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



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



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



Ethnic deportees on the round to their destination



Ethnic deportees working at their destination



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



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



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)


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



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



Deportation locations

Soviet republic of destination

All Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan

Districts (rayons)with deportations 1131 774 190 97 55 12 3



Size and composition of deportation settlements



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)



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



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



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)


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.



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



Map of deportations overlaid with PSU locations



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





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



020

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent

PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Tajikistan

Variation in Tajikistan



020

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent

PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Russia

Variation in Russia





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



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)



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



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



Balance: 1941 evacuation of enterprisesDeportees sent further east than evacuated enterprises



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


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



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)







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)


Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.142 0.088(0.090) (0.062)


p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.057*





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)



Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.139*** 0.148***(0.043) (0.056)







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)


p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.382





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 or Protestant Deportation 0.008 -0.012(0.035) (0.038)

Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.052 0.114***(0.078) (0.040)


p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.122 0.035**





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)


p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.238 0.033**





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



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



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



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


point estimates


−.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


point estimates


Mother obtained tertiary education



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)



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


point estimates


−.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


point estimates


Attitude toward women, 1st principal component



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



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)



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


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



Appendix



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)


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



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



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



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



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)


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





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



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



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.



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



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



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


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

Documents

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