Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJoel Knight Modified over 6 years ago
1
Fractionalization and its Effect on Social Cohesion:
"It's the Social Exclusion, Stupid!" Irene van Staveren, Institute of Social Studies Zahid Pervaiz, Lahore School of Management ECINEQ conference July 2015, University of Luxembourgh
2
“Missing links” in development literature
Positive effect on growth Social capital Institutions Converging empirically around trust and informal institutions: => social cohesion channel
3
Social constraint on growth
Ethnic fractionalisation Ethnic polarization Negative effect of ethnic diversity on growth?
4
Theoretical puzzle In economics there is a strong case in favour of diversity Controlling for income inequality (Gini) does not change the negative and statistically significant effect of ethnic diversity on growth So, how can we explain the empirical result? We suggest that it’s not diversity but social exclusion, which drives the negative effect
5
Testing for social exclusion:
Income inequality = vertical inequality Social exclusion = horizontal inequality Ethnic diversity is an expression of horizontal inequality => controlling for income inequality is inadequate Why? We therefore argue that what matters for development is not so much the number and size of groups and vertical inequalities, but how groups relate to each other. Do they tolerate and respect each other or do they discriminate each other and fight over scarce resources? Is there generalized trust of others or only in one's own group? Are group members willing to interact with others? Do they feel listened to and accepted as members of society? In other words: do groups contribute to social cohesion or do dominant groups disrupt social cohesion through the social exclusion of other social groups?
6
Literature Easterly & Levine (1997) on Africa: “… interest group polarization leads to rent-seeking behaviour and reduces the consensus for public goods, creating long-run growth tragedies.” Sokoloff & Engerman (2000): historical polarization driven by elites explain growth differences in the Americas =>Problem: both confuse diversity with polarization Alesina & La Ferrara (2005) recognize that diversity can run along a variety of dimensions => “open questions” Casey & Owen (2014) recognize that elite capture must be measured rather than income and wealth inequality
7
New ideas emerging Fedderke, Luiz & de Kadt (2008): ethnic identity is weaker over time Shcherbak (2012): what matters is a society’s tolerance of diversity Community-level studies on developed countries: it’s not diversity as such, but socioeconomic deprivation of particular social groups, which results in negative effects on community social cohesion.
8
Our hypothesis It is not the number or size difference of ethnic groups which matter, but rather the way ethnic groups are socially positioned and its members relate to members of other groups, which affects social cohesion, and thereby economic development processes and growth.
10
Methodology & data Dependent variable: Intergroup Cohesion from Indices of Social Development, ISS Independent variable 1: Ethnic fractionalisation (and linguistic and religious fractionalization) as in the literature Independent variable 2: Inclusion of Minorities from Indices of Social Development, ISS Control variable: log GDP per capita
11
ISD Database at ISS: www.IndSocDev.org freely online available
Data from 1990 until 2010 in 5-year periods Almost every country in the world Continuously updated Transparent: Which indicators go into which index 6 indices and 200 indicators are downloadable Standard errors provided per country and variable
12
6 indices: Civic Activism, measuring use of media and protest behaviour Clubs and Associations, defined as membership in local voluntary associations Intergroup Cohesion, which measures ethnic and sectarian tensions, and discrimination Interpersonal Safety and Trust, focusing on perceptions and incidences of crime and personal transgressions Gender Equality, reflecting gender discrimination in home, work and public life. Inclusion of Minorities, measures levels of discrimination against vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, or lower caste groups.
13
Methodology ISD ISD combines over 200 indicators from 25 independent and reputable sources Uses ‘matching percentiles’ method used for Corruptions Perceptions Index Lambsdorff 1999 Rationale for matching percentiles Combination of sources measuring same phenomenon more reliable than each source separately Indices broaden the coverage compared to single source Minimum 3 independent sources to develop index As mentioned before, ISD combines over 200 indicators from 25 independent and reputable sources – most of which were mentioned before The methodology we use is that of ‘matching percentiles’, which is a method which was developed for the Corruptions Perceptions Index by Lambsdorff. Details can be found at the Transparency website – and in future we will produce a similar detailed description for our website Rationale for this methodology is 2-fold: Combination of sources measuring same phenomenon more reliable than each source separately Indices broaden the coverage compared to single source For the reporting of an index, there need to be a minimum of 3 independent sources Please note that we do report 2010 data on the website, but that these data are not fully developed and justified yet I will explain the methodology in the following steps, over 9 slides
14
Estimation methods for social cohesion
Cross-section all developing countries 2010 Panel all developing countries (5 years) with random effects (Hausman test did not favour fixed effects) Endogeneity is not likely because social cohesion changes only very slowly over time. Fractionalization data is available for one year only Robustness checks with two alternative fractionalization variables
15
Table 1a. Summary statistics cross-section 2010
Variable N Mean St Dev Min Max IC 87 0.6524 0.0879 0.2040 0.7568 EF 0.5385 0.2401 0.0394 0.9302 LF 83 0.4643 0.3126 0.0080 0.9227 RF 86 0.4326 0.2405 0.0023 0.8603 IM 69 0.4377 0.0487 0.3107 0.5394 lnGDPpc 7.1814 1.0586 5.0156 9.3155
16
Table 1b. Summary statistics panel 1990-2010
Variable N Mean St Dev Min Max IC 346 0.5845 0.0871 0.2040 0.7568 EF 435 0.5405 0.2383 0.0394 0.9302 LF 420 0.4695 0.3128 0.0080 0.9227 RF 0.4352 0.2393 0.0023 0.8603 IM 207 0.4593 0.0769 0.1726 0.8510 lnGDPpc 428 6.9332 1.0338 3.9129 9.3155
17
Table 2. Results of cross-section estimation; dependent variable Intergroup Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 EF LF RF ** IM *** *** *** ln GDPpc ** ** ** C* *** R-sq N 82 67 63 65 Model 1 shows a small negative effect of ethnic fractionalization on intergroup cohesion: a 0.10 increase in ethnic fractionalization is associated with a decline in intergroup cohesion (both on a scale of 0-1). The parameter, however, is not statistically significant. Model 2 adds the social exclusion measure and shows that now the sign for ethnic fractionalization is positive, but still not statistically significant. Inclusion of minorities, however, has a statistically significant positive effect: a 0.10 increase in inclusion of minorities (10% of the scale) is associated with a 0.12 increase in intergroup cohesion, which is a substantive effect, larger than one standard deviation in intergroup cohesion. Model 4 shows that both religious fractionalization and the inclusion of minorities have positive and statistically significant parameters. A 0.10 increase in religious fractionalization is associated with a increase in intergroup cohesion (1% of the standard deviation of intergroup cohesion). Whereas a 0.10 increase in inclusion of minorities is associated with a 0.11 increase in intergroup cohesion, which is more than a standard deviation. ** significant at 5% level; *** significant at 1% level
18
Table 3. Results of panel estimation; dependent variable Intergroup Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 EF LF RF *** IM *** *** *** ln GDPpc *** * * *** C* *** *** *** *** R-sq N 340 198 190 195 Both in model 1 and model 2, the signs of the parameters for ethnic fractionalization are negative but not statistically significant. Model 2 shows that the effect of inclusion of minorities is substantive. A 0.10 increase in inclusion of minorities is associated with a sizeable 0.23 increase in intergroup cohesion. In model 4, we find that religious fractionalization shows a positive and statistically significant correlation with intergroup cohesion, very similar to the results of the cross-section analysis. * significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level; *** significant at 1% level
19
Discussion The difference between the cross-section results and panel results are small: mainly the size effect of social exclusion is larger in the cross-section Large difference in R square between cross section and panel Ethnic and linguistic fractionalization have very small negative effects and not statistically significant Inclusion of minorities has a large, positive and statistically significant effect on social cohesion (larger than a stdev) 10% higher GDP per capita has a much smaller impact on social cohesion than a 10% point increase (for example from 0.30 to 0.40) along the scale of inclusion of minorities
20
Conclusion Horizontal inequality generates not merely differences in economic benefits but expresses social exclusion from large parts of the economy But the analysis needs to be expanded with more controls and perhaps a time-lag Next steps: develop a model in which also income inequality is included develop a growth model with ethnic diversity, social exclusion, and income inequality
21
Indices of Social Development database www. IndSocDev
Indices of Social Development database ISD team: Irene van Staveren Ekaterina Evdokimova and external advisors
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.