Diffusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin's Ethnic ...€¦ · Stalin’s ethnic deportations...

of 56/56
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
  • date post

    06-Jul-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    2
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

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 close

    proximity, 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 the

    vicinity, 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 republicswas 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 + �il

    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 + �il

    • 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 of

    deportation; 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 thevicinity, 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

  • 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

    IntroBackgroundDataResultsConclusions