Diffusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin's Ethnic ...€¦ · Stalin’s ethnic deportations...
Transcript of Diffusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin's Ethnic ...€¦ · Stalin’s ethnic deportations...
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions
Diffusion of Gender Norms:Evidence from Stalin’s Ethnic Deportations
Alain Blum (EHESS)Alexandra Jarotschkin (PSE)
Ekaterina Zhuravskaya (PSE and EHESS)
January 2019
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Motivation
• Does exposure to a group with different cultural normsleads to a cultural diffusion, or in contrast, people rejectalien cultures and increase identification with their own?
• Experiments designed to answer this question usually assignpeople of different cultural backgrounds to the samelocations randomly
• The literature has studied random allocations of children toclasses, students to dorms, soldiers to regiments, etc.
• In such experiments, representatives of different culturesare forced to interact in a controlled environment
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Motivation
• In a real life, people choose freely whom to interact with
• Thus, even when different groups co-exist in closeproximity, they may self-segregate and avoid interactionswith representatives of another group
• There are many examples of spontaneously-created ghettosboth in history and throughout the world
• Jewish ghettos in medieval or 19th-century Europe• African-American neighborhoods in contemporary US cities• Immigrant neighborhoods in contemporary European cities
• To study cultural diffusion, one needs to combine anexperimental setting of cultural exposure with having nocontrol over whom people interact with
• Stalin’s ethnic deportations during WWII combine both ofthese features
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Stalin’s ethnic deportations
• 2.1 million people were deported from the Western parts ofthe USSR to Siberia and Central Asia in 1939–1944
• With the sole reason of belonging to an ethnicity,representatives of which were suspected of (potential oractual) collaboration with the Nazis against the Soviets
• Deportees were not allowed to come back to theirhomelands (until the Khrushchev’s thaw or the fall of theUSSR, depending on ethnicity)
• They left right after they were allowed to (1 to 3generations later)
• Unlike Gulag’s prisoners, deportees were not confined tocamps and were free to interact with local population
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Ethnic deportees on the round to their destination
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Ethnic deportees working at their destination
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Culture of deportees
• Culturally, deported ethnicities differed along manydimensions, e.g., in terms of religion:
• Protestants: Germans, Estonians, Latvians, and Finns• Muslims: Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Balkars, Kurds,
Crimean tatars, Turk-meshketians• Catholic christians: Poles, Lithuanians• Orthodox christians: Moldovans, Greeks• Buddhists: Kalmyks, Koreans
• In particular, gender norms sharply differed betweenMuslim deportees from North Caucasus and Protestantdeportees from the Volga region
• Chechens and Volga Germans were the largest groups ofMuslims and Protestants, respectively
• We focus on the effect of deportations on this cultural trait
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
Research question
• What are the gender norms among the native localpopulation today in Siberia and Central Asia depending on
• whether they live in a locality in the vicinity of a formersettlement of mostly-Muslim or mostly-Protestant ethnicdeportees
• The identification assumption is that:
• provided there was a settlement of ethnic deportees in thevicinity, the religious (and ethnic) mix of deportees wasorthogonal to factors that determine gender attitudes
• As vast majority of the descendants of the deportees leftwhen they were allowed to and we focus on non-migrants,the differences in the norms today is the evidence ofcultural diffusion
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature
We contribute to the literatures on:
1 Social identity and cultural diffusion that focuses on theeffect of co-existence of ethnic and racial groups
• e.g., Algan, Hemet and Laitin 2016 on social housing;Chetty Hendren 2015, Rao 2013 on classroom composition;Burns et al. 2013 on dorms assignments; Angrist 1998,Vanden Eynde, 2016 on military service
2 Determinants of gender roles• e.g., Fernandez and Fogli 2009; Fernandez, Fogli and
Olivetti 2004; Alesina,Giuliano, Nunn 2013
3 Effects of Stalin’s punitive policies• Ethnic deportations on distrust in central authority (Levkin
2015, using crude region-level data)• Gulag camps on human capital and distrust (e.g., Toews
and Vezina 2017; Ciravegna, Toews and Vezina 2016;Kapelko and Markevich 2014)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Timeline of ethnic deportations
• Deportations:• 1939–1941: deportations from the annexed territories,
Poland, Baltic republics, and Romania• 1941–1942: “Preventive” deportations of Soviet Germans,
Finns, and Greeks• 1943–1944: “Retributive” deportations of the ethnic groups
of the North Caucasus and Crimea
• Deportees were allowed to return to their homelands in twowaves:
• 1991: Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Turk-Meskhetians• 1956: All the rest
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Deportations by religion and destination
All Soviet republic of destination, %
000s % Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan
Total 2155.1 100.00 41.86 42.60 7.73 6.58 1.14 0.11Protestants 1132.5 52.55 30.86 19.64 0.30 0.74 0.91 0.11Muslims 750.9 34.84 2.29 19.11 7.40 5.82 0.22 0.00Catholics 142.6 6.62 4.58 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Orthodox 66.8 3.10 1.39 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Buddhist 62.3 2.89 2.73 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Deportation locations
Soviet republic of destination
All Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan
Districts (rayons)with deportations 1131 774 190 97 55 12 3
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Size and composition of deportation settlements
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Gender norms of Muslims and Protestantsat the time of deportations
• There are no systematic data on gender norms at the timeof deportations
• Yet, there is anecdotal evidence:• Child marriage among Soviet Muslim population disrupting
girls’ education, most pronounced amongst theChechen-Ingush population (National Archives, GARF)
• Polygamy with men having up to five wives inChechen-Ingush republic 1963 (e.g., Ro’i 2000, p. 539)
• Muslim deportees were more observant in comparison tomuslim local population in areas of deportation settlements(Ro’i 2000, p. 407)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Gender norms of Muslims and Protestantsbefore the deportations
• There are some pieces of systematic evidence from before and after• Literacy gap between men and women was smaller for Protestants
(and Germans) than for Muslims (and North Caucasians) in 1897:
Dependent Var.: Share of population that is literate
Comparison group: Male Muslims Male North-Caucasians
Female -0.080*** -0.080*** -0.134*** -0.134***(0.006) (0.006) (0.009) (0.009)
Protestants 0.504*** 0.323***(0.041) (0.027)
Female × Protestant 0.070*** 0.070***(0.008) (0.008)
Germans 0.431*** 0.319***(0.037) (0.033)
Female × Germans 0.110*** 0.110***(0.011) (0.011)
City 0.095*** 0.095*** 0.146*** 0.146***(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020)
Observations 697 697 570 570R-squared 0.847 0.934 0.778 0.874
Weighted by ethnic population X X X XProvince clustered SEs X X X XControls - Female and male literacy rates X XMean literacy of comparison group 0.201 0.201 0.216 0.216SD for mean literacy of comparison group 0.124 0.124 0.169 0.169
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Gender norms of Muslims and Protestantscontemporary data
• Contemporary survey data (Life in Transition survey, 2016):
Protestants Muslims Significanceof difference
Disagree that a woman should do most of the household chores 74% 33% ***Disagree that it is better for everyone if the man earns the money 49% 27% ***
Disagree that men make better political leaders 59% 33% ***Same or higher university aspirations for daughter vs. son 97% 91% ***
Membership in a women’s rights group 4% 4%Tertiary education, among women 25% 19% ***
Tried to start a business, among women 11% 8% ***
Obs. 2,053 12,567
• A lot of anecdotal evidence that religious and political leadership intoday’s Chechen republic is not opposed to pre-arranged marriages ofteenage girls with middle-age men, polygyny, and even female genitalmutilation
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms
Gender equality was the official policy of USSR
• Equality for men and women was proclaimed as part of ideology,
including in the sphere of education
• Liquidation of illiteracy campaigns in the 1920s and 30s targetedequally men and women
• All people from 8 to 50 years old were required to becomeliterate in their native language
• Boys and girls had the same schooling obligations (e.g., Clark,1995)
• It is hard to say whether native population of Central Asian republics
was less backward than Chechens at the time of deportations
• However, there is evidence that the deported North-Caucasiangroups resisted the Soviet ideology, including regarding genderequality, more than Central Asian population (although therewas resistance there too, i.e., Basmachi movement)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Data sources
1 Ethnic deportations• Data on exact destinations and the numbers of deportees for
each ethnicity in each deported settlement (from census of 1951,source: Russian National Archives)
• 19,839 entries, 16 ethnic groups (Koreans are missing)• and non-ethnic deportees: Kulaks, bandits, “anti-Soviet
elements”• we matched the destination locations of these entries with 1126
districts (municipalities in the USSR)
2 Contemporary outcomes• Life in Transition survey data, 2016• 375 PSUs in 5 countries• Out of which 233 PSUs had a (ethnic) deportation in 30km
travel-distance vicinity
3 Historical and geographical controls• Gulag locations• Old and new capitals, railroads, ruggedness, climate, etc.
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Check on data: NKVD archives vs. 1970 Soviet censusby region (oblast) in USSR
Molotovskaya
46
81
01
2N
b o
f P
rote
sta
nts
as o
f 1
97
0 S
ovie
t C
en
su
s (
ln
)
4 6 8 10 12Nb of Deported Protestants ( ln )
Nb of Protestants, 1970 (ln) Fitted values
p−value: 0.000
Samarkandskaya
Tashkentskaya
Chuvashkaya
Ashkabad
Molotovskaya
46
81
01
2N
b o
f S
un
ni M
uslim
s a
s o
f 1
97
0 S
ovie
t C
en
su
s (
ln
)
0 5 10Nb of Deported Sunni Muslims ( ln )
Nb of Muslims, 1970 (ln) Fitted values
p−value: 0.000
• By 1970 the biggest group of Muslims (Chechens) were pardoned andleft, while Crimean Tatars and Turk-Meskhetians (who were theremaining sizeable Muslim groups) and Germans (the biggestProtestant group) stayed at the deportation locations until 1991
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Map of deportations overlaid with PSU locations
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
The biggest variation among LiTs PSU exposure toethnic deportations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
• 56 PSUs in Kazakhstan and 62 PSUs in Kyrgyzstan had anethnic deportation settlement
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Kazakhstan
Variation in Kazakhstan
Protestant Share Muslim Share
Other ethnicities share
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Kyrgyzstan
Variation in Kyrgyzstan
Protestant Share Muslim Share
Other ethnicities share
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Some variation in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Siberia• 59 PSUs in Uzbekistan, 31 PSUs in Tajikistan, and 25 PSUs in Russia
had a deportation settlement with Muslim or Protestant groups
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Uzbekistan
Variation in Uzbekistan
Protestant Share Muslim Share
Other ethnicities share
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Tajikistan
Variation in Tajikistan
Protestant Share Muslim Share
Other ethnicities share
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent
PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Russia
Variation in Russia
Protestant Share Muslim Share
Other ethnicities share
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Econometric Strategy
• We explore gender norms of local population in PSUs whichwere exposed to deportations of Protestants vs. Muslims
• Conditional on the selection into having a deportation inthe vicinity
• Also controlling for subnational region (oblast) fixed effectsand a variety of historical and geographical characteristics
• The center defined the quotas of deportees at the level ofsubnational regions
• Identification assumption: conditional on covariates andthe presence of deportation in the vicinity, the identity ofthe deportees (e.g., their religion) was orthogonal to any(unobserved) determinants of the gender norms
• Balancing tests suggest that this is the case• We restrict the sample to the “title ethnicity” (Natives) of each
country (i.e., Kazakhs in Kazakhstan; Russians in Russia) tomake sure that descendants of deportees are not in the sample
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Econometric specificationOn all PSUs in Russia and Central Asia:
Yil = β0 + β1 log(Protl) + β2 log(Musll) + β31{Deportl}+
+β4 log(Pop Den1897u) + σ′Dl + γ
′Xl + δ
′Ci + µrl + εil
On all PSUs with deportation settlement in a vicinity:
Yil = α0 + α1Prot Sharel + α2 log(Deport Sizel)+
+α3 log(Pop Den1897u) + σ′Dl + γ
′Xl + δ
′Ci + µrl + εil
• i - respondents, l - localities (PSUs), u - 1897 uezds
• Protl, Musll – nbs on protestants and muslims in the vicinity of l
• 1{Deportl} - dummy for a deportation in vicinity; Deport Sizel - size ofdeportation; Pop Den1897u - population density in 1897 per sq km
• Dl – the size and composition of all other ethnic and non-ethnic deportations
• µrl – subnational region FE; X and C – locality-specific controls(geography, climate, distances to nearest railroads, capital city, etc.) andindividual-level controls (education, age, income, gender, and religion)
• SEs corrected for spatial correlation within 150km radius (Conley 1999)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Balance in geography and climate
• Deportation locations were not random, which is not surprising aslabor needs determined the destination locations
• Yet, the identity of deportees, provided there was a deportation in the
vicinity, seems to be balanced
• consistent with historical narrative that the primary demand was formanual labor, so deportees’ skills did not matter much
Deportations dummy Share of Protestant DeporteesPLACEBO OUTCOME All PSUs All deportations PSUs with deportation
Distance to water (ln) -0.423*** (0.127) 0.115 (0.206) 0.351 (0.336)Distance to railroad (ln) -0.944*** (0.243) 0.073 (0.287) 0.327 (0.378)Distance to gulag (ln) -0.388** (0.160) -0.011 (0.202) 0.145 (0.555)Distance to capital (ln) -0.257** (0.128) 0.144* (0.078) -0.102 (0.383)Ruggedness -27.766* (14.335) -10.160 (10.183) -16.560 (23.450)Soil Suitability low inputs -0.851*** (0.189) 0.041 (0.183) -0.120 (0.298)Soil Suitability high inputs -0.667*** (0.161) 0.111 (0.215) -0.413 (0.309)Precipitation (June-August) (ln) -0.138 (0.123) -0.077* (0.042) -0.063 (0.168)Precipitation (Dec-Feb) (ln) -0.061 (0.063) -0.069 (0.044) -0.048 (0.163)Temperature (June-August) 2.443*** (0.707) 0.155 (0.246) -1.902** (0.968)Temperature (Dec-Feb) 2.356*** (0.655) -0.258 (0.357) -2.468** (0.968)
Observations 375 1057 229
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Balance in population composition pre-treatment1897 Russian Empire Census
• Balance in pre-treatment population characteristics, conditional onthe distance to the capital city and precipitation
Deportations dummy Share of Protestant DeporteesPLACEBO OUTCOME Central Asia CA deportations CA PSUs with deportation
Share of Muslims 0.091** (0.040) -0.0180 (0.164) 0.0530 (0.094)Share of Protestants -0.00200 (0.002) -0.00700 (0.005) -0.00400 (0.004)Share of Christians -0.050*** (0.019) 0.0500 (0.072) 0.0140 (0.046)Share of Orthodox -0.077** (0.036) -0.0280 (0.118) -0.0420 (0.092)Share of Germans -0.00200 (0.002) -0.00600 (0.004) -0.00400 (0.003)Share of Russians -0.084** (0.037) 0.0160 (0.159) -0.0500 (0.090)Share of literate females -0.012** (0.005) 0.0280 (0.028) 0.00600 (0.011)Share living in city -0.0300 (0.029) -0.117 (0.088) -0.116* (0.062)Share of merchants and artisans 0.00 (0.010) -0.038* (0.022) 0.00700 (0.025)Share working in agriculture 0.00600 (0.010) 0.0310 (0.025) 0.0100 (0.022)Share working in industry 0.00100 (0.004) -0.0170 (0.015) -0.0260 (0.016)Share working in services/trade 0.00 (0.000) -0.00200 (0.002) -0.003* (0.002)Share in white collar jobs 0.00 (0.000) -0.002*** (0.001) 0.000 (0.001)
Obs. (Russian Empire Uezds) 36 39 30
All PSUs All deportations All PSUs with deportationPopulation density (sq km) (ln) -0.0500 (0.077) 0.0320 (0.429) 0.259 (0.231)
Obs. 375 1090 229
Total Size of Deportation X X XDistance to capital, summer precipitation X X X
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Balance: 1941 evacuation of enterprisesDeportees sent further east than evacuated enterprises
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance
Balance of deportations and evacuated enterprisesin vicinity (30km) to all deportations and PSUs with deportation
• Deportations are larger in areas with also a higher numberof evacuated enterprises
• No correlation to the composition of deportees i.e., theshare of Protestant deportees
All PSUs All deportations PSUs with deportationPLACEBO OUTCOME Deportation dummy Protestant deportee (share) Size of deportations Protestant deportee (share) Size of deportations
Nb. of evacuated enterprises 2.421 (1.622) -6.848 (5.713) 1.072*** (0.395) -7.680 (9.621) 3.272* (1.720)
Evacuation enterprise dummy 0.294*** (0.058) -0.127** (0.050) 0.052*** (0.012) -0.268 (0.176) 0.0770 (0.048)
Observations 375 1057 229
Distance to capital, summer precipitation X X X
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Should a woman should do most of the householdchores even if the husband is unemployed?
Disagree or strongly disagree that:A woman should do the household chores
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.015***(0.005) (0.005)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.014*(0.009) (0.008)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.100 0.073(0.061) (0.050)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.161*** 0.203***(0.055) (0.059)
Observations 2,679 2,004 1,643 1,238R-squared 0.199 0.159 0.223 0.183
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000***
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.161 0.174 0.149 0.158SD of dependent var. 0.368 0.380 0.356 0.365
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
It is better for everyone involved if the man earns themoney?
Disagree or strongly disagree that:It is better if the man earns the money
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.016** 0.019***(0.007) (0.006)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.007 -0.005(0.007) (0.008)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.063 -0.014(0.058) (0.069)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.134** 0.150(0.053) (0.104)
Observations 2,656 1,995 1,636 1,236R-squared 0.125 0.146 0.136 0.150
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.008*** 0.006***
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.205 0.164 0.204 0.155SD of dependent var. 0.404 0.370 0.403 0.362
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Do men make better political leaders than women do?
Disagree or strongly disagree that:Men make better political leaders
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.034*** 0.014**(0.010) (0.005)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.011* -0.002(0.007) (0.009)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.072 0.006(0.076) (0.077)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.142 0.088(0.090) (0.062)
Observations 2,635 1,978 1,621 1,217R-squared 0.182 0.146 0.167 0.137
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.057*
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.246 0.176 0.231 0.186SD of dependent var. 0.431 0.381 0.422 0.389
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
First principal component of gender attitudes from thesurvey – all factor loadings are positive
1st principal componentProgressive gender attitudes
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.016***(0.005) (0.003)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.009 -0.007(0.006) (0.005)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.079 0.020(0.051) (0.045)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.139*** 0.148***(0.043) (0.056)
Observations 2,572 1,924 1,599 1,193R-squared 0.161 0.163 0.193 0.187
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000***
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.206 0.170 0.195 0.163SD of dependent var. 0.272 0.256 0.281 0.260
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Did you try to start a business?Significant results for women, men sample is placebo
Did you try to start a business?
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.012*** 0.001(0.004) (0.005)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.012*** 0.008(0.004) (0.006)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.003 -0.048(0.037) (0.047)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.135*** -0.061(0.039) (0.086)
Observations 2,732 2,047 1,669 1,257R-squared 0.0710 0.0819 0.0823 0.0880
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.382
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.108 0.177 0.116 0.207SD of dependent var. 0.310 0.381 0.321 0.406
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Are you a member of a women’s rights group?Significant results for men
Membership in women’s rights groups
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.005 0.009***(0.004) (0.003)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.004 -0.004(0.005) (0.005)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.008 -0.012(0.035) (0.038)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.052 0.114***(0.078) (0.040)
Observations 2,732 2,047 1,669 1,257R-squared 0.0620 0.102 0.0883 0.149
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.122 0.035**
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.0437 0.0249 0.0463 0.0257SD of dependent var. 0.204 0.156 0.210 0.158
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Do you believe it is important that your daughter (son)goes to univesity?
Same or higher university aspirationsfor daugher compared to son
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.003 -0.004(0.006) (0.004)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.006 -0.016***(0.006) (0.004)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.031 0.088**(0.046) (0.043)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.093 0.066(0.091) (0.073)
Observations 2,512 1,922 1,571 1,196R-squared 0.0857 0.0905 0.105 0.0795
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.238 0.033**
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.893 0.859 0.888 0.860SD of dependent var. 0.309 0.348 0.316 0.347
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Did your mother obtain tertiary education?Quasi-Panel
• Mother’s education is the only variable, which we observeboth pre- and post-treatment
• We predict the birth year of mothers of respondents• using respondent’s age and aggregate data on the average
age of women at the time of birth of their first child bywomen’s birth cohorts in USSR
• All mothers are grouped into those who finished schoolbefore deportations and those who went to school after thedeportations took place
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Did your mother obtain tertiary education? Quasi-PanelRespondent’s mother
completed tertiary education
Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Protestant deportees (ln) -0.004(0.005)
Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.000(0.005)
Mother in school AFTER deportations × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.006*(0.004)
Mother in school AFTER deportations × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.010**(0.005)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.011(0.034)
Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Protestant deportees (share) -0.007(0.048)
Mother in school AFTER deportations × Protestant deportees (share) 0.071*(0.042)
Observations 4,646 2,846R-squared 0.200 0.215
p-value - before deportations: Protestant = Muslim 0.535p-value - after deportations: Protestant = Muslim 0.005**
Region FE and Controls X XSample - Deportations in vicinity XSample - Gender Both Both
Mean of dependent var. 0.142 0.148SD of dependent var. 0.349 0.355
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Did your mother obtain tertiary education? Quasi-Panelby birth cohort of respondent’s mother: the share of Protestant deportees
−.1
0
.1
.2
Coeff. on P
rote
sta
nt share
X c
ohort
Poss
ible
exp
osu
re
Full
exp
osu
re
Pre
1926
1926−30
1931−46
1947−59
Post
1959
Birth cohort of respondent’s mother
point estimates
90% confidence intervals
Mother obtained tertiary education
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Did your mother obtain tertiary education? Quasi-Panelby birth cohort of respondent’s mother: number of Protestant and Muslim deportees
−.03
−.02
−.01
0
.01
.02
Coeff. on log(P
rote
sta
nt deport
ees)
X C
ohort
Poss
ible
exp
osu
re
Full
exp
osu
re
Pre
1926
1926−30
1931−46
1947−59
Post
1959
Birth cohort of respondent’s mother
point estimates
90% confidence intervals
−.03
−.02
−.01
0
.01
.02
Coeff. on log(M
uslim
deport
ees)
X C
ohort
Poss
ible
exp
osu
re
Full
exp
osu
re
Pre
1926
1926−30
1931−46
1947−59
Post
1959
Birth cohort of respondent’s mother
point estimates
90% confidence intervals
Mother obtained tertiary education
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
The mother’s education is not what is driving theresults on attitudes of respondentsAll the results go through controlling for parents’ education and the effect onattitudes does not depend on the cohort
0
.05
.1
.15
.2
.25
Coeff. on P
rote
sta
nt share
X C
ohort
Pre
1966
1966−74
1975−81
1982−88
Post
1988
Birth cohort of respondent
point estimates
90 % confidence intervals
Gender attitudes, 1st principal component
Respondents are grouped by mother’s birth cohort (same groups)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Same result for the numbers of Protestant and Muslimdeportees
−.02
−.01
0
.01
.02
.03
Coeff. on log(P
rote
sta
nt deport
ees)
X C
ohort
Pre
1966
1966−74
1975−81
1982−88
Post
1988
Birth cohort of respondent
point estimates
90% confidence intervals
−.02
−.01
0
.01
.02
.03
Coeff. on log(M
uslim
deport
ees)
X C
ohort
Pre
1966
1966−74
1975−81
1982−88
Post
1988
Birth cohort of respondent
point estimates
90% confidence intervals
Attitude toward women, 1st principal component
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
The effects for Russians vs. Central AsiansEffect on Central Asians (Kyrgyz, Tajik, Uzbek, and Kazakh)
1st principal component Tried to startProgressive gender attitudes a business
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.025*** 0.020*** 0.009**(0.007) (0.003) (0.004)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.017* -0.007 -0.013**(0.010) (0.008) (0.006)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.028 -0.007 0.007(0.087) (0.065) (0.059)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.114** 0.096 0.032(0.052) (0.070) (0.050)
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***
Observations 2,209 1,782 1,539 1,218 2,343 1,614R-squared 0.170 0.181 0.166 0.188 0.0671 0.0774
Effect on Russians
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.024** 0.019* 0.034***(0.010) (0.011) (0.007)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.006 -0.006 -0.011(0.007) (0.008) (0.007)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.048 0.091 -0.136***(0.073) (0.108) (0.052)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.313** 0.351*** 0.379***(0.153) (0.101) (0.067)
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.018** 0.037** 0.000***
Observations 925 526 488 260 997 513R-squared 0.138 0.150 0.239 0.280 0.0873 0.154
Region FE and Controls X X X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Female
p-value - Protestant: Central Asia = Russia 0.915 0.923 0.178 0.023** 0.006***p-value - Muslim: Central Asia = Russia 0.279 0.965 0.879
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
Possible interpretations?
• On average, progressive (and consistent with Sovietideology) norms of gender equality diffuse more thatregressive norms
• Progressive norms diffuse to both Russians and CentralAsians
• Whereas discriminatory gender norms diffuse to CentralAsians but not to Russians, possibly because ofpre-existing cultural affinity (common religion)
• One cannot reject the equality of the effects (it could bethat there is just less precision due to smaller number ofobservations for Russians)
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant effect
The effects for Orthodox vs. MuslimsEffect on Muslims
1st principal component Tried to startProgressive gender attitudes a business
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.021*** 0.008**(0.007) (0.003) (0.004)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.018* -0.005 -0.013*(0.010) (0.008) (0.006)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.029 -0.015 0.001(0.085) (0.072) (0.063)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.120** 0.092 0.036(0.051) (0.062) (0.052)
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.002*** 0.000***
Observations 2,180 1,764 1,522 1,204 2,309 1,592R-squared 0.169 0.181 0.166 0.194 0.0597 0.0632
Effect on Orthodox
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.017 0.026 0.034***(0.012) (0.017) (0.007)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.012 -0.019***(0.007) (0.010) (0.006)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.025 0.078 -0.125**(0.081) (0.130) (0.056)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.356** 0.410*** 0.411***(0.168) (0.133) (0.080)
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.078* 0.079* 0.000***
Observations 840 422 435 190 907 458R-squared 0.125 0.171 0.0964
Region FE and Controls X X X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Female
p-value - Protestant: Muslim = Orthodox 0.534 0.776 0.121 0.007*** 0.007*** 0.002***p-value - Muslim: Muslim = Orthodox 0.361 0.562 0.515
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Conclusions
• Our results are consistent with diffusion of gender norms atthe time of the deportations and their subsequentpersistence after the deportees had left
• These results are important because they show that culturaldiffusion may occur even without regulating thecommunication between groups
• We find that both the norms of gender equality and ofgender discrimination were adopted by people exposed toanother group with those norms
• The results for diffusion of norms of gender equality arestronger
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Appendix
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Exposure to deportations matters not only for the verylarge deportations
1st principal component – Progressive gender attitudes
Below median deportation size × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.021***(0.008) (0.007)
Above median deportation size × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.017***(0.005) (0.003)
Below median deportation size × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.011 -0.008(0.008) (0.006)
Above median deportation size × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.007(0.006) (0.005)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.073 0.012(0.052) (0.046)
Below median deportation size × Protestant deportees (Share) 0.093 0.151**(0.064) (0.065)
Above median deportation size × Protestant deportees (Share) 0.325*** 0.118**(0.081) (0.059)
p-value - Below median: Protestant = Muslim 0.001*** 0.001***p-value - Above median: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000***Observations 2,572 1,924 1,599 1,193R-squared 0.158 0.164 0.195 0.181
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.203 0.171 0.194 0.166SD of dependent var. 0.271 0.258 0.279 0.262
p-value - Protestant: Below median = Above median 0.940 0.529 0.032 0.526p-value - Muslim: Below median = Above median 0.469 0.406
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Summary statistics, PSU level
Sample: All Conditional on ethnic deportations
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max
Nb of Protestant Deportees (30km radius) 1266.16 2773.61 0 22221 2037.81 3289.72 0 22221Nb of Muslim Deportees (30km radius) 3182.82 5087.70 0 24787 5122.56 5634.60 0 24787
Share of Protestant deportees (30km radius) 0.20 0.30 0 1 0.31 0.33 0 1Share of Muslim deportees (30km radius) 0.38 0.42 0 1 0.61 0.37 0 1
Size of deportations (30km radius) 4824.20 6744.07 0 34100 7756.19 7106.93 1 34100Capital (old or new) 0.14 0.35 0 1 0.17 0.37 0 1
Urban 0.47 0.50 0 1 0.52 0.50 0 1Distance to capital (km) 515.45 876.88 0 7319 419.50 674.57 0 6463
Distance to railroad (km) 15.31 27.88 1 159 10.18 18.88 1 136Distance to gulag (km) 127.84 102.50 0 437 126.69 104.11 0 428Distance to water (km) 11.24 11.88 1 94 10.42 9.42 1 52
Ruggedness 143.88 140.14 1 818 143.38 123.39 1 496
Number of PSUs 375 233
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Summary statistics, PSU sample
Sample: All Conditional on ethnic deportations
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max
Nb of Protestant Deportees (30km radius) 1101.22 2558.85 0 22221 1844.07 3097.67 0 22221Nb of Muslim Deportees (30km radius) 2737.39 4821.04 0 24787 4583.93 5518.93 0 24787
Share of Protestant deportees (30km radius) 0.19 0.31 0 1 0.32 0.35 0 1Share of Muslim deportees (30km radius) 0.36 0.42 0 1 0.61 0.39 0 1
Size of deportations (30 km radius) 4137.68 6110.91 0 34100 6918.77 6581.76 1 34100Capital (old or new) 0.12 0.33 0 1 0.14 0.35 0 1
Urban 0.44 0.50 0 1 0.47 0.50 0 1Distance to capital (km) 558.03 946.77 0 7319 463.96 740.25 0 6463
Distance to railroad (km) 16.33 28.92 1 159 10.35 17.34 1 136Distance to gulag (km) 132.91 104.09 0 437 133.59 107.65 0 428Distance to water (km) 11.71 12.50 1 94 10.83 9.82 1 52
Ruggedness 146.14 145.25 1 818 139.27 124.44 1 496
Observations 5727 3420
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Religiosity (measured as trust in religious institutions)does not interact with treatment
1st principal component – Progressive gender attitudes
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.021*** 0.015**(0.007) (0.007)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.010 -0.010*(0.008) (0.005)
Religiosity of respondent -0.064*** -0.039* -0.039 -0.020(0.020) (0.023) (0.029) (0.015)
Religiosity of respondent × Protestant (ln) 0.006 -0.002(0.008) (0.005)
Religiosity of respondent × Muslim (ln) -0.001 0.004(0.006) (0.003)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.081 0.050(0.055) (0.038)
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.155** 0.180**(0.065) (0.085)
Religiosity of respondent × Protestant (share) 0.033 -0.030(0.102) (0.044)
Observations 1,758 1,373 1,098 859R-squared 0.180 0.201 0.187 0.227
Region FE and Controls X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male
Mean of dependent var. 0.206 0.170 0.195 0.163SD of dependent var. 0.272 0.256 0.281 0.260
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
The largest deported Protestant group – Volga Germans
• Catherine II called on Europeans to immigrate to Russia in the late18th century promising religious freedom, exemption from militaryservice, and thirty years without having to pay taxes
• Volga German colonists were refugees from the war-ravaged Germanstates
• The bulk of those Germans came from largely Protestant regions ofHesse and Palatinate
• Settlers were allowed to keep their language, traditions, and religion
• Girls were not excluded from education
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Correlation of unbalanced covariates and 1st principalcomponent of progressive gender attitudes
1st principal componentProgressive gender Attitudes
Distance to capital (ln) -0.014(0.011)
Precipitation (June-August) -0.001(0.003)
Temperature (June-August) -0.001(0.002)
Temperature (Dec-Feb) -0.003(0.002)
Evacuated enterprise dummy 0.049*(0.026)
Share living in city -0.214*(0.110)
Share working in services/trade -14.643(11.985)
Share in white collar jobs 0.903(37.063)
Observations 3,231 3,231 3,231 3,231 3,231 2,197 2,197 2,197R-squared 0.138 0.137 0.136 0.137 0.137 0.0664 0.0654 0.0610
Conley SE X X X X X X X XRegion FE X X X X XGeographic Controls X X X XDemographic & Deportations in vicinity Controls X X X X X X X XSample - Deportations in vicinity X X X X X X X XMean of dependent var. 5.051 20.51 22.40 -3.860 -3.860 0.133 0.00371 0.000774SD of dependent var. 1.742 22.77 4.325 6.638 6.638 0.100 0.00221 0.000296
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Condensed Balance Table
Main Explanatory Var.: Deportations dummy Share of Protestant Deportees
Sample: All PSUs with and without deportations N All districts with deportations N All PSUs with deportations N
Panel A. Geography Balance
PLACEBO OUTCOME VAR.Distance to water (ln) -0.423*** (0.127) 375 0.115 (0.206) 1057 0.351 (0.336) 229Distance to railroad (ln) -0.944*** (0.243) 375 0.073 (0.287) 1057 0.327 (0.378) 229Distance to gulag (ln) -0.388** (0.160) 375 -0.011 (0.202) 1057 0.145 (0.555) 229Distance to capital (ln) -0.257** (0.128) 375 0.144* (0.078) 1057 -0.102 (0.383) 229Ruggedness -27.766* (14.335) 375 -10.160 (10.183) 1057 -16.560 (23.450) 229Soil Suitability low inputs -0.851*** (0.189) 375 0.041 (0.183) 1057 -0.120 (0.298) 229Soil Suitability high inputs -0.667*** (0.161) 375 0.111 (0.215) 1057 -0.413 (0.309) 229Precipitation (June-August) (ln) -0.138 (0.123) 375 -0.077* (0.042) 1057 -0.063 (0.168) 229Precipitation (Dec-Feb) (ln) -0.061 (0.063) 375 -0.069 (0.044) 1057 -0.048 (0.163) 229Temperature (June-August) 2.443*** (0.707) 375 0.155 (0.246) 1057 -1.902** (0.968) 229Temperature (Dec-Feb) 2.356*** (0.655) 375 -0.258 (0.357) 1057 -2.468** (0.968) 229
Panel B. Evacuated Enterprises Balance
Nb. of evacuated enterprises 2.421 (1.622) 375 -6.848 (5.713) 1057 -7.680 (9.621) 229Evacuation enterprise dummy 0.294*** (0.058) 375 -0.127** (0.050) 1057 -0.268 (0.176) 229
Panel C. 1897 Census Balance
Population density (sq km) (ln) -0.0500 (0.077) 375 0.0320 (0.429) 1090 0.259 (0.231) 229
Sample: All counties in Central Asia PSUs with and without deportations N All counties in Central Asia with deportations N All counties in Central Asia PSUs with deportations N
Share of Muslims 0.091** (0.040) 36 -0.0180 (0.164) 39 0.0530 (0.094) 30Share of Protestants -0.00200 (0.002) 36 -0.00700 (0.005) 39 -0.00400 (0.004) 30Share of Christians -0.050*** (0.019) 36 0.0500 (0.072) 39 0.0140 (0.046) 30Share of Orthodox -0.077** (0.036) 36 -0.0280 (0.118) 39 -0.0420 (0.092) 30Share of Germans -0.00200 (0.002) 36 -0.00600 (0.004) 39 -0.00400 (0.003) 30Share of Russians -0.084** (0.037) 36 0.0160 (0.159) 39 -0.0500 (0.090) 30Share of literate females -0.012** (0.005) 36 0.0280 (0.028) 39 0.00600 (0.011) 30Share living in city -0.0300 (0.029) 36 -0.117 (0.088) 39 -0.116* (0.062) 30Share of merchants and artisans 0.00 (0.010) 36 -0.038* (0.022) 39 0.00700 (0.025) 30Share working in agriculture 0.00600 (0.010) 36 0.0310 (0.025) 39 0.0100 (0.022) 30Share working in industry 0.00100 (0.004) 36 -0.0170 (0.015) 39 -0.0260 (0.016) 30Share working in services/trade 0.00 (0.000) 36 -0.00200 (0.002) 39 -0.003* (0.002) 30Share in white collar jobs 0.00 (0.000) 36 -0.002*** (0.001) 39 0.000 (0.001) 30
Notes: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Robust standard errors in parantheses correct for potentialspatial correlation at the 150km distance following Conley (1999). All regressions with the share ofProtestant deportees as the main explanatory variable control for all other deportee shares (except forMuslims) and the log of the total size of deportations. Panel A and B also control for region fixedeffects. Panel B and C also control for the distance to capital city and summer precipiation.
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Condensed gender attitudes table
Disagree or strongly disagree that:A woman should always do It is better if the Men make better political 1st Principle Component
most of the household chores man earns the money leaders than women do Progressive Gender Attitudes
Panel A. Levels
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.015*** 0.016** 0.019*** 0.034*** 0.014** 0.026*** 0.016***(0.005) (0.005) (0.007) (0.006) (0.010) (0.005) (0.005) (0.003)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.014* -0.007 -0.005 -0.011* -0.002 -0.009 -0.007(0.009) (0.008) (0.007) (0.008) (0.007) (0.009) (0.006) (0.005)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.100 0.073 -0.063 -0.014 -0.072 0.006 -0.079 0.020(0.061) (0.050) (0.058) (0.069) (0.076) (0.077) (0.051) (0.045)
Observations 2,679 2,004 2,656 1,995 2,635 1,978 2,572 1,924R-squared 0.199 0.159 0.125 0.146 0.182 0.146 0.161 0.163Sample - All PSUs with and without deportations X X X X X X X X
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.008*** 0.006*** 0.000*** 0.058** 0.000*** 0.000***
Mean of dependent var. 0.161 0.174 0.205 0.164 0.246 0.176 0.206 0.170SD of dependent var. 0.368 0.380 0.404 0.370 0.431 0.381 0.271 0.256
Panel B. Shares
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.161*** 0.203*** 0.134** 0.150 0.142 0.088 0.139*** 0.148***(0.055) (0.059) (0.053) (0.104) (0.090) (0.062) (0.043) (0.056)
Observations 1,643 1,238 1,636 1,236 1,621 1,217 1,599 1,193R-squared 0.223 0.183 0.136 0.150 0.167 0.137 0.193 0.187Sample - Deportations in vicinity X X X X X X X X
Mean of dependent var. 0.149 0.158 0.204 0.155 0.231 0.186 0.195 0.163SD of dependent var. 0.356 0.365 0.403 0.362 0.422 0.389 0.280 0.261
Region FE and Controls X X X X X X X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
Condensed gender behaviors tableTried to start Member of a Same or higher university
a business women’s rights group aspirations for daughter vs son
Panel A. Levels
Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.012*** 0.001 0.005 0.009*** 0.003 -0.004(0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) (0.006) (0.004)
Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.012*** 0.008 -0.004 -0.004 -0.006 -0.016***(0.004) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.004)
Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.003 -0.048 0.008 -0.012 -0.031 0.088**(0.037) (0.047) (0.035) (0.038) (0.046) (0.043)
Observations 2,732 2,047 2,732 2,047 2,512 1,922R-squared 0.0710 0.0819 0.0620 0.110 0.0857 0.0905Sample - All PSUs with and without deportations X X X X X X
p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.382 0.122 0.035** 0.238 0.033**
Mean of dependent var. 0.108 0.177 0.0437 0.0249 0.893 0.859SD of dependent var. 0.310 0.381 0.204 0.156 0.309 0.348
Panel B. Shares
Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.135*** -0.061 0.052 0.114*** 0.093 0.066(0.039) (0.086) (0.078) (0.040) (0.091) (0.073)
Observations 1,669 1,257 1,669 1,257 1,571 1,196R-squared 0.0823 0.0880 0.0885 0.149 0.105 0.0795Sample - Deportations in vicinity X X X X X X
Mean of dependent var. 0.116 0.207 0.0463 0.0257 0.888 0.860SD of dependent var. 0.321 0.406 0.210 0.158 0.316 0.347
Region FE and Controls X X X X X XSample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Male
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations
Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant effect
All Soviet republic of destination, %
000s % Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan
Total 2155.1 100.00 41.86 42.60 7.73 6.58 1.14 0.11Protestants 1132.5 52.55 30.86 19.64 0.30 0.74 0.91 0.11Muslims 750.9 34.84 2.29 19.11 7.40 5.82 0.22 0.00Catholics 142.6 6.62 4.58 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Orthodox 66.8 3.10 1.39 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Buddhist 62.3 2.89 2.73 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00
Nb of districts with deportations 774 190 97 55 12 3
Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations