The contribution of intergroup neighbouring to community participation: Evidence from Shanghai

Abstract

Chinese

What kind of neighbouring might enhance participation in community activities? Using a 1420-sized household survey collected in Shanghai, this paper examines the relationship between different types of neighbouring and community participation. Our results show that in-group neighbouring between residents belonging to the same social group does not have a direct effect on community participation. Instead intergroup neighbouring between migrant and local neighbours can lead to more willingness to take part in community activities. Owing to the unequal power configuration between minority and majority groups living in the same locality, intergroup neighbouring can help break down existing barriers between migrant residents and local residents who are mostly in charge of organising community activities. Our findings contribute to a better conceptualisation of neighbouring and community participation, which so far has focused on the quantity of neighbouring but largely ignored the types of neighbouring.

Keywords

cohesion community diversity governance migration neighbourhood neighbourhood governance neighbourly relations segregation

Introduction

There has been a surge of academic and political interest in neighbouring in the recent decades (Cheshire, 2015; Clampet-Lundquist, 2010; Crisp, 2013; Forrest and Yip, 2007; Ho and Chua, 2018; Zhu et al., 2012). One key reason for the revived enthusiasm in neighbouring is the argument that better neighbourly relations can encourage residents to take part in community activities as well as collaborate with each other to address local problems (Crisp, 2013; Ho and Chua, 2018; Putnam, 2001). However, despite the many studies praising the supposed benefits of neighbourly relations, there are surprisingly few studies that have explicitly explored how and why neighbouring is positively associated with community participation. The most common explanation focuses on the quantity of neighbouring and suggests that knowing more neighbours can increase one’s chance to be invited by neighbours, who are already ‘civically engaged’, to take part in community organisations and activities (Putnam, 2001: 121). However, this conceptualisation fails to consider the unequal power configuration amongst different resident groups whereby minority groups are often subjected to stigmatisation and exclusion from community activities (Elias and Scotson, 1994; Wu, 2012). This study therefore aims to investigate the relationship between different types of neighbouring and community participation. We pay particular attention to intergroup neighbouring and its potential role in breaking down existing stigmatisation and thereby assisting minority residents to participate in community activities. Our study draws on existing conceptualisations of different neighbouring types: manifest and latent neighbouring first proposed by Mann (1954) and more recent works on intergroup neighbouring, which measures the neighbourly relationship between residents belonging to different social groups (Pettigrew, 1998; Putnam, 2007; Wang et al., 2016).

The data for this study stem from a 1420-sized questionnaire survey collected in Shanghai in 2013. In urban China, both neighbouring and community participation have declined significantly since the country’s transition to a market economy and the abolishment of the work-unit system (Forrest and Yip, 2007; Friedmann, 2007; Hazelzet and Wissink, 2012; Heberer, 2009; Wang et al., 2016, 2017a; Whyte and Parish, 1984; Wu, 2018; Wu and Logan, 2016). The influx of migrants has also significantly affected community participation because migrant residents are often unwilling or unable to participate in community activities because of stigmatisation and feelings of exclusion (Wu, 2012). Chinese cities are therefore a very useful case study as they face challenges that are shared by many other contexts.

The paper is structured as follows: the next section offers a review and critique of how existing studies have conceptualised the relationship between neighbouring and community participation as well as how they articulate the importance of intergroup neighbouring. This is followed by a review of the Chinese literature on neighbouring and participation. We then explain the methodology and move on to the analysis of the survey data and finally conclude with a discussion on the main findings and the study’s theoretical contribution.

The significance of neighbouring for community participation

There is a longstanding interest in neighbourly relations and earlier studies were mainly concerned with the decline of neighbouring as a result of extensive urbanisation (Forrest, 2008; White and Guest, 2003; Wirth, 1938). The seminal work by Wirth (1938) suggests that processes of urbanisation and industrialisation have broken down traditional social relations based on kinship and neighbourhood relations. Instead they have been replaced by transient and impersonal relations based on rationality and utilitarianism (Wirth, 1938). Many studies since then have tried to explore the significance of neighbouring and mostly come to a similar conclusion that neighbouring is no longer the primary networking tool in cities (Forrest and Yip, 2007; Guest and Wierzbicki, 1999; White and Guest, 2003). However, in recent decades there has been a revived interest in neighbourly relations which rests upon the argument that better neighbourly relations can contribute to more community participation and better collaboration amongst residents (Corcoran et al., 2018; Crisp, 2013; Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Henning and Lieberg, 1996; Ho and Chua, 2018; Putnam, 2001). This argument has also fuelled many place-based government policies that aim to revitalise deprived localities by stimulating self-help amongst residents. For instance, the Cameron administration in the UK built extensively on this assumption and introduced a series of policies that aimed to strengthen local communities, such as the ‘New Deal for Communities’ or the vision for a ‘Big society’ (Crisp, 2013). Equally, the Chinese government has directed more resources towards building cohesive neighbourhoods since the Hu/Wen era through the ‘community construction’ policy initiative (Shieh and Friedmann, 2008).

Much of the theoretical basis arguing for the benefits of neighbouring stem from earlier sociological research. The work by Mann (1954) contends that frequent neighbourly interaction may not always invoke positive feelings amongst residents and at times may even worsen the relationship between residents (Buonfino and Hilder, 2006; Mann, 1954). Instead, Mann (1954) suggests that it is necessary to distinguish between manifest and latent neighbouring. Manifest neighbouring refers to overt forms of social relationships such as greeting, visiting or helping neighbours. Whilst some residents may enjoy frequent interaction with their neighbours, others may consider overly frequent manifest neighbouring as intrusive (Buonfino and Hilder, 2006: 13). In contrast, latent neighbouring is characterised by positive attitudes such as trust and mutual care between residents and does not involve any overt forms of interaction. Mann (1954: 164) contends that high levels of latent neighbouring can likely be converted to collective action-taking and mutual support in times of crisis because residents already have a positive but non-intrusive relationship. Another important academic source, which has been drawn upon to argue for the benefits of neighbouring, is the work by Putnam (2001). Putnam (2001: 121) finds that those who have more informal social connections in the neighbourhood are also more like to engage in so-called ‘civic activities’ such as volunteering, fund raising and community participation. This is because individuals with more local social connections are also more likely to be asked to join community activities and community groups by friends or neighbours who are already civically engaged. Furthermore, individuals are also more likely to agree to join when asked by someone with whom they have an existing relationship. Conversely, someone who does not have any local relations is much less likely to be invited to participate in any collective activities (Putnam, 2001).

The dominant explanation for the positive association between neighbouring and community participation (Mann, 1954; Putnam, 2001) places great emphasis on the quantity and intensity of neighbouring. The more local connections someone has and the more trustworthy someone considers their neighbours to be are strongly related to more community participation. However, this conceptualisation of the relationship between neighbouring and community participation is problematic and does not consider the power configuration between different social groups which reside in the same neighbourhood. Elias and Scotson (1994) contend that the unequal power structure between different social groups can often prevent those who belong to a group which is perceived as ‘different’ and as ‘outsiders’, from community participation. Using the case of a suburban area in central England, Elias and Scotson (1994) found that newly arrived residents were immediately portrayed as inferior outsiders by the established residents who had lived in the locality for a long time. The stigmatisation and ‘othering’ of new residents served to strengthen the existing social order dominated by the established residents and prevented new residents from taking part in community activities and integrating into the existing community. It also fostered a positive group image amongst the established whilst creating a sense of collective shame amongst the newcomers. Gossiping amongst the established residents was an integral means of stigmatisation and helped to collectively condemn newly arrived residents as the inferior ‘other’ whilst praising the qualities of the established residents as the superior ‘us’. Elias and Scotson’s (1994) research provides an important alternative conceptualisation of neighbouring and community participation whereby more neighbouring does not lead to more participation. In fact, neighbouring within the group of established residents achieved the opposite and assisted in excluding perceived outsiders. This process of establishing the ‘other’ can also be observed in urban China, where rural migrants are the main subject of stigmatisation by native residents (Chen et al., 2011; Du et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2010). Rural migrants are often unwilling to participate in community activities because of fears of being discriminated against (Wu, 2012).

The works by Elias and Scotson (1994) and recent empirical findings in China (Wu, 2012), therefore, call for a reappraisal of the relationship between neighbouring and community participation that takes into account the complex intergroup dynamics between different social groups. The following section will discuss how a differentiation between in-group and intergroup neighbouring can help better understand the dynamics of community participation.

Intergroup neighbouring and community participation

There is a large body of work focusing on intergroup relations, which refers to the relationship between members belonging to different social groups (Nannestad et al., 2008; Pettigrew, 1998; Putnam, 2007; Wang et al., 2017b). Unlike in-group relationships, which take place between members belonging to the same social group, studies argue that intergroup relations can improve the public perception of minority groups and help minority members integrate into mainstream society (Pettigrew, 1998; Putnam, 2007; Wang et al., 2016). So far, few studies have examined community participation through the lens of intergroup neighbouring. Nevertheless, there is scope to believe that intergroup neighbouring is an important mechanism to improve the community participation of residents who are considered as outsiders. A key benefit attributed to bridging social relations is its ability to break down barriers and connect people belonging to different social groups (Putnam, 2007). Positive intergroup relations could therefore reduce tension between the majority and minority groups and instead foster a shared sense of community that transcends established group boundaries. This in turn can have a positive effect on community participation and the willingness of both minority and majority residents to contribute to the neighbourhood. Indeed, findings by Henning and Lieberg (1996) also suggest that mundane neighbouring activities such as greeting each other can already improve the relationship between residents belonging to different social groups.

Neighbouring and community participation in Chinese cities

Neighbouring in contemporary Chinese cities has changed significantly since the country’s transition from a socialist to a market economy. With the abolishment of the work-unit system and the emergence of commodity housing estates, studies suggest that neighbouring is no longer of importance to many urban residents, who instead have social networks stretching far beyond the locality (Forrest and Yip, 2007; Hazelzet and Wissink, 2012). Especially, the rising middle class living in new commodity neighbourhoods is much less likely to engage in neighbourly relations and instead prefers the privacy and comfort of the private home (Zhu et al., 2012). Chinese middle-class residents living in commodity estates therefore bear some resemblance to middle-class suburbanites of New York (Baumgartner, 1989). Baumgartner (1989: 72) found that the relationship amongst middle-class and affluent residents is characterised by indifference and an avoidance of conflict rather than proactive social control. Any collaboration that arises from such a context may therefore be born out of necessity rather than positive neighbourly relations. Indeed, in Chinese commodity neighbourhoods, collaboration amongst residents is often necessary in order to fight against poor estate management (He, 2015; Lu et al., 2018). However, despite the decline of manifest neighbouring in commodity housing estates, such as visiting each other’s homes, recent research has also found that latent neighbouring remains at a high level in virtually all neighbourhood types (Lu et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017c). Additionally, Wang et al. (2017c) found that there is a large portion of commodity residents who believe that residents are taking good care of each other and consider their neighbours as trustworthy. Recent studies also find that neighbouring is an important form of social networking for rural migrants (Liu et al., 2017a, 2017b; Wu and Logan, 2016). Compared with native residents whose social networks are no longer bound by the locality (Hazelzet and Wissink, 2012), rural migrants only have a limited social network in the city and rely on neighbourly relations as a means to receive support and exchange information (Wu and Logan, 2016). Rural migrants engage in both in-group neighbourly relations with fellow migrants and intergroup neighbourly relations with native neighbours (Wang et al., 2016). However, neighbourly relations with local neighbours is often more limited owing to the stigmatisation of rural migrants (Wang et al., 2016).

Traditionally, community participation in urban China has been associated with more informal activities such as mutual help and is less concerned about neighbourhood governance and politics (Xu et al., 2010). During the socialist era, work-units (danwei) were in charge of governing and organising residential neighbourhoods as well as local social life (Friedmann, 2007; Whyte and Parish, 1984; Wu, 2018). Yet with the decline of the danwei system as a result of the transition to a market economy, the demand for more voluntary resident participation in issues of elderly care and unemployment support has increased considerably (Heberer, 2009; Wu, 2018). In contemporary China, Heberer (2009: 494) makes the distinction between political and social participation in urban China whereby political participation refers to activities such as electoral acts (such as voting for representatives of the local residential committee), representing resident groups and organising parties and associations. With the emergence of commodity housing estates where state control is weak, homeowner associations were introduced in order to give homeowners more control over the management and maintenance of their estate (He, 2015). Activities such as voting for the homeowner association’s assembly therefore also exist in many of China’s privately developed neighbourhoods. On the other hand, social participation can include the care and financial support of socially weak resident groups and the ‘improvement and infrastructural design and organization of the neighbourhood’ (Heberer, 2009: 494). Taking care of the socially weak, such as elderly residents and disabled or sick residents, as well as involvement in leisure activities should be counted as social rather than political participation in China (Heberer, 2009). Amongst the scarce literature on the drivers of community participation in urban China, Wu (2012) found that rural migrant residents living in low-income neighbourhoods tend to have a significantly lower likelihood of participating in community activities compared with native residents. Wu (2012: 564) explains that the lack of participation of rural migrants is because of the migrant residents’ fear of being discriminated against and being actively excluded by local residents, who tend to be in charge of community activities and organisations.

Data and methods

This study draws on a survey conducted in 2013 in Shanghai. Shanghai has a very diverse population including different groups of migrants and a broad range of neighbourhood types (Xiao et al., 2017, 2019), which makes this city a very suitable place to study the role of intergroup neighbouring and community participation. The survey adopted a two-stage sampling strategy. The first stage selected sub-districts through a stratified sampling strategy. First, we sampled sub-districts from the inner city, inner suburbs and areas outside the outer ring road. We then used a probability proportionate to size (PPS) method to select sub-districts. A final sample of 35 sub-districts located in 12 districts in Shanghai was selected out of a total of 225 sub-districts. Within each chosen sub-district, one residential committee (juweihui) was chosen out of the total number of juweihuis of the respective sub-district. For the second stage, households in each selected juweihui were sampled at a fixed interval, beginning from a random street number in order to approximate the sample’s distribution to the locality’s actual population. We adopted an address-based selection process because this would allow us to include temporary and migrant residents who are not registered on any official registers.

In each juweihui, we distributed 40 questionnaires. Although the population of each juweihui is fairly similar, there are some exceptional cases. To avoid any biases due to varying population sizes of juweihuis, our analysis weighted for the total population in each respective neighbourhood. The survey yielded 1420 valid samples, wherein 1046 residents were Shanghai urban hukou holders, 128 Shanghai rural hukou holders (i.e. rural villagers) and 244 migrant residents, amongst which 86 were urban migrants and 158 were rural migrants. The lower number of migrant respondents is due to irregular and long working hours of migrants. To avoid any systemic lack of any migrant groups, surveyors revisited several neighbourhoods where the share of migrant respondents was significantly lower than the official data and interviewed 100 additional migrant respondents. A comparison of our sample with the official statistics (Appendix 1, available online) shows that our survey sample is still fairly representative and that this drawback does not significantly impede this study’s objective. We employ a mixed effects linear regression, which is a form of multilevel modelling. Compared with an OLS model, a multilevel approach can reduce correlation errors and biased estimates of parameter caused by the grouping of variables at higher levels (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). Given that community participation is likely to be affected by contextual factors such as neighbourhood deprivation (Wu, 2012), a multilevel model is therefore a more suitable choice.

Measuring community participation

Our study measures community participation through two variables, which first ask respondents about their likelihood to participate in community activities, and second, whether residents would solve problems collectively. The rationale for including these two variables is to explore whether residents are willing to contribute to the daily governance of the local community and whether they are willing to collaborate with neighbours to resolve local problems. The question regarding participation in community activities also allows a certain degree of flexibility as to whether such activities include what Heberer (2009) defines as social participation (e.g. helping elderly residents) and political participation such as voting in the home owners association (He, 2015). Specifically, respondents were asked how much they agreed with the two statements below on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 whereby 1 is highly disagree, 5 is highly agree and 0 is not applicable.¹

(1) If there are problems, residents in this neighbourhood will solve them together.

(2) My family and I often take part in community activities in this neighbourhood.

Defining neighbouring

Our study distinguishes neighbouring based on four criteria, namely whether it is (1) manifest or latent and (2) in-group or intergroup (see Table 1). Latent neighbouring refers to the emotional bonds between residents and is a composite variable consisting of four questions regarding their feelings of mutual trust, care, friendliness and familiarity amongst neighbours. We adopted Buckner’s (1988) and Mann’s (1954) definitions of latent neighbouring in the Chinese context and the specific questions are listed in Appendix 2 (available online). Respondents answered on a scale of 0–5, whereby 1 is highly disagree, 5 is highly agree, and 0 means not applicable. With regards to manifest neighbouring, we used three questions relating to the frequency of visiting each other, mutual help (we named examples such as helping to pick children up from school or lending some equipment) and greeting each other. Respondents could choose from four answers: 1 is never, 2 is seldom, 3 is sometimes and 4 is frequently. The specific questions asked can be found in Appendix 2 (available online).

Table 1.

Categories of neighbouring.

	Cronbach’s α	Mean	S.D.	Min	Max	Questions
In-group manifest neighbouring	0.78	8.47	2.02	3	12	Fellow local (migrant) neighbours visiting each other’s home
						Fellow local (migrant) neighbours helping each other
						Fellow local (migrant) neighbours greeting each other
In-group latent neighbouring	0.90	10.77	1.75	3	15	Friendliness between fellow local (migrant) residents
						Care between fellow local (migrant) residents
						Trust between fellow local (migrant) residents
						Familiarity between fellow local (migrant) residents
Intergroup manifest neighbouring	0.80	6.35	1.41	2	10	Migrant and local neighbours visiting each other’s home
						Migrant and local neighbours helping each other
						Migrant and local neighbours greeting each other
Intergroup latent neighbouring	0.86	6.89	1.81	2	10	Friendliness between local and migrant residents
						Care between local and migrant residents
						Trust between local and migrant residents
						Familiarity between local and migrant residents

We also distinguished between in-group and intergroup neighbouring (Wang et al., 2016) whereby in-group refers to neighbouring amongst residents belonging to the same hukou group, which is either migrants or locals. For instance, we asked migrant respondents about their latent and manifest neighbouring with their migrant (in-group) neighbours and local (out-group) neighbours. Table 1 lists the four types of neighbouring of this study.

Neighbourhood factors

Neighbourhood in this study is defined as the juweihui where residents live. Juweihuis were chosen since they are neighbourhoods naturally defined by streets and building blocks. Juweihuis are also the lowest administrative level governed by residential committees and where official population data are available. Previous neighbourhood studies on urban China have also defined neighbourhoods using juweihui and used juweihui for their statistical analysis (Li and Wu, 2008; Wu et al., 2010). Three neighbourhood level variables were included in this study. The first variable measures the percentage of migrant residents in the juweihui and the second variable is the number of recipients of the Minimum Living Standard Support (MLSS) within the juweihui, to represent neighbourhood deprivation (Wu et al., 2010). The third variable is the dominant housing type of the juweihui and includes traditional courtyards, relocation settlements, work-unit housing, urban villages and commodity neighbourhoods. All three contextual variables were collected at the juweihui-level and the housing type within our sampled juweihuis are all homogeneous to a large extent. Considering that migrants do not receive MLSS, informal settlements which are commonly known in China as urban villages (chengzhongcun) were also included to account for migrant poverty to a certain extent (Wu et al., 2010: 140).

Individual factors

Our study controls for individual-level variables including income, age, tenure, length of residency, number of household members and hukou status. Hukou status has four categories, namely native urban (local non-agricultural), native rural (local agricultural), rural migrant (non-local agricultural) and urban migrant (non-local non-agricultural). The reason to include four hukou categories was to account for the diversity of the migrant population since urban migrants who hold a non-local urban hukou from other cities may be very different from rural migrants with respect to income and employment opportunities.

Findings

Table 2 shows the result of a cross-tabulation of the community participation variables and hukou status in order to better understand the overall level of community participation and whether it varies between different hukou groups. When asked how much respondents agreed that residents would solve a problem in the neighbourhood collectively, more than 40% of local urban and 53.9% of local rural residents, as well as more than 30% of urban migrant residents chose a 4 or a 5. In contrast, when asked the same question, considerably fewer rural migrants (21.62%) answered with 4 or 5 and 23.65% of rural migrant residents chose 1 or 2. Compared with collective problem solving, the level of community participation is considerably lower. When asked how much they agreed with the statement that the respondent and his/her family took part in community activities, only one-quarter of local urban residents, 28.12% of local rural residents and 24% of urban migrant respondents agreed or highly agreed (4 or 5). Moreover, only 11.64% of rural migrant respondents selected 4 or 5. In comparison, more than 41% of rural migrants selected 1 or 2 as their answer, suggesting that a large section of rural migrants do not partake in local community activities.

Table 2.

Collective problem solving and community participation by hukou status (percentage).

	1 (highly disagree)	2	3	4	5 (highly agree)
Collective problem solving
Local urban	1.57	10.71	47.15	36.64	3.93
Local rural	0.00	2.34	43.75	49.22	4.69
Urban migrant	1.25	13.75	52.50	30.00	2.50
Rural migrant	2.03	21.62	54.73	17.57	4.05
Community participation
Local urban	2.64	14.09	56.56	21.82	4.89
Local rural	0.78	3.13	67.97	26.56	1.56
Urban migrant	5.33	26.67	44.00	22.67	1.33
Rural migrant	5.48	35.62	47.26	8.22	3.42

Neighbouring and collective problem solving

Table 3 presents the results of the mixed effects linear regression of collective problem solving and shows several important findings. First, with regard to the effects of neighbouring, both manifest (M1) and latent neighbouring (M2) with fellow in-group neighbours are not significantly associated with collective problem solving. In contrast, the results from model 3 and model 4 show that manifest and latent neighbouring between migrant and local residents are positively and significantly associated with more frequent collective problem solving. Both intergroup manifest and intergroup latent neighbouring is shown to be significantly associated with collective problem solving at the 0.05 level. It is also interesting to note that the effect of both manifest and latent neighbouring are highly similar, signalling that the distinction of in-group and intergroup neighbouring matters more than latent or manifest neighbouring in regards to solving problems collectively. The reason for this may be that whilst more frequent in-group neighbouring can foster informal relations within social groups, it does not help to change local residents’ hostile perception towards migrant residents. On the other hand, intergroup neighbouring helps to break down stigmatisation and barriers between migrant and local residents and thereby increases the chance for locals and migrants to collaborate and address shared neighbourhood problems.

Table 3.

Mixed effect linear regression of collective problem solving.

	(M1) In-group manifest neighbouring		(M2) In-group latent neighbouring		(M3) Intergroup manifest neighbouring		(M4) Intergroup latent neighbouring
	B	S.E.	B	S.E.	B	S.E.	B	S.E.
Constant	−0.113	0.114	−0.101	0.115	−0.105	0.125	−0.118	0.126
Neighbourhood level
Migrant concentration	0.242	0.187	0.273	0.188	0.244	0.178	0.243	0.183
Area poverty	−0.218	0.124	−0.208	0.128	−0.215	0.123	−0.199	0.120
Neighbourhood type (base: work-unit)
Courtyard housing	0.502***	0.128	0.486***	0.124	0.547***	0.167	0.535**	0.149
Urban villages	0.332**	0.114	0.291*	0.113	0.362**	0.144	0.327*	0.111
Relocation housing	0.162	0.115	0.159	0.122	0.178	0.129	0.172	0.133
Commodity housing	0.242*	0.103	0.241*	0.106	0.244*	0.122	0.245*	0.119
Individual level
Manifest neighbouring	0.068	0.037			0.088*	0.040
Latent neighbouring			0.015	0.048			0.088*	0.038
Age	0.084*	0.035	0.088*	0.035	0.090*	0.036	0.084*	0.035
Gender (base: Male)
Female	0.022	0.065	0.022	0.064	0.025	0.066	0.024	0.066
Length of residency	−0.006	0.051	−0.009	0.049	−0.001	0.050	−0.004	0.050
Hukou status (base: Local urban hukou)
Local rural hukou	0.477	0.178	0.068	0.185	0.068	0.182	0.059	0.180
Urban migrant hukou	−0.144	0.133	−0.181	0.128	−0.238	0.127	−0.241	0.134
Rural migrant hukou	−0.402*	0.188	−0.425*	0.182	−0.478**	0.181	−0.475*	0.189
Head income (log)	−0.050	0.035	−0.047	0.034	−0.040	0.033	−0.047	0.034
Tenure (base: Owner)
Tenant	−0.137	0.097	−0.130	0.096	−0.128	0.095	−0.132	0.094
No. of family members	0.050	0.033	0.054	0.033	0.053	0.032	0.047	0.032
Within area variance	0.805	0.067	0.809	0.068	0.805	0.066	0.803	0.066
Between area variance	0.242	0.083	0.243	0.084	0.250	0.081	0.253	0.085
Observations	1362		1361		1357		1361
AIC	427,222.6		427,566.2		425,620.9		426,589.9
BIC	427,321.7		427,665.3		425,720.0		426,689.0

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

In addition, Table 3 shows that the neighbourhood type is significantly associated with collective problem solving. Compared with residents living in work-unit neighbourhoods, residents in traditional courtyards are 0.5 times more likely to partake in collective problem solving (p < 0.001). This is closely followed by residents living in urban villages (p < 0.01) and residents living in commodity housing estates (p < 0.05). One potential explanation for these outcomes could be that the legacy of the work-unit system continues to be of relevance in work-unit neighbourhoods, and problems and issues are still being dealt with by the respective work-unit without requiring many residents to get involved. In contrast, the traditional courtyard has experienced a significant decline of its housing quality since China’s transition to a market economy, and the residential committees (which are in charge of maintenance) are often understaffed and under-resourced. Consequently, residents have to rely on themselves and the local community rather than the state to resolve local problems. A similar explanation may also apply to urban villages where formal governance by the state is weak and the residents, which consist of many informal tenants, have to rely on the local social network to resolve problems. The case of commodity housing estates may be different because such estates are maintained by private management companies rather than the state (Lu et al., 2018). However, the private management of commodity neighbourhoods is often fraught with problems (Heberer, 2009), therefore forcing residents to take collective action in order to defend themselves against poorly performing management companies.

With regards to individual factors, Table 3 shows that older age is significantly associated with collective problem solving (p < 0.05), potentially because older and especially retired residents have more time at their disposal to address local problems. Furthermore, being a rural migrant is negatively associated with collective problem solving (p < 0.05). This finding also confirms Wu’s (2012) finding that because of feelings of exclusion, rural migrants are unwilling to take part in community activities.

Neighbouring and community participation

Table 4 shows the multilevel results for community participation. The results show that both intergroup manifest and latent neighbouring are positively related to community participation at the 0.01 level. The results indicate that higher levels of neighbourly interaction and stronger levels of trust and mutual care between migrant and local residents can lead to more frequent participation in community activities. In contrast, in-group manifest and latent neighbouring are not significant indicators.

Table 4.

Mixed effect linear regression of community participation.

	(M5) In-group manifest neighbouring		(M6) In-group latent neighbouring		(M7) Intergroup manifest neighbouring		(M8) Intergroup latent neighbouring
	B	S.E.	B	S.E.	B	S.E.	B	S.E.
Constant	0.219	0.135	0.226	0.130	0.211	0.137	0.199	0.145
Neighbourhood level
Migrant concentration	0.773***	0.129	0.770***	0.131	0.745***	0.132	0.746***	0.125
Area poverty	−0.521***	0.077	−0.516***	0.076	−0.521***	0.076	−0.531***	0.073
Neighbourhood type (base: work-unit)
Courtyard housing	0.047	0.203	0.038	0.204	0.085	0.233	0.099	0.251
Urban villages	−0.159	0.088	−0.175	0.097	−0.111	0.098	−0.078	0.100
Relocation housing	−0.121	0.100	−0.129	0.100	−0.110	0.088	−0.109	0.103
Commodity housing	−0.161	0.120	−0.166	0.116	−0.158	0.128	−0.155	0.145
Individual level
Manifest neighbouring	−0.009	0.035			0.077**	0.026
Latent neighbouring			−0.023	0.039			0.074**	0.024
Age	0.075	0.039	0.076*	0.038	0.070	0.038	0.074*	0.036
Gender (base: Male)	−0.007	0.051	−0.007	0.051	−0.005	0.051	0.001	0.052
Female
Length of residency	0.030	0.056	0.032	0.055	0.035	0.056	0.034	0.054
Hukou status (base: Local urban hukou)
Local rural hukou	0.063	0.144	0.051	0.147	0.069	0.146	0.065	0.150
Urban migrant hukou	−0.256*	0.111	−0.246*	0.108	−0.302**	0.102	−0.308**	0.105
Rural migrant hukou	−0.587*	0.273	−0.580*	0.266	−0.632*	0.265	−0.647*	0.270
Head income (log)	−0.069	0.041	−0.067	0.041	−0.069	0.041	−0.062	0.040
Tenure (base: Owner)	0.012	0.120	0.011	0.119	0.010	0.118	0.018	0.118
Tenant
No. of family members	0.103**	0.035	0.101**	0.034	0.097**	0.034	0.100**	0.033
Within area variance	0.803	0.089	0.802	0.088	0.800	0.087	0.798	0.088
Between area variance	0.473	0.090	0.473	0.090	0.465	0.088	0.460	0.088
Observations	1360		1359		1359		1354
AIC	428,020.2		427,674.2		427,014.6		425,095.0
BIC	428,119.3		427,773.2		427,113.7		425,194.0

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

At the neighbourhood level, a higher share of migrant residents in a neighbourhood is significantly and positively related to community participation (p < 0.001). We speculate that this might be because migrants have a stronger sense of belonging to a neighbourhood that has a higher share of migrant residents and therefore are more willing to take part in community activities. Furthermore, areas with more migrant residents may also be more reliant on the voluntary participation of the residents in order to maintain the day-to-day functioning of the neighbourhood. In addition, we find that higher area poverty is negatively associated with community participation at the 0.001 level. This outcome may be explained by the perceived sense of competition amongst residents living in poorer neighbourhoods with limited access to public resources and jobs, which in turn impede their willingness to contribute to the locality.

At the individual level there are several significant factors affecting the willingness of residents to participate in community activities. First, both urban and rural migrants are less likely to take part in community activities compared with native urban residents. For urban migrants, this may be because they rely on a social network beyond the neighbourhood, and for rural migrants, a sense of exclusion and stigmatisation may explain this outcome. Furthermore, once controlled for intergroup manifest (model 7) and latent (model 8) neighbouring, the association between urban migrants and community participation has gained in significance (p < 0.01). This suggests that increased levels of neighbourly activities with native residents also encourage urban migrants to participate in community activities. Second, households with more family members are positively associated with community participation (p < 0.01). Larger families are likely to have children and may feel that they have a greater stake in the local community compared with, for example, single households. Third, age is significant in the latent neighbouring models (M6 and M8), and insignificant in the manifest models (M5 and M7). This may indicate that older residents engage in more overt rather than latent forms of neighbouring, which in turn encourages them to contribute to the local community.

The importance of intergroup neighbouring for migrant residents

One key question that arises from the results in Tables 3 and 4 is why intergroup neighbouring is positively related to community participation. Wu (2012) previously indicated that rural migrants are less likely to participate in community activities because of feeling excluded and discriminated against. Moreover, local residents may also actively exclude migrant residents from participating because of the stigmas attached to rural migrants. Our results so far show that compared with native urban residents, rural migrants are less likely to engage in community activities or partake in collective problem solving. Our assumption is that more frequent intergroup neighbouring between locals and migrants can help reduce stigmatisation and feelings of exclusion, which, in turn, increases the involvement of migrants in the local community. To test this assumption, in Table 5 we added an interaction term of hukou status and out-group manifest neighbouring to the community participation model (model 9) and collective problem-solving model (model 11). We also added an interaction term of hukou and intergroup latent neighbouring to the community participation model (model 10). By adding the interaction terms, it is possible to compare the level of community participation between migrants who interact with local neighbours and those who do not. The interaction term of intergroup manifest neighbouring was not significant for the collective problem-solving model. Both the AIC and the BIC indices have improved significantly after including the interaction terms.

Table 5.

Mixed effects model with interaction between hukou and manifest and latent intergroup neighbouring,

	(M9) Community participation and intergroup manifest neighbouring		(M10) Community participation and intergroup latent neighbouring		(M11) Collective problem solving and intergroup latent neighbouring
	B	S.E.	B	S.E.	B	S.E.
Constant	0.194	0.130	0.147	0.141	−0.172	0.119
Neighbourhood level
Migrant concentration	0.719***	0.129	0.655***	0.113	0.137	0.156
Area poverty	−0.508***	0.077	−0.497***	0.062	−0.173	0.108
Neighbourhood type (base: work-unit)
Courtyard housing	0.087	0.220	0.186	0.249	0.645***	0.153
Urban villages	−0.086	0.097	−0.021	0.116	0.404*	0.182
Relocation housing	−0.957	0.083	−0.070	0.124	0.207	0.120
Commodity housing	−0.144	0.120	−0.108	0.150	−0.294*	0.116
Individual level
Manifest neighbouring	0.075*	0.031
Latent neighbouring			0.020	0.025	0.010	0.038
Age	0.062	0.037	0.076*	0.035	0.092**	0.034
Gender (base: Male)	−0.007	0.051	−0.004	0.051	0.019	0.065
Female
Length of residency	0.034	0.056	0.043	0.033	0.011	0.051
Hukou status (base: Local urban hukou)
Local rural hukou	0.696	0.273	0.082	0.142	0.087	0.162
Urban migrant hukou	−0.488***	0.326	−0.330*	0.134	−0.277	0.142
Rural migrant hukou	−0.642*	0.276	−0.793**	0.276	−0.633***	0.164
Head income (log)	−0.069	0.041	−0.057	0.037	−0.036	0.030
Tenure (base: Owner)	0.039	0.120	0.005	0.110	0.141	0.092
Tenant
No. of family members	0.097**	0.035	0.097**	0.034	0.047	0.030
Interaction between hukou and neighbouring (base: local urban hukou)
Local rural hukou	−0.102	0.086	0.105	0.055	0.266*	0.108
Urban migrant hukou	0.301*	0.141	0.113	0.090	0.173	0.103
Rural migrant hukou	−0.022	0.124	0.358**	0.129	0.416***	0.118
Within area variance	0.795	0.086	0.789	0.087	0.790	0.066
Between area variance	0.442	0.083	0.393	0.074	0.246	0.085
Observations	1359		1354		1357
AIC	426,265.8		423,204.8		422,493.2
BIC	426,380.5		423,319.4		422,607.9

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

With regards to the results of the interaction terms, model 10 shows that rural migrants who have high levels of trust and care towards their native neighbours are positively associated with participation in community activities (p < 0.01). After controlling for the interaction between hukou and out-group latent neighbouring, the negative association between rural migrants and community participation becomes even more significant (p < 0.01). Model 11 shows that rural migrants who consider their native neighbours as trustworthy and feel very close to them are also more willing to engage in collective problem solving (p < 0.001) compared with those who do not have positive feelings. These results signal that positive intergroup neighbourly relations can reduce the sense of exclusion felt by rural migrants and encourage them to become active members of the community. Finally, model 9 shows that urban migrants who frequently exchange help and greetings with their native neighbours are more likely to take part in community events (p < 0.05) than those who do not have positive feelings (p < 0.001). This result suggests that it is possible to distinguish between those urban migrants who rely on local support, such as less skilled urban migrants from smaller cities, and highly skilled urban migrants who have a much wider social network. Compared with highly skilled urban migrants, those who rely on their neighbours may be more willing to take part in community activities.

Conclusion

Much of the revived interest in neighbouring can be attributed to its supposed ability to facilitate community participation (Cheshire, 2015; Corcoran et al., 2018; Crisp, 2013; Ho and Chua, 2018; Kearns and Parkinson, 2001). Yet despite the enthusiasm for neighbouring, few studies have actually examined the relationship between neighbouring and community participation. Using the case of Shanghai, this study set out to examine what precise forms of neighbouring are associated with community participation. In urban China, community participation has declined significantly since the collapse of the work-unit system and more voluntary help is expected from residents (Heberer, 2009; Wu, 2018; Xu et al., 2010). However, research indicates that community participation is harder to facilitate in an increasingly diverse urban context where many native residents perceive their locality to be overrun by migrants who they consider as outsiders (Du et al., 2018; Wu, 2012). Active exclusion of rural migrants by local residents and migrants’ fear of exclusion have therefore reduced the level of community participation and prevented collaboration between migrant and local residents.

Our analysis reveals two important findings. First, our results show that a higher share of migrants in a neighbourhood is associated with stronger rather than weaker community participation. Neighbourhoods with a high share of migrants tend to be more informal where the support of the state is weaker, and residents have to depend on themselves to provide important services. Especially in migrant enclaves there is a culture of self-help (Liu et al., 2015) and residents themselves taking care of community matters. Moreover, having more migrant neighbours may also increase the sense of belonging of migrant residents and facilitate community participation. Migrant enclaves, which often emerge in urban villages, should therefore not be regarded as lawless places rife with crime and disorder. Rather, in the absence of the state, migrants’ everyday lives are characterised by mutual support and interdependence. Rather than the influx of migrant residents, the deprivation of neighbourhoods has a more negative effect on the willingness of residents to partake in community activities since the perception of competition between residents is higher. This also confirms the findings of Wu (2012), who found a lack of community participation in low-income neighbourhoods.

Second, our results show that community participation is associated with a precise kind of neighbouring. There is no significant association between in-group neighbouring and community participation. In other words, residents who frequently interact with fellow in-group members (e.g. migrants with migrants and locals with locals) are not necessarily more willing to engage in community activities or solve problems collectively. In an increasingly diverse urban China where many neighbourhoods experience the influx of migrant residents (Wang et al., 2017a), neighbourly interactions amongst members of the same social group are unable to foster a stronger sense of collectiveness between migrants and locals. On the other hand, our study finds that neighbouring between migrant and local residents is positively associated with community participation and tackling local problems as a collective. Especially, higher intergroup latent neighbouring, where migrant residents would consider their native neighbours as trustworthy and caring, is strongly related to more community participation.

This study has provided an alternative way to conceptualise the association between neighbouring and community participation, which highlights the importance of intergroup neighbouring. So far, the most common explanation for this positive association is that having a good relationship with many neighbours can increase one’s chances to be invited to join in community activities by neighbours who are already civically engaged (Putnam, 2001: 121). Furthermore, neighbourly relations characterised by trust form an important basis for residents to work collectively in times of crisis or in the face of shared problems (Mann, 1954). However, our findings reveal that this conceptualisation fails to explain the case of Shanghai. Instead, Elias and Scotson’s (1994) emphasis on the unequal power configuration between majority and minority groups is of greater relevance. Elias and Scotson’s (1994) argument that minority group residents cannot participate in community activities because of exclusion and stigmatisation also reflects the case of rural migrants in urban China. Our study contributes further to this line of theorisation and shows that intergroup neighbouring can act as an important mechanism to help break down this barrier created by stigmatisation and stereotypes, thereby fostering collaboration and inclusion between local and migrant neighbours. We believe that this alternative conceptualisation of neighbouring and community participation may be of greater relevance to many contemporary cities which, like Chinese cities, are also experiencing increasing diversity and growing numbers of intergroup conflicts.

Supplemental Material

Wang_Appendices_Supp_Mat – Supplemental material for The contribution of intergroup neighbouring to community participation: Evidence from Shanghai

Supplemental material, Wang_Appendices_Supp_Mat for The contribution of intergroup neighbouring to community participation: Evidence from Shanghai by Zheng Wang, Fangzhu Zhang and Fulong Wu in Urban Studies

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Ryan Powell for reading through the revision of this manuscript and his insightful suggestions. We are also very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and advice which have greatly improved this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the British Academy fund ID: 10.13039/501100000286, Grant ID: IC160171 and British Academy Grant ID: SRG18R1\180249, and Economic and Social Research Council fund ID: 10.13039/501100000269, Grant ID: ES/N015185/1.

ORCID iD

Zheng Wang

Notes

References

Baumgartner

(1989) The Moral Order of a Suburb. New York: Oxford University Press.

Buckner

(1988) The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology 16(6): 771–791.

Buonfino

Hilder

(2006) Neighbouring in contemporary Britain: A think-piece for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Housing and Neighbourhoods Committee. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/neighbouring-contemporary-britain-think-piece-joseph-rowntree-foundation-housing-and (accessed 8 February 2019).

Chen

Stanton

Kaljee

, et al. (2011) Social stigma, social capital reconstruction, and rural migrants in urban China: A population health perspective. Human Organization 70(1): 22–32.

Cheshire

(2015) ‘Know your neighbours’: Disaster resilience and the normative practices of neighbouring in an urban context. Environment and Planning A 47(5): 1081–1099.

Clampet-Lundquist

(2010) ‘Everyone had your back’: Social ties, perceived safety, and public housing relocation. City & Community 9(1): 87–108.

Corcoran

Zahnow

Wickes

Hipp

(2018) Neighbourhood land use features, collective efficacy and local civic actions. Urban Studies 55(11): 2372–2390.

Crisp

(2013) ‘Communities with oomph’? Exploring the potential for stronger social ties to revitalise disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31(2): 324–339.

Hao

(2018) ‘Anyway, you are an outsider’: Temporary migrants in urban China. Urban Studies 55(14): 3185–3201.

10.

Elias

Scotson

(1994) The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems. London: Sage Publications.

11.

Forrest

(2008) Who cares about neighbourhoods? International Social Science Journal 59(191): 129–141.

12.

Forrest

Kearns

(2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38(12): 2125–2143.

13.

Forrest

Yip

N-M

(2007) Neighbourhood and neighbouring in contemporary Guangzhou. Journal of Contemporary China 16(50): 47–64.

14.

Friedmann

(2007) Reflections on place and place-making in the cities of China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(2): 257–279.

15.

Guest

Wierzbicki

(1999) Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review 35(1): 92–111.

16.

Hazelzet

Wissink

(2012) Neighborhoods, social networks, and trust in post-reform China: The case of Guangzhou. Urban Geography 33(2): 204–220.

17.

(2015) Homeowner associations and neighborhood governance in Guangzhou, China. Eurasian Geography and Economics 56(3): 260–284.

18.

Heberer

(2009) Evolvement of citizenship in Urban China or authoritarian communitarianism? Neighborhood development, community participation, and autonomy. Journal of Contemporary China 18(61): 491–515.

19.

Henning

Lieberg

(1996) Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a new perspective. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 13(1): 3–26.

20.

Chua

(2018) The neighbourhood roots of social cohesion: Notes on an exceptional case of Singapore. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36(2): 290–312.

21.

Kearns

Parkinson

(2001) The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38(12): 2103–2110.

22.

(2008) Tenure-based residential segregation in post-reform Chinese cities: A case study of Shanghai. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(3): 404–419.

23.

Liu

Yuqi

, et al. (2015) Growth of rural migrant enclaves in Guangzhou, China: Agency, everyday practice and social mobility. Urban Studies 52(16): 3086–3105.

24.

Liu

Yuqi

Zhang

Liu

, et al. (2017a) The effect of neighbourhood social ties on migrants’ subjective wellbeing in Chinese cities. Habitat International 66: 86–94.

25.

Liu

Yuqi

Zhang

, et al. (2017b) The subjective wellbeing of migrants in Guangzhou, China: The impacts of the social and physical environment. Cities 60: 333–342.

26.

Zhang

(2018) Place attachment in gated neighbourhoods in China: Evidence from Wenzhou. Geoforum 92: 144–151.

27.

Mann

(1954) The concept of neighborliness. American Journal of Sociology 60(2): 163–168.

28.

Nannestad

Lind Haase Svendsen

Tinggaard Svendsen

(2008) Bridge over troubled water? Migration and social capital. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(4): 607–631.

29.

Pettigrew

(1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1): 65–85.

30.

Putnam

(2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

31.

Putnam

(2007) E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century – The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137–174.

32.

Raudenbush

Bryk

(2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

33.

Shieh

Friedmann

(2008) Restructuring urban governance. City 12(2): 183–195.

34.

Wang

Stanton

, et al. (2010) The influence of social stigma and discriminatory experience on psychological distress and quality of life among rural-to-urban migrants in China. Social Science & Medicine 71(1): 84–92.

35.

Wang

Zhang

(2016) Intergroup neighbouring in urban China: Implications for the social integration of migrants. Urban Studies 53(4): 651–668.

36.

Wang

Zhang

(2017a) Neighbourhood cohesion under the influx of migrants in Shanghai. Environment and Planning A 49(2): 407–425.

37.

Wang

Zhang

(2017b) Social trust between rural migrants and urban locals in China – Exploring the effects of residential diversity and neighbourhood deprivation. Population, Space and Place 23(1): 1–15.

38.

Wang

Zhang

(2017c) Affective neighbourly relations between migrant and local residents in Shanghai. Urban Geography 38(8): 1182–1202.

39.

White

KJC

Guest

(2003) Community lost or transformed? Urbanization and social ties. City & Community 2(3): 239–259.

40.

Whyte

Parish

(1984) Urban Life in Contemporary China. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

41.

Wirth

(1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 1–24.

42.

(2012) Neighborhood attachment, social participation, and willingness to stay in China’s low-income communities. Urban Affairs Review 48(4): 547–570.

43.

(2018) Housing privatization and the return of the state: Changing governance in China. Urban Geography 39(8): 1177–1194.

44.

Logan

(2016) Do rural migrants ‘float’ in urban China? Neighbouring and neighbourhood sentiment in Beijing. Urban Studies 53(14): 2973–2990.

45.

Webster

(2010) Path dependency and the neighbourhood effect: Urban poverty in impoverished neighbourhoods in Chinese cities. Environment and Planning A 42(1): 134–152.

46.

Perkins

Chow

JC-C

(2010) Sense of community, neighboring, and social capital as predictors of local political participation in China. American Journal of Community Psychology 45(3–4): 259–271.

47.

Xiao

Wang

Fang

(2019) Exploring the disparities in park access through mobile phone data: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 181: 80–91.

48.

Xiao

Wang

Tang

(2017) An assessment of urban park access in Shanghai – Implications for the social equity in urban China. Landscape and Urban Planning 157: 383–393.

49.

Zhu

Breitung

(2012) The changing meaning of neighbourhood attachment in Chinese commodity housing estates: Evidence from Guangzhou. Urban Studies 49(11): 2439–2457.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB