relation between ethnic diversity and social cohesion, but these studies have produced mixed results. In cross-national research, some scholars have recently started to investigate more refined and informative indices of ethnic diversity than the commonly used Hirschman-Herfindahl Index. These refined indices allow to test competing theoretical explanations of why ethnic diversity is associated with declines in social cohesion. This study assesses the applicability of this approach for sub-national analyses. Generally, the results confirm a negative association between social cohesion and ethnic diversity. However, the competing indices are empirically indistinguishable and thus insufficient to test different theories against one another. Follow-up simulations suggest the general conclusion that the competing indices are meaningful operationalizations only if a sample includes: (1) contextual units with small and contextual units with large minority shares, as well as (2) contextual units with diverse and contextual units with polarized ethnic compositions. The results are thus instructive to all researchers who wish to apply different diversity indices and thereby test competing theories.