Chapter 5. Off to greener pitches? 107 disarray effect. The social disarray effect is theoretically congruent with McPherson’s ecological model of affiliation. Namely, like homophily, social disarray constrains organizations’ ability to disperse over social space. Their pathways, however, are different. Where homophily predicts member recruitment and turnover is based on the social distance between a (prospective) member and his or her comembers, social disarray suggests that member turnover is also a function specifically of the social distances between outgroup members. This effect adds to the homophily effect, because it means that when organizations socially diversify and broaden their coverage of social space, this will not only lead to turnover among minority members but also among members that see their own ingroup share unaffected. As such, social disarray further strengthens the organizational homogenisation and specialisation in social space that is a result from homophilic tie-formation. Member transfers and the ethnic composition of clubs From the previous discussion of McPherson’s ecological model of affiliation, we can derive several expectations about how member transfers are related to clubs’ ethnic compositions. Firstly, it is assumed - but also demonstrated in the previous chapter – that all things being equal, ethnically heterogeneous clubs have a substantially higher turnover rate than ethnically homogeneous clubs due to both lower ingroup shares and higher outgroup fractionalization. Given that transferees are dropouts, this would suggest that relatively many potential transferees leave ethnically heterogeneous clubs and vice versa. Transferees, however, must also be successfully recruited by another club. The ecological model of affiliation suggests that chances of successful recruitment are highest if other clubs have a substantially higher share of ingroup members. This would suggest that, on average, members transfer to clubs with higher ingroup shares. It is unclear if lower degrees of outgroup fractionalization offer a similar competitive advantage for the recruitment of members, or that it only effects member retention. However, if members are most likely to leave clubs with relatively high degrees of outgroup fractionalization, we may still see that members on average transfer to clubs that also have more homogeneous outgroups. This results in the first two expectations for this chapter. E1: Member transfers have a positive effect on transferees’ ethnic ingroup share
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw