Neighborhood Effects on Integrative Organizational Practices in Five Global Cities
Abstract
Civil society organizations connect residents to one another and to wider organizational systems, but these integrative practices vary with neighborhood conditions. Using survey data from 863 organizations in 536 neighborhoods across San Francisco, Seattle, Shenzhen, Sydney, and Vienna, this study distinguishes social integration—connecting people to one another—from systemic integration—connecting people and organizations to other institutions. Social integration is more common in poorer neighborhoods. Systemic integration is more common in demographically heterogeneous neighborhoods, especially affluent ones. The findings show that neighborhood inequality shapes not only where organizations operate but also the kinds of connections they build.
Summary
Research Question
How do neighborhood income and migrant population share shape the ways civil society organizations connect residents to one another and to wider organizational systems?
Main Argument and Findings
Organizations in poorer neighborhoods more often practice social integration by connecting residents to one another. Systemic integration is more prevalent in heterogeneous neighborhoods and is especially common when those neighborhoods are affluent. Different local conditions therefore support different forms of civic connection.
Data and Methods
Organizational survey data from 863 civil society organizations, combined with neighborhood-level data for 536 neighborhoods in San Francisco, Seattle, Shenzhen, Sydney, and Vienna.
Contribution
The article brings neighborhood effects into organizational research and distinguishes two forms of integration that are often treated as one. Its comparative design shows how urban inequality and demographic diversity shape civic organizations across five global cities.
Keywords
civil society organizations · neighborhood effects · social integration · systemic integration · urban inequality · migrant diversity · global cities · comparative urban research