New City = New Friends?

The Restructuring of Social Resources after Relocation

Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 

Abstract: Despite the signifi cance of spatially proximate social contacts, there is 
little evidence about the effects of residential mobility on the social capital available 
to an individual. Based on theoretical considerations of the accumulation process 
of social capital after relocation, we derive hypotheses about the consequences 
of residential mobility on social capital. Firstly, we expect a partial devaluation of 
social capital in the origin region after the move and compensatory investments in 
social capital at the new location. Secondly, we assume that social capital increases 
with the length of residence and distinguish accumulation and consolidation phas-
es. Multivariate analysis based on survey data yields the expected consequences 
of mobility. Movers and native residents possess an equal amount of social capital; 
however, the composition of social capital differs between the two groups. Addi-
tionally, we decompose the length of residence into several time intervals to pro-
vide evidence for both the constituting and consolidating phases in the creation of 
social capital.

Keywords: Social capital · Residential mobility · Length of residence

1 Introduction

In this article, we analyse the impact of residential moves on the social capital of 
individuals. The background is the long-standing and controversial debate in so-
ciology about the consequences of residential mobility on social integration. Es-
pecially contributions within urban sociology and the classical “community stud-
ies” (Kasarda/Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988, 1991; Wirth 1938) have emphasized a 
negative correlation. Social disintegration at the collective level (characterised, for 
example, by a lack of solidarity, anomy, little social engagement, low interpersonal 
trust and high crime rates) is viewed as a consequence of heightened geographical 
mobility and population turnover (e.g., Wirth 1938; Kasarda/Janowitz 1974; Samp-
son 1988, 1991; Wellman 1996; Wellman et al. 1997; Lai/Siu 2006; Putnam 2002; cf. 

Comparative Population Studies – Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft
Vol. 38, 1 (2013): 199-226 (Date of release: 29.05.2013)

© Federal Institute for Population Research 2013  URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
DOI: 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-08en   URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2013-08en4



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 200

on anomy and disintegration Durkheim 1893, 1897). These fi ndings are contrasted 
by more recent studies that indicate positive effects of geographical mobility on 
social integration. From this perspective, spatial mobility helps to replace social-
ly predetermined social ties with voluntary relationships based on choice. These 
relationships enable the establishment of supportive networks that are more ori-
ented toward actual needs, thereby opening new life chances and scopes of action 
and contributing to collective social and economic welfare (Amato 1993; Höllinger/
Haller 1990; Lai/Siu 2006).

Underlying this debate over the collective social consequences of increased 
population movements is the association between residential mobility and avail-
ability of social capital at the individual level, which is the focus of the current ar-
ticle.1 It is relatively beyond dispute that residential mobility is accompanied by a 
restructuring of individual relationships. This results from the signifi cance of spatial 
proximity for access to social resources through personal ties. Along with the al-
tered geographical distance between the members of a relationship, e.g., following 
a residential move, the appeal of the relationship and the transaction costs of the re-
source exchange change. Congruent with this rationale, empirical studies fi nd that 
personal ties are often transformed after a move (e.g., Belot/Ermisch 2006; Levy/
Wadycki 1973; Lubbers et al. 2010). Although theoretical arguments and empirical 
fi ndings consistently suggest the signifi cance of geographical proximity of personal 
contacts for access to social resources, the long-term transformation processes of 
social capital induced by residential mobility have only rarely been systematically 
investigated (cf. David et al. 2008; Fischer 1982; Mok/Wellman 2007). In the present 
contribution, we emphasize three aspects that have not been suffi ciently consid-
ered in studies on residential mobility and social capital.

The fi rst aspect relies on the notion that, analytically, social capital can be di-
vided into structural and instrumental components. Although studies have analysed 
migration-related changes in individual relationships and social networks (structural 
component) (e.g., Lubbers et al. 2010), changes to the potentially available social re-
sources (instrumental component) from these individual relationships have not yet 
received much attention. This presents a severe shortcoming because in the case of 
geographical mobility, social networks and access to resources from these relation-
ships might fall apart (Kaufmann 2002: 22; Larsen et al. 2006; Kan 2007). Although 
modern transportation and communication allow the maintenance of these social 
relationships even across large distances, the actual support from these contacts 
may be limited due to the geographical distance. For example, in an emergency or 
coping with everyday demands, geographical proximity may be essential for gain-
ing support. Hence, for the study of the consequences of geographical mobility, 

1 In mobility research, social networks mainly play a role as determinants of migration decisions 
(Boyd 1989; Bührer 1996; Haug 2007; Haug/Pointner 2007; Huinink/Kley 2008; Kalter 2003; Kley 
2009; Palloni et al. 2001). In addition to other factors, local capital (DaVanzo 1980) and the social 
contacts at the places of origin and destination are identifi ed as particularly signifi cant for the 
mobility decision (Kalter 1997: 164-166). Moreover, it is shown that the effects of social contacts 
have specifi c impacts in different phases of life (Kley 2009).



New City = New Friends?    • 201

the focus shifts from personal networks to the practical everyday consequences of 
altered social embeddedness.

Secondly, most studies focus on a relatively short period of time, covering only 
a few years after the residential move. However, we consider the long-term effects 
on social capital and develop a phase model of the restructuring of social resources 
after a move. Thirdly, the low total number of studies on the effects of residen-
tial mobility on social capital is mainly a consequence of the survey effort and the 
poor data on social resources from personal networks, especially with respect to 
their geographical and temporal dynamics (Belot/Ermisch 2006). The present study 
hopes to contribute to closing this gap by applying a new indicator of social capi-
tal. The so-called resource generator was developed in the Netherlands (Flap et al. 
2003) and has not yet been employed in a German-speaking context. 

The current article focuses on the mobility-related accumulation and destruc-
tion processes of social capital and the agency of the actors. For this purpose, in 
Section 2, we develop a process model of social capital formation following relo-
cation and derive hypotheses about the restructuring processes among migrants 
and natives. This includes both a comparison of the social capital of migrants and 
natives and a dynamic perspective on the process of building and rebuilding social 
resources among migrants. Further effects on social capital are briefl y discussed in 
Section 3. Section 4 provides a description of the data used, whereby the measure-
ment of social capital based on the new indicator is explained in greater detail. The 
hypotheses-testing analyses are presented in Section 5. We discuss the multivariate 
results on selectivity of migrants and the differences in social capital between na-
tives and migrants. We also take into account the social capital available by network 
type and over time. The fi nal section presents the conclusions and a discussion of 
the results. 

2 Effects of residential mobility on social capital

2.1 Social resources as social capital

The social capital of individual actors consists of a structural component of personal 
ties and social networks, which is relatively constant and independent of exchange-
able resources, and of an instrumental component of social resources, which is 
exchanged between the actors in social networks. Personal relationships can be un-
derstood as a permanent manifestation of a series of social exchange interactions 
between relationship partners. Social resources are only available to an individual 
on the basis of his network of individual connections and yield present or future re-
turns (Bourdieu 1983: 191; Coleman 1990: 302; Flap 1999: 7; Lin 2001: 29). Thus, our 
perspective shifts from individual relationships to potentially available resources 
and hence to the instrumental value of social capital that has been neglected in pre-
vious research. Such resources refer to a number of material and symbolic goods, 
benefi ts and traits, such as information, support, assistance, infl uence and social 
recognition (cf. Lin 2001: 43).



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 202

The signifi cance of social capital especially lies in the enabling and encourage-
ment of individuals to act. For a defi nition of social capital, we refer to Lin (2001: 
43): “We defi ne social resources, or social capital, as those resources accessible 
through social connections. Social capital contains resources (e.g., wealth, power, 
and reputation, as well as social networks) of other individual actors to whom an 
individual actor can gain access through direct and indirect social ties. They are re-
sources embedded in the ties of one’s network.” Through social capital, resources 
are available that enhance the actors’ scope of action and contribute to the achieve-
ment of individual objectives. There is substantial evidence in the literature of the 
signifi cance of social capital for the socio-economic success of individual actors, 
e.g., for job search and labour market position (Granovetter 1995; Lin 2001; for an 
overview cf. Ioannides/Loury 2004), educational success of young people (Fursten-
berg/Hughes 1995), and social recognition, personal satisfaction and health (Bor-
gonovi 2010). Social capital is essential for coping with everyday life and providing 
security (Wellman/Wortley 1990). 

Because social capital is linked to benefi cial economic and social returns, rational 
actors have incentives to invest in social capital (Kan 2007; Lin 2001). Investments in 
social capital result in an accumulation of a capital stock (Glaeser et al. 2002). In ad-
dition, constant re-investments are necessary to maintain social capital or balance 
out the loss in value: “Like human capital and physical capital, social capital depre-
ciates if it is not renewed. Social relationships die out if not maintained; expecta-
tions and obligations wither over time; and norms depend on regular communica-
tion (Coleman 1990: 321).” The accumulation and the maintenance of social capital 
are viewed as the results of personal capacity and purposeful agency (Cook/Weigel 
1983; Freeman/Ruan 1997; Höllinger/Haller 1990; Wellman/Wortley 1990). At the 
same time, investments in social capital generate costs in terms of time, energy and 
money. Consequently, investments in personal relationships are particularly worth-
while if the tie is suffi ciently stable and trustable, if transaction costs are low and if 
they are likely to render potential future benefi ts.

2.2 Comparison of social capital of natives and immigrants

A residential move is a signifi cant life event that severely affects an individual’s 
social capital. To analyse the effects of residential mobility on the social capital of 
individuals, we must focus on the basic mechanism of (re-)investment decisions 
and their dependence on the geographical distance between the relationship mem-
bers. Thereby, the geographical distance between the relationship partners has 
considerable effects both on the investment costs and on the expected returns. 
In general, geographical proximity reduces the costs associated with maintaining 
face-to-face contacts. In addition, specifi c resources and support are often not lo-
cally transferable and bound to the physical presence of the relationship partners; 
this is especially true for the exchange of services (e.g., babysitting, mutual leisure 
activities). Actors can therefore expect greater profi ts from personal relationships 
that are local. Investments in social capital are thus less likely to occur if transaction 
costs increase with growing geographical distance (cf. Glaeser et al. 2002). 



New City = New Friends?    • 203

Because residential mobility alters the distance-related transaction costs of exist-
ing personal ties, we can assume that in the aftermath of relocation, a restructuring 
process is initiated. As the distance-related transaction costs increase, which is true 
for most personal relationships following relocation, the actor has various options 
for decreasing the investment costs of existing relationships. For instance, the ac-
tors might change the contact mode by replacing personal face-to-face interaction 
with modern communication technology (e.g., telephone, Internet-based transmis-
sion of texts, speech and images) (Mok et al. 2010). Moreover, the investment costs 
decrease if the overall contact frequency is reduced. Finally, personal relationships 
can be entirely broken off if further investments are no longer profi table. However, 
this makes room for investments in new personal ties at comparatively low transac-
tion costs at the new location. Distance-related transaction costs might decrease 
after relocation, for example, if personal relationships already exist at the new place 
of residence (Bührer 1996; Kalter 1997, 2003). Such contacts can be expected to 
intensify after the residential move due to the low transaction costs.

However, at this point, it is important to mention that distance-related transac-
tion costs are only one of several components underlying the investment decisions 
of social capital. These components include shared social contexts, which play a 
major role in investments in social capital (Feld 1981). For example, it is argued that 
modernisation processes foster the further division of work, private life, kinship and 
leisure. This generates multiplex social networks, which are not locally confi ned but 
are functionally diversifi ed, geographically scattered and dynamic from the outset 
(Larner 1990; Wellman et al. 1997). This is supported by evidence that suggests that 
local contacts in general only comprise a small share of active relationships. Empiri-
cally, there is no evidence for the dominance of the local neighbourhood or for an 
unlimited spatial dispersion of personal relationships (Petermann 2002: 153-154). 
Residential mobility thus does not cause a transformation of the entire social net-
work but only alters singular contacts (Larner 1990; Wellman et al. 1997; Magdol 
2000; Lubbers et al. 2010).

The transaction cost argument of the decision to invest in social capital provides 
a plausible explanation for the assumption that residential mobility leads to a re-
structuring of certain parts of the network of personal ties. The mobility-induced 
restructuring process aims to maintain the general support potential embedded in 
social ties after relocation and adapt it to the new situation. The decline of social 
capital caused by disinvestments in specifi c personal relationships is compensated 
for by building new social capital driven by the need to secure social resources. Al-
though the decline is mobility-induced, the build-up process is resource-oriented, 
i.e., investments are not directed at re-establishing similar personal relationships 
but at maintaining similar resource levels. Moreover, relocation may serve to over-
come geographical restrictions in the access to social resources and enable actors 
to establish heterogeneous social networks that provide social capital at a similar 
level (Lai/Siu 2006; Wellman/Wortley 1990). If the restructuring process initiated 
by altered distance-related transaction costs is oriented toward resource access, 
then relocation should not lead to incisive changes to the available social capital. 
Evidence for this is limited to only a few studies, which discover few differences in 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 204

the availability of support between mobile and immobile individuals (Cook/Weigel 
1983; Höllinger/Haller 1990). Therefore, we hypothesize that migrants do not differ 
from natives with regard to the amount of available social capital (mobility hypoth-
esis H1).

The restructuring of social capital after a change of residence also depends on 
the type of relationship. We differentiate between the following three types of social 
relations: family/kinship, friendship and acquaintanceship. Family and kin relations 
are characterised by close normative and genealogical ties, whereas friendships 
and acquaintances are contacts based on personal choice, whereby friends present 
stronger ties than rather loose acquaintances.

By social defi nition, family and kin relations are uncallable and are therefore rela-
tively stable (Wellman et al. 1997; Wellman/Wortley 1990; Mok/Wellman 2007). After 
a change of residence, these relationships may lose their high contact frequency but 
their strength, trustworthiness and normative force can counterbalance the larger 
geographical distance. If family members and relatives live far away, contact is of-
ten maintained using modern means of transportation and communication (Craven/
Wellman 1973; Fischer 1982; Larsen et al. 2006; Offner 2000; Wellman 1979; Well-
man/Leighton 1979; Wellman/Wortley 1990). Even if family and kin ties are at a lower 
risk of decline, the social capital mobilised through these relationships are limited to 
resources that are less dependent on face-to-face contact and constant geographi-
cal presence, such as emotional support in crises or fi nancial assistance (Höllinger/
Haller 1990; Korte 1980; Wellman/Wortley 1990). Mobility-related investment deci-
sions in social capital through family and kin relations aim to maintain these rela-
tionships, whereby increased distance-related transaction costs are offset against 
a reduced resource potential.

Due to higher expectations of reciprocity, i.e., a greater frequency of response 
behaviour, in non-kin relationships, we expect a greater effect of distance-related 
transaction costs on relations with friends and acquaintances. In other words, the 
existing self-selected social ties are at a greater risk of dissolution than family and 
kin relationships. However, the disinvestments in existing friendships and acquaint-
ances release resources that make investments in new personal relationships with 
lower distance-related transaction costs possible. Additionally, through a change 
of residence, people can release themselves from potentially constricting familial 
and kin ties and replace these with self-selected friendships and acquaintanceships 
(Amato 1993; Höllinger/Haller 1990; Lai/Siu 2006). This aspect is repeatedly em-
phasized in the context of individualisation theory (Beck 1986), as it enables the 
establishment of heterogeneous social networks that can provide even more so-
cial capital (Lai/Siu 2006; Wellman/Wortley 1990): “(...) modern life allows people 
to build more personally rewarding relations than are attainable in the local com-
munity and to create social worlds almost entirely free from artifi cial limits of place, 
to create ‘community without propinquity’ and this kind of community is ultimately 
the most fulfi lling” (Fischer 1982: 158). Investments in new self-selected, non-kin 
relationships are resource-oriented. Therefore, after a change of residence, even 
more social resources might be available via friends and acquaintances. 



New City = New Friends?    • 205

The restructuring process especially refers to weak social ties with acquaint-
ances, which greatly depend on geographical proximity such as neighbourhood 
contacts or relationships with colleagues (Wellman 1996). Such ties are based on 
the high interaction frequency caused by their geographical proximity; they are as-
sociated with the exchange of smaller services at a low degree of intimacy (Well-
man 1992, 1996; Wellman et al. 1997). Although such acquaintanceships react quite 
sensitively to changes in distance-related transaction costs, these “weak ties” can 
be quickly broken down and built up (Wellman 1979). These assumptions lead to 
our mobility hypothesis (H2): compared with natives, immigrants have less social 
capital from their family and kin and more social capital from their friends and ac-
quaintances.

2.3 The Restructuring of social capital after a change of residence over 
time

The restructuring of social capital after a residential move does not only refer to 
similarities and differences between natives and migrants but also to the dynamic 
process that is triggered by residential mobility. The restructuring of the migrants’ 
social capital is a process that takes place over time through repeated interactions 
and investments in relationships. It can be assumed that the development of social 
capital following relocation is a long-term process that is basically never accom-
plished. The positive association between length of residence and social capital is a 
well-known phenomenon. Longer durations of residence in the community lead to 
stronger neighbourly interaction, close-knit networks of local social ties and the ac-
cumulation of local capital (DaVanzo 1980; Lai/Siu 2006; Logan/Spitze 1994; Samp-
son 1988). Persons with longer durations of residence engage in local social ac-
tivities to a greater degree and have stronger community ties (Sampson 1988). The 
underlying social mechanism is also related to the investment efforts for creating 
social capital. However, in this case, it is not a deliberate mobilisation of social capi-
tal (Lin 2001), but an incidental by-product of everyday interactions (Coleman 1988, 
1990: 317; Portes 1998). The key determinant here is the time spent at the place of 
residence, during which relationships arise and can evolve (Sampson 1988). Loose 
contacts and encounters become more stable and acquaintances become more so-
lidifi ed with longer residence tenure. With an increasing length of residence, trans-
action costs, shared social contexts and resource orientation form aligned social 
conditions, which ease the building of social capital. From this rationale, our length 
of residence hypothesis (H3) can be derived: The total social capital increases for 
migrants with an increasing length of residence in the new location.

Due to active restructuring, this continuous long-term process exhibits two 
consecutive, but discontinuous dynamic phases for immigrants during the initial 
years after a move. First, residential mobility triggers an intensive phase of invest-
ment during the fi rst several years followed by a consolidation phase lasting also 
for many years. 

The intensive investment phase is characterised by the accumulation of even 
more social capital than the migrant had at the time of the move. Although there 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 206

is a dearth of empirical studies that focus on access to social resources, the fi nd-
ings presented by Belot and Ermisch (2006) indicate that local friendships are more 
intensively re-established after relocation such that the number of friendships at 
the place of residence considerably rises over 5 to 6 years after a move and the 
contact frequency increases. During the investment phase, migrants attempt to 
overcompensate for the upcoming or already suffered loss of existing social capi-
tal through a variety of investment activities. There are a number of reasons for 
these excessive investments. Firstly, in the fi rst years following residential mobility, 
there is an increased need for resources to settle in the new location (Larner 1990). 
The medium-term need for increased resources leads to additional investments, as 
the decisions to invest in social capital are resource-oriented. Secondly, personal 
relationships must prove themselves over time, i.e., migrants must be confi dent 
that resources from the newly formed personal ties will be available when needed. 
Because migrants can only learn to assess the trustworthiness and helpfulness of 
the relationship partner during the course of the relation, it is rational for migrants 
to fi rst invest in a number of contacts and then later select the reliable relationships 
from this contact pool. 

Therefore, in the fi rst years after a move, actors more strongly and actively in-
vest in building new contacts, until saturation is achieved or until resource con-
straints (often a lack of time) limit additional investments. The ensuing years consist 
of a consolidation phase, during which proven contacts are selected and the invest-
ments in self-selected ties and, consequently, social resources begin to decrease 
again (Belot/Ermisch 2006; Larner 1990). Further investments into the relationship 
are made only if the investments and inputs yield returns at some point, i.e., if social 
resources become available through these contacts. Thus, the selection of proven 
relationships during the consolidation phase is driven by resource-oriented invest-
ment decisions in social capital. Hence, although an increase in total social capital 
is expected with a longer duration of residence (cf. H3), it should be possible to 
identify different phases due to the chronology of the restructuring of social capital 
following a move. This leads us to the length of residence hypothesis (H4): With 
increasing length of residence at the new place, an increase in migrants’ total social 
capital during an initial investment phase should be observed followed by a de-
crease during a consolidation phase.

3 Other effects on social capital

Although the current study focuses on the effects of residential mobility, an indi-
vidual’s social capital is also infl uenced by other factors. One signifi cant determi-
nant that must be considered with respect to length of residence is age. Similar to 
length of residence, age is a temporal component of social capital. However, age 
has a negative effect on social capital and, thus, stands in contrast to the length of 
residence. Empirical studies of social capital research show negative or curvilinear 
(reverse U-shaped) age effects (Wöhler/Hinz 2007). Specifi cally, at a higher age, so-
cial relationships shrink to inner-familial relationships. Investments in social capital 



New City = New Friends?    • 207

decrease with age because the time interval for anticipated returns is shorter (Glae-
ser et al. 2002).

Education yields a stable positive effect because those who are highly educated 
have more opportunities to make social contacts and engage in social relationships 
due to their qualifi cations and occupations (Bourdieu 1983; Lin 2001; Völker et al. 
2007; Magdol 2000). We can also expect a positive effect of income because it is 
a necessary prerequisite for investments in social capital (Andreß et al. 1995). Em-
ployment and student status also play a signifi cant role, as the place of work or edu-
cation offer opportunities for social encounters. Therefore, employed individuals 
and students should have more social capital at their disposal (Diewald 2007). With 
regard to students, we assume that interaction patterns resemble those of juveniles 
because of the extension of adolescence during college studies. Moreover, insti-
tutions of higher education offer many opportunities for making and maintaining 
contacts with comparatively little effort (Bidart/Lavenu 2005).

With respect to gender, fi ndings indicate that women tend to have more social 
ties with neighbours and relatives, whereas men have more work-based relation-
ships. However, these differences have no effect on social capital. Controlling for 
socio-economic characteristics, there are no or only sporadic gender differences 
in the access to social capital (Lai 2008; van der Gaag/Snijders 2005). Furthermore, 
we can expect that social capital increases with household size (Erickson 2004). In 
large households, emotionally supportive social capital is available at negligible in-
vestment costs. However, in households with children, we can assume the opposite 
effect. Although children increase social capital through contacts (for instance, with 
other families at the kindergarten and school), the time spent raising and caring for 
children decreases the possibility for social contacts. However, the number of chil-
dren present in a household is irrelevant to our analysis.

4 Data and operationalisation

To test the hypotheses, we use data from a survey conducted in 2005 in a large 
Eastern German city (Halle Citizen Survey; cf. Petermann/Täfl er 2006). A total of 
3,471 persons (59 percent response rate) participated in the postal survey. The re-
spondents were aged between 17 and 75 years, and all had their principal residence 
in Halle. The advantage of this survey is that it contains not only indicators of the 
access to social resources but also information about the respondents’ residential 
mobility and length of residence in the city.

We construct the dependent variable social capital using the information on the 
access to a variety of resources (cf. Haug 1997; Franzen/Pointner 2007 for an over-
view of measuring social capital). The survey is one of the fi rst in a German-speaking 
context to use the Resource Generator developed by Dutch researchers (Flap et al. 
2003; van der Gaag/Snijders 2005). This generator measures hypothetical resource 
transfers. The disadvantage of measuring hypothetically accessible resources is 
that they can fail in the case of actual need, i.e., if no helper can be found. We meas-
ure persons’ expectations that they will receive social resources in a given situation. 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 208

Alternatively, one could measure actual resource transfers rather than hypotheti-
cally accessible resources. The problem here is that they might be confounded with 
the need for social resources. Persons with higher need for social support report 
more supportive behaviour than do others. This does not suggest, however, that 
the others possess less social capital. Moreover, the aim of the present study is to 
identify the total support potential for a large spectrum of social resources. How-
ever, using actually mobilised resource transfers as an indicator would lead to an 
extremely complex measuring instrument. 

The resource generator was constructed in such a way that it measures the po-
tential access to the resources available through an individual’s direct informal so-
cial ties. One can potentially request a resource from a number of persons in a 
network; however, in terms of the actual accessibility of social capital, it is only im-
portant whether at least one person of the individual’s social environment provides 
support, information, assistance, etc. (Flap et al. 2003; Snijders 1999). The reason 
for this is that the marginal utility of additional resource-mobilising network persons 
is quickly reached in most situations (Snijders 1999: 34). For our defi nition of social 
capital, the number of individuals who provide the respective resource is not im-
portant; rather, the focus is on whether the resource is accessible through at least 
one individual. Therefore, the survey questions did not cover how many persons 
allow access to a resource, but merely whether the resources can be accessed. Yet, 
this also means that the accessible resources via individuals cannot be localised. 
Thus, assumptions about the geographical proximity or distance of the requested 
accessible resources are rather speculative. Nonetheless, as outlined above, the 
assumption that resources that are related to high transaction costs correlate with 
geographical proximity seems plausible. The resource generator includes 17 items. 
The individual nominations are of less interest than the total amount of potentially 
accessible social capital, as the potential mobilisation of resources of the individu-
al’s social environment is of main interest.

The choice of resource items follows different goals of action, such as the pursuit 
of material wealth (e.g., borrowing a large sum of money) or social recognition (e.g., 
discussing personal concerns), and different situations, such as everyday activi-
ties (e.g., providing advice and information) or special emergency situations (e.g., 
offering accommodation when one’s own residence is temporarily uninhabitable). 
Resources are not only understood as material goods or possessive attributes but 
also as actions such as the exchange of favours by friends (e.g., mending household 
devices) or the provision of information (e.g., medical or legal advice). Another dis-
tinction refers to the specifi c use of the resource. Some resources can only be used 
in specifi c situations (e.g., shopping during an illness), whereas other resources can 
be used in various situations (e.g., the cultural capital of the contact indicated by his/
her university degree or joint theatre and museum visits).

This spectrum of resources is summarised in an index of these 17 items. The 
more items an individual cites, the greater his or her amount of social capital, i.e., 
the more support he/she can expect when necessary. Yet, the number of acces-
sible resources summarises the social capital only if we assume that all resources 
are comparable on a scale of values and that the evaluation of all resources is the 



New City = New Friends?    • 209

same. Even if these assumptions are unrealistic, they should be maintained.2 In the 
absence of an assessment of the resources, each item of the sum score is weighted 
equally. In fact, the index does not measure the amount of social capital, but the 
variety of or variation in accessible resources. Empirically, the social capital index 
varies between 0 and 17 accessible resources among the 3,416 respondents (Fig. 1). 
The mean value is 10.3 accessible resources. 

We employ two indicators of spatial mobility as central independent variables in 
the analyses. To test the mobility hypotheses (H1 and H2), the dichotomous variable 
migrants is provided. We categorise the groups of migrants and natives according 
to the question of whether the respondent has lived in the current place of residence 
since birth. The defi nition of the native group was then adjusted to also include per-
sons who moved to the current place of residence during their childhood and youth 

2 A reliability analysis of the 17 items results in a satisfactorily high Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81. This 
value only minimally deviates between 0.79 and 0.80 if any item is removed from the scale. A 
principal component analysis produced three factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1. These 
dimensions of social capital can be interpreted fi rst as material social support (e.g. care during 
illness), second as immaterial or informative social support (e.g. PC advice) and third as social 
leverage (e.g. media contacts) (on the social capital dimensions of social support and social 
leverage cf. Kleinhans et al. 2007).

Source: own calculations

Fig. 1: Distribution of social capital

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Social capital (number of accesses to resources)

Percent



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 210

until the age of 14 years. The reason for this extension is that the main processes 
of social integration outside of the parental home begins at the end of the school 
phase (Bronfenbrenner 1981). Therefore, natives are individuals who have lived at 
the current place of residence from birth or from the age of 14 at the latest without 
interruption until the time of the survey. Migrants are those who moved to the cur-
rent place of residence after their 14th birthday and have since lived there without 
interruption until the time of the survey. The group of natives comprised 59 percent 
of the respondents. Among them, 48 percent were born in the location and 11 per-
cent moved to the location in their childhood and youth. Therefore, the group of 
migrants covers 41 percent.3

The length of residence hypotheses (H3 and H4) are tested using the metric vari-
able length of residence. The length of residence of immigrants is, on average, 22 
years. As Figure 2 depicts, the distribution of residence tenure among migrants and 
natives is bimodal. One of the peaks ranges from 0 to 4 years and should mainly 
refer to the student migrants. At the same time, the age distribution of migrants re-

Fig. 2: Distribution of the length of residence

0

2

4

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent

Length of residence in years

Source: own calculations  

3 The dataset contains no information about the place where the migrants previously resided. 



New City = New Friends?    • 211

Tab. 1: Univariate statistics

a These variables were centred in the analyses.
Source: own calculations

Variables Mean value Standard 
deviation 

Min Max n 

Social capital      
Number of accessible resources 10.346 3.574 0 17 3,416 

Natives 10.331 3.430 0 17 1,981 
Migrants 10.407 3.759 0 17 1,408 

Mobility      
Migrants (1=yes) 0.415 0.493 0 1 3,440 
Length of residence in yearsa 21.927 15.603 0 69 1,410 

Control variables      
Education in yearsa 14.150 2.712 8 21 3,444 

Natives 13.758 2.483 8 21 2,002 
Migrants 14.746 2.898 8 21 1,413 

Household income in thousand eurosa 1.738 0.918 0.200 3.500 3,249 
Natives 1.740 0.919 0.200 3.500 1,869 
Migrants 1.743 0.918 0.200 3.500 1,355 

Living space per person in m²a 36.776 17.993 4 343 3,315 
Natives 36.552 18.418 4 343 1,928 
Migrants 37.139 17.422 6.667 156 1,365 

Student (1=yes) 0.102 0.303 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.093 0.291 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.116 0.320 0 1 1,398 

Full time employed (1=yes) 0.349 0.477 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.355 0.479 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.346 0.476 0 1 1,398 

Not yet employed (1=yes) 0.140 0.347 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.143 0.350 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.134 0.341 0 1 1,398 

Employed (1=yes) 0.439 0.496 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.444 0.497 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.436 0.496 0 1 1,398 

Not employed (1=yes) 0.176 0.381 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.190 0.393 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.154 0.361 0 1 1,398 

No longer employed (1=yes) 0.245 0.430 0 1 3,405 
Natives 0.222 0.416 0 1 1,980 
Migrants 0.276 0.447 0 1 1,398 

Age in yearsa 45.630 16.539 17 76 3,428 
Natives 43.628 16.632 17 76 1,992 
Migrants 48.448 15.933 17 75 1,407 

Gender (1=female) 0.544 0.498 0 1 3,440 
Natives 0.535 0.499 0 1 1,997 
Migrants 0.558 0.497 0 1 1,414 

Household sizea 2.373 1.052 1 9 3,410 
Natives 2.429 1.082 1 9 1,983 
Migrants 2.296 1.002 1 7 1,403 

Children in household (1=yes) 0.235 0.424 0 1 3,463 
Natives 0.267 0.442 0 1 2,009 
Migrants 0.193 0.394 0 1 1,423 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 212

mained similar over the past 20 years, suggesting that predominantly 20- to 30-year-
olds move to the city. 

In addition to the independent variables measuring mobility, the following vari-
ables are taken into account to control for statistical effects: education in years,4 

net household income,5 living space per person, employment status, age, gender, 
household size and the presence of children in the household (Table 1). 

5 Results

5.1 Migrant selectivity

The migrant and native populations signifi cantly differ in important social structural 
characteristics, as bivariate tests demonstrate (results not shown here). The resi-
dential movers have higher educational levels or longer qualifi cation periods; their 
employment status differs from that of the native population, showing a slightly 
higher percentage of students, a lower percentage of unemployed and a higher per-
centage of retirees. It is surprising that migrants are distinctly older than the natives; 
the difference is almost 5 years. Especially the percentage of 17- to 30-year-olds is 
smaller among the migrants than among the natives. The household composition 
also differs. On average, migrants live in smaller households. The percentage of 
households with underage children is 7 percentage points lower than that of the 
natives. The migrants seem to be a selective group, whose characteristics reveal 
more favourable dispositions for building and maintaining social capital. This is in 
line with fi ndings in mobility research that show that the characteristics of mobile 
persons systematically differ from those of settled persons (Antel 1980; DaVanzo/ 
Hosek 1981). To ensure that existing differences in the characteristics of migrants 
and natives are not confounded with effects of residential mobility, the selectivity of 
the migrants was especially taken into account in the tests of the mobility hypoth-
eses by including appropriate control variables.

5.2 Comparing the social capital of natives and migrants

The bivariate correlation between moving and social capital as a test of the mobility 
hypothesis (H1) confi rms our assumptions (Table 2). Natives and migrants have an 
almost equal amount of social capital. This is also a consequence of the selectivity 
of the migrants. Controlling for age reveals that the younger migrants possess the 
most social capital. They also have far more social capital than natives of the same 

4 Education in years was measured using the highest school diploma and professional qualifi ca-
tion; the different diplomas from the educational systems in West and East Germany were taken 
into consideration.

5 The net household income was measured using 24 income categories. A metric income vari-
able was calculated from the mean values of the categories. The mean value cited is the result 
of these variables.



New City = New Friends?    • 213

age. However, with increasing age, social capital decreases and the values of the 
natives and migrants greatly approximate. Because the younger cohorts among 
the migrants are relatively small, the mean differences in social capital between 
natives (10.3) and migrants (10.4) are only minimal. Due to the selectivity of the 
migrants, a reliable test of the mobility hypothesis can only be conducted by con-
trolling for further characteristics that capture differences in the social composition 
of the groups.

To test the mobility hypothesis (H1), an OLS regression model was estimated. In 
addition to the mobility variable migrants, this model contains a number of control 
variables that capture general life opportunities and are, thus, relevant for the analy-
sis of mobility and social capital (Table 3, Model 1). 

In accordance with the assumption of the mobility hypothesis (H1), migrants 
and natives do not differ in their total social capital, even when a number of vari-
ables are controlled. Although the mobility effect appears to be insignifi cant, we 
do not interpret this result as proof of the irrelevance of residential mobility for the 
accumulation of social capital. As described in the theoretical section, this result 
may also refl ect the balance of opposed effects of disinvestments in existing social 
capital and of investments in new social capital after the move. In the following two 
sections, we present further analyses that support our argumentation regarding the 
restructuring process of social capital after a change of residence.

The control variables education, household income, living space per person, age 
and gender reveal strong and highly signifi cant effects and largely contribute to the 
explained variance. Student status and household size are somewhat less infl uen-
tial. It is notable that the effects of socio-economic status and of age confi rm exist-

Tab. 2: Mean values of the social capital of migrants and natives according to 
age cohorts

 All 17-30 years 31-45 years 46-60 years > 60 years 

Total social capital       
Migrants 10.407 12.610 *** 11.674** 9.935 8.549 
Natives 10.331 11.628 10.990 9.808 8.541 

Kin      
Migrants 7.058* 8.669 7.566 6.778 5.993 
Natives 7.349 8.403 7.818 6.892 6.023 

Friendships      
Migrants 4.920 7.803 *** 6.740*** 4.120 2.542 
Natives 4.853 6.949 5.653 3.830 2.388 

Acquaintances      
Migrants 3.214* 3.814 3.908* 3.253** 2.230 + 
Natives 2.950 3.656 3.333 2.706 1.906 

Two-sided t-tests: *** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, + p ≤ 0.1

Source: own calculations



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 214

Tab. 3: Regressions of social capital (number of accessible resources)

Non-standardised coeffi cients with standard errors in brackets.
*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, + p ≤ 0.1
Model 1: Total social capital (An OLS regression that excludes the two extreme values [0 
and 17] results in only minimal changes in the effects of the mobility and control variables. 
A LOGIT regression with denominators [cf. Rabe-Hesketh/Skrondal 2005: 182] shows al-
most the same correlations)
Model 2: Social capital from kin
Model 3. Social capital from friendships
Model 4: Social capital from acquaintances

Source: own calculations

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 

Constant 9.044*** 5.068*** 2.920*** 2.831*** 
 (0.749) (0.782) (0.824) (0.721) 
Mobility     
Migrants 0.101 -0.228+ 0.151 0.170 
 (0.112) (0.116) (0.123) (0.107) 
Control variables     
Education 0.313*** 0.186*** 0.353*** 0.200*** 
 (0.023) (0.024) (0.025) (0.022) 
Household income 0.659*** 0.899*** 0.368*** 0.178* 
 (0.079) (0.082) (0.086) (0.076) 
Living space per person 0.023*** 0.008* 0.023*** 0.016*** 
 (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.003) 
Not yet employed 0.494 0.339 -0.107 0.772* 
 (0.373) (0.389) (0.410) (0.359) 
Student 0.885 ** 0.582+ 1.216*** 0.127 
 (0.332) (0.346) (0.365) (0.319) 
Full time employed 0.293 0.160 0.105 0.444* 
 (0.204) (0.213) (0.224) (0.197) 
Not employed -0.291 -0.051 -0.499* -0.032 
 (0.226) (0.236) (0.248) (0.217) 
No longer employed -0.169 0.129 -0.428 -0.131 
 (0.281) (0.293) (0.309) (0.271) 
Age -0.109*** -0.123*** -0.182*** -0.034 
 (0.029) (0.030) (0.032) (0.028) 
Age² 0.000 0.001* 0.001* 0.000 
 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) 
Gender (1=female) 0.452*** 0.687*** 0.301* -0.269** 
 (0.108) (0.113) (0.119) (0.104) 
Household size 0.159 * 0.165* -0.018 0.129+ 
 (0.079) (0.083) (0.087) (0.076) 
Children in household -0.054 -0.028 -0.023 0.027 
 (0.165) (0.173) (0.182) (0.159) 

R² 0.308 0.206 0.345 0.127 
adjusted R² 0.305 0.203 0.342 0.123 
n 3,024 3,024 3,024 3,024 



New City = New Friends?    • 215

ing empirical fi ndings. For instance, higher levels of education, a higher household 
income and higher living spaces per person contribute to more social capital. In 
addition, younger people exhibit a greater amount of social capital than do older 
people. In contrast to earlier fi ndings in research on social capital, a pronounced 
gender effect emerges, whereby men possess less social capital than women. In 
accordance with other empirical studies, inhabitants of larger households and stu-
dents have better access to social resources. Beyond the student effect, however, 
the employment status has no signifi cant effect on social capital. Migrants’ better 
access to social capital can be explained by their generally better disposition for 
building social capital. Although the model controls for a number of variables that 
are also highly correlated with mobility, we can assume that even beyond the con-
trolled characteristics, mobile people are a positively selected group with regard to 
their disposition for the accumulation of social capital.

5.3 Comparing social capital with respect to relationship type

The access to social resources can be differentiated according to family, friendships 
and acquaintanceships. First, it becomes apparent that access to social resources 
through these three relationship types is graded (Table 2). For instance, on aver-
age, more than seven accessible resources are enabled through kin, approximately 
fi ve through friendships and three through acquaintances. However, there are some 
striking differences between natives and migrants. Migrants anticipate signifi cantly 
less social resources from kin relations. This, however, only applies to the middle 
age groups between 30 and 60 years. Throughout all age groups, only moderate 
losses of accessible resources from kin relations are recorded after a change of 
residence. 

A different story emerges for accessible resources from friendships and ac-
quaintances. These chosen relationships offer more social resources for migrants 
than for natives. Migrants receive more accessible resources through both friend-
ships and acquaintances than do natives across all age groups. The differences be-
tween natives and migrants are of practical relevance. For the younger age groups, 
differences between the native and migrant group emerges mostly among friend-
ship ties. By contrast, for the middle and older age groups, the differences lie in 
the acquaintanceships. The results point in the expected direction, i.e. accessible 
resources from kin relations are mostly maintained due to normative ties and only 
moderately lose signifi cance compared to the group of natives. Yet, this moderate 
loss can be compensated through accessible resources from voluntary relation-
ships with friends and acquaintances. These fi ndings do not support the assump-
tions about an extensive restructuring of personal relationship networks. Rather, at 
least with regard to accessible resources, they emphasize the stability of kin con-
tacts and simultaneous investments in new friendships and acquaintances.

For a multivariate test of mobility hypothesis H2, we calculated three further 
regressions for the social capital from family, friendship and acquaintanceship con-
tacts (Table 3, models 2 to 4). Controlling for a number of social-structural variables, 
there are no relevant differences between migrants and natives. Although migrants 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 216

have signifi cantly less social capital from family and kin relations than do natives, 
they obtain more social capital from friendships and acquaintances; however, this 
difference is not signifi cant. Compared to the social capital of natives, migrants 
have 4.5 percent less social capital from kin relations, 5.2 percent more social capi-
tal from friendships and 6.0 percent more social capital from acquaintances. None-
theless, as these differences are not signifi cant when controlling for confounding 
variables, the mobility hypothesis H2 is not confi rmed.

5.4 Immigrant social capital over time

To test the length of residence hypotheses H3 and H4, we only used the data of the 
migrants. This restriction is both necessary and sensible because the restructuring 
process only applies to migrants and because for natives, the length of residence 
corresponds to their age. Controlling for confounding variables, there is a positive, 
but relatively weak length of residence effect (Table 4). This result is in line with the 
length of residence hypothesis H3. In addition to the positive net effect of residence 
tenure, we identify a negative and much stronger net age effect. For the migrants, 
the age equals the age when moving plus the length of residence; therefore, this 
also results in a negative effect of the age at the time of a move on social capital. 
This means that persons who are older and those who were older at the time of 
relocation have less social capital. The temporal relocation effect on social capital 
may also be interpreted as a cohort effect. However, the migration cohorts do not 
differ in social capital.

Nonetheless, a greater social capital of one additional resource access only oc-
curs after 44 years of residence. This relatively long period of time indicates that the 
length of residence effect is comparatively weak. This might be because the length 
of residence effect is not constant, but comprises an investment and a consolida-
tion phase in the fi rst years after the change of residence (length of residence hy-
pothesis 4). To prove such temporal dynamics, longitudinal data are needed. How-
ever, panel studies are hardly available and accessible longitudinal surveys such 
as the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) do not contain the necessary 
time-varying variables on social capital and social networks that are required for 
our research question.6 The advantage of the dataset used here is that it not only 
recorded the change of residence and accessible resources but also the respond-
ents’ length of residence. Moreover, under certain conditions that we will discuss 
in greater detail below, it is also possible to picture the temporal development of 
social capital based on a cross-section when comparing social capital at different 
lengths of residence.

To test the non-linear effect of the residence tenure on social capital, a spline 
regression was calculated (Table 4 and Fig. 3). Splines are arbitrarily specifi ed, lin-
ear intervals of a metric variable. The length of residence was divided into four time 

6 Although the SOEP contains a (quite restricted) network indicator for waves 2006 and 2011, this 
is not suffi cient for conducting panel analyses of the research topic presented here.



New City = New Friends?    • 217

Tab. 4: Regressions of the social capital of immigrants

Non-standardised coeffi cients with standard errors in brackets.
*** p ≤ 0.001, ** p ≤ 0.01, * p ≤ 0.05, + p ≤ 0.1

Source: own calculations

Variables Model 1 Model 2 

Constant 7.312*** 6.028*** 
 (1.266) (1.589) 
Mobility   
Length of residence 0.023*  
 (0.010)  
Length of residence 0-4 years  0.289* 
  (0.130) 
Length of residence 5-10 years  -0.088 
  (0.072) 
Length of residence 11-40 years  0.031 * 
  (0.015) 
Length of residence over 40 years  0.019 
  (0.040) 
Control variables   
Education 0.277*** 0.275*** 
 (0.034) (0.034) 
Household income 0.836*** 0.839*** 
 (0.133) (0.133) 
Living space per person 0.031*** 0.031*** 
 (0.006) (0.006) 
Not yet employed 1.427+ 1.497* 
 (0.738) (0.741) 
Student 0.343 0.226 
 (0.682) (0.683) 
Full time employed 0.432 0.445 
 (0.324) (0.324) 
Not employed 0.181 0.198 
 (0.372) (0.372) 
No longer employed -0.014 -0.006 
 (0.433) (0.434) 
Age -0.208*** -0.206*** 
 (0.050) (0.059) 
Age² 0.001* 0.001+ 
 (0.001) (0.001) 
Gender (1=female) 0.503** 0.489** 
 (0.176) (0.176) 
Household size 0.308* 0.302* 
 (0.127) (0.127) 
Children in household 0.080 0.131 
 (0.282) (0.288) 

R² 0.344 0.346 
adjusted R² 0.337 0.337 
n 1,243 1,243 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 218

intervals of varying lengths. This division into intervals enables different slopes of 
the regression lines. Social capital mainly increases during the fi rst four years of 
residence. After this, a phase of consolidation begins, which lasts until year ten 
after relocation. Finally, from the eleventh year forward, the social capital slightly 
increases again, yet at a far slower growth rate than during the fi rst phase. After 40 
years, even this minor growth weakens again, making it practically irrelevant.

However, it is important to note that modelling temporal dynamics based on a 
cross-sectional observation of lengths of residence may lead to false conclusions 
if the different length-of-residence groups represent different subsamples of the 
population with specifi c characteristics that also infl uence the social capital. Thus, 
the selectivity problem discussed above can also be expanded to the association 
between length of residence and social capital accumulation. For instance, one 
can assume that students are socially more active and have many social contacts, 
but are also overrepresented within the group with shorter lengths of residence 
because they typically only relocate to take up their studies. In this case, the rise 
in social capital would be an artifact produced through the different compositions 
of the groups within the length-of-residence intervals. In this study, however, we 
counter this problem by including numerous control variables that reproduce the 
relevant group characteristics. In addition, we conducted separate regressions for 

Fig. 3: Social capital of migrants according to length of residence intervals

Source: Predicted values from Model 2 in Table 4 for a full-time employed man with child-
less household otherwise average values

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Length of residence (years)

Social capital (number of accessible resources)



New City = New Friends?    • 219

different subgroups with the length-of-residence intervals specifi ed in Table 4, e.g., 
for students, individuals not yet employed, full-time employed and young people. 
The results were consistent throughout and confi rmed the pattern found in Table 
4. There is no evidence that the distribution is mainly caused by a certain group of 
the population.

A phase of increased accumulation of social capital is followed by a period of 
decrease and consolidation, which confi rms the length of residence hypothesis H4. 
This fi nding also confi rms the study by Belot and Ermisch (2006), who report a 
similar trajectory of build-up and reduction of social capital as a result of residential 
mobility. It is also congruent with results of other studies that fi nd enhanced social 
activity directly following the relocation (cf. Larner 1990). This is associated with an 
increased need for resources caused by the requirement to adapt to the new situ-
ation and re-establish a functioning social network after relocation (Larner 1990; 
Wellman et. al. 1997). In particular, the consolidation phase between the fourth and 
the tenth year after a residential move results in an only moderate positive linear ef-
fect. In addition, the other length-of-residence intervals appear not to be uniformly 
strong. Figure 3 illustrates this correlation based on the predications derived from 
the regression model (Table 4).
In particular, a phase of greater investments in social capital arises immediately 
following the relocation, during which we assume that social capital is built up in 
the new place of residence. This trajectory also illustrates that the correlation is 
age-independent only for shorter lengths of residence. From ten years on, control-
ling for age, residential tenure again renders positive effects. The moderate growth 
following ten years of residence is, by contrast, an effect of becoming rooted in and 
familiar with the new place of residence.

6 Summary and outlook

An individual’s social capital is the result of personal relationships, the embedded-
ness into a network and the resources that can be attained through these ties. So-
cial capital is thus part of a person’s social integration. Incisive life events, such 
as residential mobility, extensively and permanently restructure social capital. Our 
theoretical argument is based on the notion that after relocation in particular, exist-
ing voluntarily chosen relationships fade or break off entirely due to altered dis-
tance-related transaction costs, and new personal relationships with lower transac-
tion costs are established to cover the potential resource requirement. This should 
also become visible in relationship-specifi c accesses to resources, as migrants have 
rather less access to resources via kin relations and tend to have more resources 
through acquaintances and friendships. Nonetheless, this restructuring process re-
quires time. Social capital is built only with increasing length of residence at the new 
place, and phases of a discontinuous process can be identifi ed. 

This study not only provides insights into the effects of residential mobility on 
the social capital of individuals but also sheds light on the dynamics of the restruc-
turing of social capital and associated strategic capacities of individuals. Even after 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 220

controlling for numerous socio-economic and socio-demographic variables that 
take into account that migrants are a positively selected group, we observe that 
they do not have more accessible resources than natives. This initially surprising 
result can be explained by oppositional, balancing effects of disinvestment in ex-
isting social capital and investment in new social capital. The investments are en-
hanced by the fact that mobile persons are a positively selected group with regard 
to dispositions for building social capital. This fi nding corresponds with results of 
other studies on the restructuring hypothesis, which also did not fi nd any effects 
of residential mobility on the structure of personal networks (Larner 1990; Lub-
bers et al. 2010; Magdol 2000; Wellman et al. 1997) or the accessibility of support 
(Cook/Weigel 1983; Höllinger/Haller 1990). We can refute a theoretically assumed 
and frequently expressed negative association between residential mobility and so-
cial integration for individual social capital. At the same time, we must acknowledge 
that the restructuring of social capital from kin relations to friendships and acquaint-
ances does not prove as strong as expected. This contradicts a number of studies 
that demonstrated that restructuring processes take place (Amato 1993; Höllinger/
Haller 1990; Lai/Siu 2006; Lubbers et al. 2010). However, this does not prove that the 
restructuring is necessarily wrong, as the relationship types examined are possibly 
not appropriate for measuring the restructuring of social capital. These results also 
have implications for the assessment of geographical population movements at the 
community level. We can conclude that large migration fl ows do not inherently gen-
erate negative effects on social integration. On the one hand, we cannot fi nd any 
deprivation with regard to the level of social capital after the relocation at the indi-
vidual level; on the other hand, migrants also seem to activate local contacts (e.g., 
acquaintances, neighbours) in the new location. This implies that observable social 
phenomena such as low participation in community and political activities, high 
crime rates or low general trust (cf. Kasarda/Janowitz 1974; Putnam 2002; Sampson 
1988) are not necessarily and not directly the consequence of large numbers of as-
sumedly socially isolated migrants.

In addition to this overall insight into the impact of residential mobility on so-
cial capital, in further analyses, we trace the temporal change in social capital. The 
modelled restructuring and the temporal dynamics of social capital triggered by a 
residential move is refl ected empirically in the data. The models yield a weak posi-
tive effect of the length of residence on social capital; capital roughly grows per ten 
years of residence by one-fourth of an additional resource. This growth, however, 
is not linear. Social capital greatly increases in the fi rst four years, but it begins to 
consolidate between the fourth and tenth year. This is followed by another phase 
of growth, whereas the annual growth rate only reaches one-tenth of the growth 
rate in the fi rst four years. The non-linear trajectory of social capital accumulation 
implicitly refers to the interaction between regional opportunities and active efforts 
of social actors and is a starting point for further analyses based on suitable data.

Although the current results demonstrate the signifi cance of the geographical di-
mension of social capital, we cannot explicitly test this component because the data 
do not allow for any geographical differentiation of the social capital. We implicitly 
assume that the exchange of at least some important social resources, in particular 



New City = New Friends?    • 221

for dealing with challenges of everyday life (e.g., borrowing something), requires 
geographical proximity, which considerably decreases the transaction costs. Thus, 
this part of social capital requires restructuring after a change of residence. In the 
future, it will be necessary to separate local (i.e., geographically bound) social re-
sources or resources associated with high transaction costs from geographically 
independent resources and to locate the accessible resources as such, i.e., measure 
the distances between providers and users of social resources to determine the 
transaction costs. One should also be aware that it is not the residential mobility per 
se, but the distance between the place of origin and destination region that mainly 
determines the transaction costs. Future analyses should take these distances into 
account.

Of note, the selectivity problem does not present a serious diffi culty for the anal-
ysis and the derived (causal) conclusions as long as the group classifi cations can be 
reproduced by taking relevant variables into account. We attempted to achieve this 
by controlling for numerous variables. Nevertheless, if the selectivity of the groups 
is based on characteristics that cannot be observed in the data, conclusions cannot 
be made about the causal effect of residential mobility (Belot/Ermisch 2006). This 
also pertains to the assumption that anticipated regional mobility decreases local 
social capital investments a priori, and social capital investments that have already 
been made can deter regional mobility (Skrobanek/Jobst 2006; on the simultaneity 
problem see David et al. 2008; Durlauf/Fafchamps 2005; Glaeser et al. 2002). To 
statistically control for these forms of unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity 
would, however, require the use of longitudinal data, which are not available. Al-
though temporal effects of the length of residence are confi rmed, they are based on 
cross-sectional data and, thus, on cross-sectional comparisons of different groups 
of people. Rather than comparing migrants and natives – two groups with differ-
ent dispositions – or the migrant population differentiated according to different 
lengths of residence, panel data would be better suited to analyse the actual course 
of mobility-related restructuring of social capital for one individual. Future studies 
should consider the geographical dimension and the dynamics of the restructuring 
of social capital in greater detail to examine the underlying mechanisms. This, how-
ever, reveals the necessity of collecting appropriate data. 

Finally, we discuss the operationalisation of social capital. The total index of ac-
cessible resources requires that all resources are equally comparable. It is obvious 
that this strong assumption is unrealistic. Rather than constructing a general in-
dex, one might consider an indicator that refl ects different spheres of social capital. 
Within these spheres, resources must be homogeneous and comparable. The cur-
rent data allow the identifi cation of such distinct spheres, for instance, a sphere of 
specifi c material support, a sphere characterised by strong emotional ties, a sphere 
of access to resources presupposing prestige or higher education or a sphere that 
enables public contacts with the media or party politics. Detailed analyses of these 
individual spheres are possible but beyond the scope of the present article.



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 222

References

Amato, Paul R. 1993: Urban-Rural Differences in Helping Friends and Family Members. 
In: Social Psychology Quarterly 56: 249-262.

Andreß, Hans-Jürgen; Lipsmeier, Gero; Salentin, Kurt 1995: Soziale Isolation und man-
gelnde soziale Unterstützung im unteren Einkommensbereich? Vergleichende Analy-
sen mit Umfragedaten. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 24,4: 300-315.

Antel, John J. 1980: Returns to Migration: Literature Review and Critique. Santa Monica: 
RAND Corporation.

Beck, Ulrich 1986: Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt 
a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Belot, Michèle; Ermisch, John 2006: Friendship Ties and Geographic Mobility. Evidence 
from the BHPS. Department of Economics, University of Essex and ISER.

Bidart, Claire; Lavenu, Daniel 2005: Evolutions of Personal Networks and Life Events. In: 
Social Networks 27,4: 359-376 [doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.003].

Borgonovi, Francesca 2010: A life-cycle approach to the analysis of the relationship bet-
ween social capital and health in Britain. In: Social Science & Medicine 71: 1927-1934 
[doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.018]. 

Bourdieu, Pierre 1983: Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: 
Kreckel, Reinhard (Eds.): Soziale Ungleichheiten. Göttingen: Schwartz: 183-198.

Boyd, Monica 1989: Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent 
Developments and New Agendas. In: International Migration Review 23,2: 638-70.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie 1981: Die Ökologie der menschlichen Entwicklung: Natürliche und 
geplante Experimente. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Bührer, Susanne 1996: Soziales Kapital und Wanderungsentscheidungen: Zur Bedeu-
tung von Bezugsgruppen im Prozeß der Entstehung von Wanderungserwägungen, 
Wanderungsabsichten und Wanderungen. Hamburg: Kovac. 

Coleman, James S. 1988: Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. In: American 
Journal of Sociology 94 Supplement: 95-120.

Coleman, James S. 1995: Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie. Band 1: Handlungen und Hand-
lungssysteme. München: Oldenbourg. 

Cook, Alicia S.; Weigel, Daniel J. 1983: Relocation and Crisis: Perceived Sources of Sup-
port. In: Family Relations 32: 267-273.

Craven, Paul; Wellman, Barry 1973: The Network City. In: Sociological Inquiry 43: 
57-88.

DaVanzo, Julie 1980: Repeat Migration, Information Costs, and Location-specifi c Cap-
ital. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

DaVanzo, Julie; Hosek, James R. 1981: Does Migration Increase Wage Rates? An Analy-
sis of Alternative Techniques for Measuring Wage Gains to Migration. Santa Monica: 
RAND Corporation.

David, Quentin; Janiak, Alexandre; Wasmer, Etienne 2008: Local Social Capital and Geo-
graphical Mobility: A Theory. Bonn: IZA Discussion Paper No. 3668.

Diewald, Martin 2007: Arbeitsmarktungleichheiten und die Verfügbarkeit von Sozialka-
pital. Die Rolle von Gratifi kationen und Belastungen. In: Franzen, Axel; Freitag, Mar-
kus (Eds.): Soziales Kapital. Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Sonderheft 47 der Kölner 
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 183-210.



New City = New Friends?    • 223

Durkheim, Emile 1893: De la division du travail social. Étude sur l’organisation des socié-
tés superieures. Paris: Félix Alcan.

Durkheim, Emile 1897: Le suicide. Études de sociologie. Paris: Félix Alcan.

Durlauf, Steven N.; Fafchamps, Marcel 2005: Social Capital. In: Aghion, Philippe; Dur-
lauf, Steven N. (Eds.): Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. North-Holland: Elsevier 
Science: 1639-1699. 

Erickson, Bonnie H. 2004: The Distribution of Gendered Social Capital in Canada. In: 
Flap, Henk; Völker, Beate (Eds.): Creation and Returns of Social Capital. London: Rout-
ledge: 27-50.

Feld, Scott L. 1981: The Focused Organization of Social Ties, American Journal of Soci-
ology 86,5: 1015-1035.

Fischer, Claude S. 1982: To Dwell among Friends. Personal Networks in Town and City. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Flap, Henk 1999: Creation and Returns of Social Capital: A New Research Program. In: 
The Tocqueville Review 20,1: 5-26.

Flap, Henk; Snijders, Tom; Völker, Beate; van der Gaag, Martin 2003: Measurement In-
struments for Social Capital of Individuals. [http://www.xs4all.nl/~gaag/work/SSND.
pdf, 12.02.2011].

Franzen, Axel; Pointner, Sonja 2007: Sozialkapital: Konzeptualisierungen und Messun-
gen. In: Franzen, Axel; Freitag, Markus (Eds.): Soziales Kapital. Grundlagen und An-
wendungen. Sonderheft 47 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsycholo-
gie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 66-90.

Freeman, Linton C.; Ruan, Danching 1997: An International Comparative Study of Inter-
personal Behavior and Role Relationships. In: L’Année Sociologique 47: 89-115.

Furstenberg, Frank F.; Hughes, Mary E. 1995: Social Capital and Successful Develop-
ment among at-risk Youth. In: Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 580–592.

Glaeser, Edward L.; Laibson, David; Sacerdote, Bruce 2002: An Economic Approach to 
Social Capital. In: The Economic Journal 112: 437-458 [doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00078].

Granovetter, Mark S. 1995 [1974]: Getting a Job. A Study of Contacts and Careers. 2nd 
Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haug, Sonja 1997: Soziales Kapital: Ein kritischer Überblick über den aktuellen For-
schungsstand. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung 
(MZES).

Haug, Sonja 2007: Soziales Kapital als Ressource im Kontext von Migration und Inte-
gration. In: Lüdecke, Jörg; Diewald, Martin (Eds.): Soziale Netzwerke und soziale Un-
gleichheit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 85-111.

Haug, Sonja; Pointner, Sonja 2007: Soziale Netzwerke, Migration und Integration. In: 
Franzen, Axel; Freitag, Markus (Eds.): Soziales Kapital. Grundlagen und Anwendun-
gen. Sonderheft 47 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Wies-
baden: VS Verlag: 367-396.

Höllinger, Franz; Haller, Max 1990: Kinship and Social Networks in Modern Societies: A 
Cross-Cultural Comparison among seven Nations. In: European Sociological Review 
6: 103-124.

Huinink, Johannes; Kley, Stefanie 2008: Regionaler Kontext und Migrationsentschei-
dungen im Lebenslauf. In: Kalter, Frank (Eds.): Migration und Integration. Sonderheft 
48 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 
162-184. 



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 224

Ioannides, Yannis M.; Loury, Linda D. 2004: Job Information Networks, Neighbor-
hood Effects, and Inequality. In: Journal of Economic Literature 42: 1056-1093 
[doi:10.1257/0022051043004595].

Kalter, Frank, 1997: Wohnortwechsel in Deutschland. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Kalter, Frank 2003: Stand und Perspektiven der Migrationssoziologie. In: Orth, Barbara; 
Schwietring, Thomas; Weiß, Johannes (Eds.): Soziologische Forschung. Stand und 
Perspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich: 323-338.

Kan, Kamhon 2007: Residential Mobility and Social Capital. In: Journal of Urban Eco-
nomics 61: 436-457 [doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.005].

Kasarda, John D.; Janowitz, Morris 1974: Community Attachment in Mass Society. In: 
American Sociological Review 39: 328-339.

Kaufmann, Vincent 2002: Re-thinking Mobility. Contemporary Sociology. Aldershot: 
Ashgate.

Kleinhans, Reinout; Priemus, Hugo; Engbersen, Godfried 2007: Understanding Social 
Capital in Recently Restructured Urban Neighbourhoods: Two Case Studies in Rotter-
dam. In: Urban Studies 44: 1069-1091 [doi: 10.1080/00420980701256047].

Kley, Stefanie, 2009: Migration im Lebensverlauf. Der Einfl uss von Lebensbedingungen 
und Lebenslaufereignissen auf den Wohnortwechsel. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Korte, Charles 1980: Urban-non Urban Differences in Social Behaviour and Social Psych-
ological Models of Urban Impact. In: Journal of Social Issues 36,3: 29-51.

Lai, Gina 2008: Marriage, Gender, and Social Capital. In: Lin, Nan; Erickson, Bonnie H. 
(Eds.): Social Capital. An International Research Program. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press: 342-363.

Lai, Gina; Siu, Yat-Ming 2006: Residential Mobility and Social Capital in Urban Shanghai. In: 
Asian Journal of Social Science 34,4: 573-599 [doi: 10.1163/156853106778917853].

Larner, Mary 1990: Local residential mobility and its effects on social networks: a corss-
cultural comparison. In: Cochran, Moncrieff; Larner, Mary; Riley, David; Gunnarson, 
Lars; Henderson, Charles (Eds.): Extending families: The Social Networks of Parents 
and their Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 205-229.

Larsen, Jonas; Urry, John; Axhausen, Kay 2006: Mobilities, Networks, Geographies. Al-
dershot: Ashgate.

Levy, Mildred B.; Wadycki, Walter J. 1973: The Infl uence of Family and Friends on Geo-
graphical Labor Mobility: An Intercensal Comparison. In: Review of Economics and 
Statistics 55: 198-203.

Lin, Nan 2001: Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.

Logan, John R.; Spitze, Glenna D. 1994: Informal Support and the Use of Formal Ser-
vices by Older Americans. In: Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 49 (January): 
25-34.

Lubbers, Miranda J.; Molina, Jose Luis; Lerner, Jürgen; Brandes, Ulrik; Avila, Javier; 
McCarty, Christopher 2010: Longitudinal Analysis of Personal Networks. The Case 
of Argentinean Migrants in Spain. In: Social Networks 32: 91-104 [doi:10.1016/j.soc-
net.2009.05.001].

Magdol, Lynn 2000: The People You Know: The Impact of Residential Mobility on Moth-
ers’ Social Network Ties. In: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17: 183 [doi: 
10.1177/0265407500172002].



New City = New Friends?    • 225

Mok, Diana; Wellman, Barry; Carrasco, Juan 2010: Does Distance Matter in the Age of 
the Internet? Urban Studies 47: 2747-2783 [doi: 10.1177/0042098010377363.]

Mok, Diana; Wellman, Barry 2007: Did Distance Matter before the Internet? Interperson-
al Contact and Support in the 1970s. In: Social Networks 29,3: 430-461 [doi:10.1016/j.
socnet.2007.01.009].

Offner, Jean-Marc 2000: Territorial Deregulation: Local Authorities at risk from Techni-
cal Networks. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24,1: 165-181 
[doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.00241].

Palloni, Alberto; Massey, Douglas; Ceballos, Miguel; Espinosa, Kristin; Spittel, Michael 
2001: Social Capital and International Migration: A Test Using Information on Family 
Networks. In: American Journal of Sociology 106,5: 1262-1298 [doi: 0002-9602/2001/
10605-0002$02.50].

Petermann, Sören 2002: Persönliche Netzwerke in Stadt und Land. Wiesbaden: West-
deutscher Verlag.

Petermann, Sören; Täfl er, Susanne 2006: Bürgerumfrage Halle 2005. Der Hallesche 
Graureiher 2006-3. Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Soziologie. Halle: Martin-Lu-
ther-Universität. Halle-Wittenberg.

Portes, Alejandro 1998: Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociol-
ogy. In: Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.

Putnam, Robert D. 2002: Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Con-
temporary Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia; Skrondal, Anders 2005: Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling 
Using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.

Sampson, Robert J. 1988: Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass 
Society: A Multilevel Systemic Approach. In: American Sociological Review 53: 
766-779.

Sampson, Robert J. 1991: Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community 
Social Organization. In: Social Forces 70: 43-64.

Skrobanek, Jan; Jobst, Solvejg 2006: „Begrenzung“ durch kulturelles Kapital? Zu Bedin-
gungen regionaler Mobilität im Kontext der Kapitaltheorie Pierre Bourdieus. In: Ber-
liner Journal für Soziologie 16: 227-244 [doi: 10.1007/s11609-006-0018-0].

Snijders, Tom A.B. 1999: Prologue to the Measurement of Social Capital. In: The Toc-
queville Review 20,1: 27-44.

van der Gaag, Martin; Snijders, Tom A.B. 2005: The Resource Generator: Social Capital 
Quantifi cation with Concrete Items. In: Social Networks 27,1: 1-29 [doi: 10.1016/j.soc-
net.2004.10.001].

Völker, Beate; Pinkster, Fenne; Flap, Henk 2007: Inequality in Social Capital between 
Migrants and Natives in the Netherlands. In: Kalter, Frank (Eds.): Migration und Inte-
gration. Sonderheft 48 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 325-350.

Wellman, Barry 1979: The Community Question. In: American Journal of Sociology 84: 
1201-1231.

Wellman, Barry 1992: Which Types of Ties and Networks give what Kinds of Social Sup-
port? In: Lawler, Edward; Markovsky, Barry; Ridgeway, Cecilia; Walker, Henry (Eds.): 
Advances in Group Processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 207-235.

Wellman, Barry 1996: Are Personal Communities Local? A Dumptarian Reconsideration. 
In: Social Networks 18: 347-354.



•    Natascha Nisic, Sören Petermann 226

Wellman, Barry; Leighton, Barry 1979: Networks, Neighborhoods and Communities. In: 
Urban Affairs Quarterly 14: 363-390.

Wellman, Barry; Wong, Renita Yuk-lin; Tindall, David; Nazer, Nancy 1997: A Decade of 
Network Change: Turnover, Persistance and Stability in Personal Communities. In: 
Social Networks 19: 27-50.

Wellman, Barry; Wortley, Scott 1990: Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community 
Ties and Social Support. In: American Journal of Sociology 96: 558-588.

Wirth, Louis 1938: Urbanism as a Way of Life. In: American Journal of Sociology 44: 
1-24.

Wöhler, Thomas; Hinz, Thomas 2007: Egozentrierte Diskussionsnetzwerke in den USA 
und Deutschland. In: Franzen, Axel; Freitag, Markus (Eds.): Soziales Kapital. Grundla-
gen und Anwendungen. Sonderheft 47 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozi-
alpsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag: 91-112.

Translated from the original text by the Federal Institute for Population Research, for information 
only. The reviewed and authors’ authorised original article in German is available under the title 
“Neue Stadt = neue Freunde? Die Restrukturierung sozialer Ressourcen nach einem Wohnort-
wechsel”, DOI 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-08de or URN urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2013-08de0, at http://
www.comparativepopulationstudies.de.

Date of submission: 05.08.2010  Date of Acceptance: 10.09.2012

Jun.-Prof. Dr. Natascha Nisic. Universitaet Hamburg, School of Business, Economics and 
Social Sciences. Hamburg, Germany. E-Mail: natascha.nisic@wiso.uni-hamburg.de 
URL: http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/professuren/soziologie-wirtschaftlichen-handelns/
startseite/

Dr. Sören Petermann ( ). Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic 
Diversity, Department of Socio-Cultural Diversity. Göttingen, Germany. 
E-Mail: petermann@mmg.mpg.de, 
URL: http://www.mmg.mpg.de/de/abteilungen/soziokulturelle-vielfalt/wissenschaftliche-
mitarbeiterinnen/pd-dr-soeren-petermann/

Authors appear in alphabetical order.



© Federal Institute for Population Research 2013 – All rights reserved

Published by / Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider

Federal Institute for Population Research 
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany

Managing Editor /
Verantwortlicher Redakteur
Frank Swiaczny

Assistant Managing Editor /
Stellvertretende Redakteurin
Katrin Schiefer

Language & Copy Editor (English) /
Lektorat & Übersetzungen (englisch)
Amelie Franke

Copy Editor (German) /
Lektorat (deutsch)
Dr. Evelyn Grünheid

Layout / Satz
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs

E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de

Scientifi c Advisory Board / 
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat
Jürgen Dorbritz (Wiesbaden) 
Paul Gans (Mannheim) 
Johannes Huinink (Bremen) 
Marc Luy (Wien) 
Clara H. Mulder (Groningen) 
Notburga Ott (Bochum) 
Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz)

Board of Reviewers / Gutachterbeirat
Martin Abraham (Erlangen)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn)
Claudia Diehl (Göttingen)
Andreas Diekmann (Zürich)
Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock)
Henriette Engelhardt-Wölfl er (Bamberg)
E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Wien)
Beat Fux (Zürich)
Joshua Goldstein (Rostock)
Karsten Hank (Köln)
Sonja Haug (Regensburg)
Franz-Josef Kemper (Berlin) †
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock)
Aart C. Liefbroer (Den Haag)
Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz)
Dimiter Philipov (Wien)
Tomáš Sobotka (Wien)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)

Comparative Population Studies – Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft

www.comparativepopulationstudies.de

ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)