CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL SOURCES OF ETHNIC

INTOLERANCE: A COMPARATIVE TEST OF ETHNIC COMPETITION AND ETHNIC

SEGREGATION THEORIES
*****
Robert M. Kunovich
Department of Sociology
The Ohio State University
July ! "###
$
%&STR%'T
(n my )octoral )issertation! ( *ill e+amine conte+tual an) in)ivi)ual,level sources of ethnic
intolerance in -. countries from /urope! 0orth %merica! %sia! an) %ustralia. /thnic intolerance is
)efine) as the un*illingness to e+ten) political! economic! an) social rights to other ethnic
groups! regar)less of perceive) similarities or )ifferences in basic values! norms! or beliefs. The
ma1or purpose of my )issertation is to evaluate t*o competing theories that attribute ethnic
intolerance to either increasing competition for scarce economic resources or ethnic segregation
an) ine2uality. ( *ill e+ten) contemporary research in this tra)ition by )eveloping an) testing a
multi,level theory of ethnic intolerance an) by e+amining the role of the state in the generation of
ethnic intolerance. Specifically! ( *ill e+amine the effects of ethnic resi)ential segregation! ethnic
occupational segregation! ethnic economic ine2uality! measure) at the country an) regional,levels!
an) stratification position! measure) at the in)ivi)ual,level! on ethnic intolerance. ( *ill also
e+amine the effects of institutional )esign an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities on ethnic
intolerance. This analysis *ill be among the first to comparatively test ethnic competition an)
ethnic segregation theories an) to e+amine the role of the state in the generation of intolerance.
Survey )ata *ill be from the "##3 0ational ()entity Mo)ule of the (nternational Social Survey
4rogram 5(SS46. 'ountry an) regional in)icators *ill be create) from national statistical
yearboo7s an) estimate) from the survey )ata. ( *ill use hierarchical linear mo)eling techni2ues
589M6 to control for the problems typically encountere) *hen using multi,level )ata.
"
Many sociologists argue that ethnic intolerance is a function of social structure. T*o competing
structural theories : ethnic competition theory an) ethnic segregation theory : have been
)evelope) to e+plain ethnic soli)arity! intolerance! mobili;ation! an) conflict. &oth theories are a
reaction to the failure of mo)erni;ation theory! *hich pre)icte) that ethnic )istinctions *oul)
)isappear *ith in)ustriali;ation. /thnic competition theorists believe that mo)erni;ation increases
intolerance because it brea7s )o*n ethnic occupational an) resi)ential boun)aries! forcing groups
to compete )irectly for scarce resources 5Ol;a7 "##-6. On the other han)! ethnic segregation
theorists argue that ethnic intolerance increases *ith mo)erni;ation because of uneven
)evelopment an) the creation of a cultural )ivision of labor *hich lea) to ethnic segregation!
ine2uality! an) grievances 58echter "#<3! "#<= Me)rano "##>6. % lively )ebate bet*een the
competing theories has emerge) in recent years. Results are some*hat inconclusive! ho*ever!
because support has been foun) for both theories using )ata from )ifferent countries an) using
)ifferent metho)s of analysis. Thus! it is often not clear if )ifferent fin)ings are attributable to
substantive or metho)ological factors.
(n my )issertation! ( *ill e+amine conte+tual an) in)ivi)ual,level sources of ethnic
intolerance in the conte+t of ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation in -. countries. The main
purpose is to test ethnic competition theory an) ethnic segregation theory. ( *ill e+ten) research
in these tra)itions by )eveloping a multi,level theory of intolerance an) by e+amining the role of
the state in the generation of intolerance. To test these competing theories! ( *ill use multi,level
)ata at the country! region! an) in)ivi)ual levels. Survey )ata *ill be from the "##3 0ational
()entity Mo)ule of the (nternational Social Survey 4rogram 5(SS46. 'ountry an) regional
variables *ill be create) from national statistical yearboo7s an) estimate) from the survey )ata. (
*ill use hierarchical linear mo)eling techni2ues to control for the problems typically encountere)
*hen using multi,level )ata. My )issertation *ill be among the first analyses to comparatively
-
test ethnic competition theory an) ethnic segregation theory an) to e+amine the role of the state
in the generation of ethnic intolerance. Through a better un)erstan)ing of the sources of ethnic
intolerance! my research may help to facilitate the )evelopment of applie) strategies to )ecrease
intolerance an) prevent conflict among ethnic groups.
(n the first section of this proposal! ( revie* sociological research focusing on the
structural sources of intolerance. 0e+t! ( )evelop a multi,level theory of intolerance! e+ploring
the effects of ethnic competition! ethnic segregation! an) the role of the state in generating ethnic
intolerance.
T8/OR(/S O? /T80(' (0TO9/R%0'/
Sociologists use t*o competing theories : ethnic competition theory an) ethnic segregation
theory : to e+plain a variety of ethnicity,relate) outcomes. Some of these inclu)e@ ethnic conflict
an) ethnic protest 5Ol;a7 "##-= Ol;a7! Shanahan! an) Mc/neaney "##A6= ethnic soli)arity
58echter "#<6= ethnic political mobili;ation 5Me)rano "##>= 0agel an) Ol;a7 "#-= 0ielsen
"#$! "#3= Ragin "#<#6= an) national tolerance 58o)son! Se7ulic! an) Massey "##>6. (n the
sections that follo*! ( revie* these competing perspectives in or)er to )evelop a multi,level
mo)el of ethnic intolerance. This multi,level mo)el *ill gui)e my research on the sources of
ethnic intolerance
/thnic 'ompetition Theory
/thnic competition theorists argue that mo)erni;ation promotes competition along ethnic lines.
Specifically! mo)erni;ation! through processes of in)ustriali;ation! urbani;ation! improve)
communication an) transportation technologies! an) rationali;ation of social institutions! brea7s
)o*n structural barriers to competition 50agel an) Ol;a7 "#-= Ol;a7 "##-= Ol;a7! Shanahan!
an) Mc/neaney "##A6. (ncreasing ethnic competition is! thus! a function of )ecreasing
occupational an) resi)ential segregation! migration! increase) contact! an) economic )o*nturns.
.
'ompetition along ethnic lines for scarce in)ivi)ual goo)s! such as 1obs an) housing! an)
collective goo)s! such as having e)ucational systems in a minority language! increase ethnic
intolerance an) conflict.
/thnic Segregation Theory
/thnic segregation theorists argue that mo)erni;ation promotes ethnic segregation! ine2uality! an)
grievances *hich! in turn! lea) to intolerance an) conflict. Specifically! mo)erni;ation an)
in)ustriali;ation promote uneven )evelopment! often bet*een core an) peripheral regions
58echter "#<36. %nother common outcome of in)ustriali;ation is the cultural )ivision of labor in
*hich people are assigne) to specific types of occupations or other social roles on the basis of
observable traits 58echter "#<6. /thnic grievances are forme) *hen uneven )evelopment an)
cultural )ivisions of labor coinci)e *ith ethnic )ivisions. Thus! ethnic resi)ential segregation!
ethnic occupational segregation! an) ethnic economic ine2uality increase ethnic intolerance an)
conflict 5&elanger an) 4innar) "##"= Me)rano "##>6. (t is important to note that ethnic
competition theory an) ethnic segregation theory are oppose) *hen it comes to the effects of
segregation an) economic ine2uality on intolerance an) conflict 5Me)rano "##>= 0ielsen "#$6.
/thnic competition theorists argue that )eclines in segregation an) ine2uality promote intolerance
*hile segregation theorists argue that )eclines in segregation an) ine2uality promote tolerance.
/thnic 'ompetition an) /thnic Segregation Theories@ % 'riti2ue
>
% 'omparative 4erspective. Despite a number of empirical tests! *e are far from
un)erstan)ing ho* ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation affect ethnic intolerance. Much
of this uncertainty can be attribute) to the fact that there have been no comparative analyses
of ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation on ethnic intolerance. Scholars typically use
one,country case stu)ies *ith 2uantitative techni2ues. Bhile case stu)ies are interesting!
they often obscure more than they reveal : particularly *hen fin)ings from )ifferent countries
support )ifferent theories.
This problem is highlighte) by the fact that there have been fe* tests of ethnic competition
an) ethnic segregation theories in post,communist countries. There is reason to believe that
ethnic competition an) segregation play less of a role in the )evelopment of ethnic intolerance in
post,communist countries. ?or e+ample! housing shortages an) tight labor mar7ets may limit
inter,ethnic competition for scarce economic resources such as housing an) 1obs. %lso! truncate)
systems of stratification may limit the )egree of social ine2uality bet*een ethnic groups. (n such a
setting! )o competition an) segregation affect ethnic intoleranceC
3
Selecting a Unit of %nalysis. Different metho)ological choices may also be to blame for the
uncertainty surroun)ing ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation theories. Scholars have
e+amine) ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation theories using three )ifferent metho)s of
analysis. ?irst! the over*helming ma1ority of scholars use only aggregate,level )ata to test
the competing perspectives! usually *ithin one country at the county,level or its e2uivalent
5see 8echter "#<>! "#<3= 0ielsen "#$= Ol;a7 "##-= Ragin "#<#6. Secon)! some scholars
e+amine processes of competition an) segregation only *ith in)ivi)ual,level survey )ata 5see
&elanger an) 4innar) "##"= 4ortes "#>6. ?inally! some use multi,level )ata! assigning
conte+tual variables to in)ivi)ual,level survey )ata 5see 8o)son! Se7ulic! an) Massey "##>=
Me)rano "##>6.
/ach of these three metho)s of analysis is associate) *ith certain assumptions an) the
choice among them has important conse2uences. Scholars using only aggregate,level )ata! for
e+ample! run the ris7 of ma7ing the classic ecological fallacy. % significant relationship bet*een
t*o aggregate variables )oes not necessarily translate to the in)ivi)ual,level. Thus! )espite the
fact that county,level segregation may )ecrease county,level ethnic intolerance! *e cannot
conclu)e that segregation affects in)ivi)ual )ecisions on *hether or not to be intolerant. %lso!
*ith aggregate,level )ata! the assumption is ma)e that ethnic intolerance )oes not vary
significantly *ithin the aggregate units of analysis. (n other *or)s! it is assume) that in)ivi)ualsD
levels of e)ucation! income! or other personal characteristics )o not )irectly affect their
intolerance or that these processes are invariant across in)ivi)uals an) areas. Thus! *ith
aggregate )ata! it is possible to e+amine only structural relationships of the aggregate units.
Such )ifficulties are not limite) to analyses that use only aggregate,level )ata. Bith
in)ivi)ual,level )ata! conte+tual effects can only be measure) in)irectly base) on perceptions of
competition! segregation! an) ine2uality. (n this case! it is impossible to )irectly test structural
A
theories such as ethnic competition theory an) ethnic segregation theory. %lso! *hen using only
in)ivi)ual,level )ata! the assumption is ma)e that ethnic intolerance )oes not significantly vary
bet*een groups. (n other *or)s! researchers have to assume that characteristics of counties! such
as the level of ethnic resi)ential segregation! have no effect on ethnic intolerance.
Some scholars have use) multi,level )ata to e+amine ethnic segregation an) ethnic
competition theories 5see 8o)son et al. "##>= Me)rano "##>6. 8o*ever! these scholars have not
typically use) an appropriate metho)ology to control for the possibility of correlate) errors an)
une2ual error variances 5heteros7e)asticity6. Unmeasure) characteristics of group conte+t e+ert a
common influence on all group members. These unmeasure) characteristics often )isappear into
the error term of a regression e2uation! pro)ucing correlate) errors for in)ivi)uals in the same
group. Moreover! error variances for in)ivi)uals in )ifferent groups are li7ely to be une2ual or
heteros7e)astic. 'orrelate) errors an) heteros7e)asticity violate assumptions of O9S regression!
lea)ing to the biase) estimation of stan)ar) errors an) incorrect significance tests. Moreover!
*ithout using an appropriate multi,level metho)ology! the effects of conte+tual variables are often
un)erestimate) 5&i)*ell an) Kasar)a "#$6. Thus! scholars *ho have analy;e) multi,level )ata
using O9S regression may have )ra*n incorrect conclusions regar)ing the ability of ethnic
competition or ethnic segregation theory to e+plain intolerant attitu)es.
( argue that the formation of intolerant attitu)es is a multi,level process. To un)erstan)
ho* people become intolerant! it is important to consi)er both the characteristics of an
in)ivi)ualDs larger environment! such as the level of ethnic occupational segregation in the county
of resi)ence! as *ell as in)ivi)ual,level characteristics such as occupation.
<
&ringing in the state. /thnic competition an) ethnic segregation theories focus largely on
economic sources of ethnic intolerance. 4olitical scientists an) political sociologists have
critici;e) these theories for neglecting the role of state in creating or limiting intolerant
attitu)es. 8oro*it; 5"#36 an) Jalali an) 9ipset 5"##-6 argue that the institutional )esign of
a state an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities affect ethnic intolerance. ?or e+ample!
some argue that the )iffusion of po*er in fe)eral systems! presi)ential systems! an) systems
*ith proportional representation prevent the e+clusion of minority groups from the political
system! *hich )ecreases intolerance an) conflict. Bhat role )oes the institutional )esign of
the state an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities play in the )evelopment of intolerant
attitu)esC
Directions for ?uture Research
My )issertation is a response to these )eficiencies. ?irst! ( *ill e+amine processes of competition
an) segregation comparatively. Through a comparative analysis across -. countries! ( hope to
i)entify patterns in the )evelopment of ethnic intolerance an) )etermine *hether conflicting
fin)ings are )ue to metho)ological or substantive )ifferences. Secon)! ( *ill use multi,level )ata
at the country! region! an) in)ivi)ual levels. This metho)ological )ecision is consistent *ith the
vie* that ethnic intolerance is a multi,level phenomena , that is! intolerant attitu)es are a function
of in)ivi)ual characteristics an) characteristics of oneEs larger environment. Thir)! ( *ill e+amine
the role of the state in the generation of ethnic intolerance. The comparative! multi,level analysis
*ill facilitate the e+amination of both economic an) political sources of ethnic intolerance.
/T80(' (0TO9/R%0'/@ % MU9T(,9/F/9 MOD/9
% *or7ing mo)el base) on the approaches )escribe) in the prece)ing sections *ill gui)e my
)issertation research. Using this mo)el! ( *ill evaluate the relationships in -. countries bet*een
economic an) political variables measure) at the country an) regional,levels an) position in the

stratification system! bac7groun) controls! an) ethnic intolerance measure) at the in)ivi)ual,level.
Special emphasis *ill be place) on country an) regional characteristics such as ethnic resi)ential
segregation! ethnic occupational segregation! ethnic economic ine2uality! institutional )esign! an)
state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities as *ell as in)ivi)ual,level characteristics such as e)ucation!
occupation! an) income. ( *ill e+plore the follo*ing 2uestions@
". Does the level of ethnic intolerance vary by countryC (f so! )oes ethnic segregation theory or
ethnic competition theory better e+plain this varianceC
-. Does the level of ethnic intolerance vary by regionC (f so! )oes ethnic segregation theory or
ethnic competition theory better e+plain this varianceC
.. Do the effects of e)ucation! occupation! an) income on intolerance vary by countryC (f so!
)oes ethnic segregation theory or ethnic competition theory better e+plain this varianceC
>. Do the effects of e)ucation! occupation! an) income on intolerance vary by regionC (f so!
)oes ethnic segregation theory or ethnic competition theory better e+plain this varianceC
3. Do the institutional )esign of the state an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities affect ethnic
intoleranceC
(n the multi,level mo)el 5?igure "6! economic con)itions at three levels influence the
)egree to *hich in)ivi)uals are e+pose) to )irect competition an) contact *ith other ethnic
groups. 8ere! ( emphasi;e the effects of ethnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an)
ethnic economic ine2uality! measure) at the country an) regional levels! an) stratification
position! consisting of e)ucation! occupation! an) income! measure) at the in)ivi)ual,level.
[FIGURE 1]
/thnic competition theorists suggest that ethnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation
an) ethnic economic ine2uality )ecrease intolerance because they limit inter,group contact an)
competition. /thnic competition theory also suggests that in)ivi)uals *ith less e)ucation! those
*or7ing in blue,collar 1obs! an) those *ith less income are intolerant because they are more
vulnerable to )irect competition *ith other ethnic groups.
On the other han)! ethnic segregation theorists suggest that ethnic resi)ential an)
occupational segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality increase intolerance because they
increase ethnic soli)arity an) grievances. Similar to ethnic competition theory! ethnic segregation
#
theory suggests that in)ivi)uals *ith less e)ucation! blue,collar 1obs! an) less income are
intolerant. 8o*ever! from this perspective! intolerance is base) on ethnic ine2uality an)
grievances rather than on vulnerability an) competition.
/thnic 'ompetition Theory
8ypothesis ". /thnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality!
measure) at the country an) regional levels! have a negative effect on ethnic intolerance.
/thnic Segregation Theory
8ypothesis -. /thnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality!
measure) at the country an) regional levels! have a positive effect on ethnic intolerance.
/thnic 'ompetition Theory an) /thnic Segregation Theory
8ypothesis .. (n)ivi)uals *ith less e)ucation! blue,collar 1obs! an) less income *ill be more
intolerant than those *ith more e)ucation! *hite,collar 1obs! an) more income.
( also e+pect that ethnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) ethnic economic
ine2uality are more salient at the regional,level because regional,level competition! segregation!
an) ine2uality are more li7ely to influence the )aily lives of in)ivi)uals. ?or e+ample! high levels
of competition for 1obs at the country,level may not increase intolerance if there is a lo* level of
competition *ithin oneDs o*n region.
/thnic 'ompetition Theory
8ypothesis >. The effects of ethnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) ethnic economic
ine2uality on ethnic intolerance are more strongly negative at the regional,level than at the
country,level.
/thnic Segregation Theory
8ypothesis 3. The effects of ethnic resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) ethnic economic
ine2uality on ethnic intolerance are more strongly positive at the regional,level than at the
country,level.
( *ill also e+amine the interaction bet*een country an) regional economic variables an)
in)ivi)ual effects of e)ucation! occupation! an) income on ethnic intolerance. There is reason to
believe that the effects of stratification position )iffer by country an) region. More specifically!
ethnic competition theorists suggest that in)ivi)uals *ith lo* levels of e)ucation! blue,collar 1obs!
an) less income may be less intolerant in countries or regions *here there is more ethnic
"$
resi)ential an) occupational segregation an) greater ethnic economic ine2uality. On the other
han)! these same in)ivi)uals may be e+tremely intolerant in countries an) regions *ith lo* levels
of segregation an) ine2uality. /thnic segregation theorists suggest that in)ivi)uals *ith less
e)ucation! blue,collar 1obs! an) less income may be less intolerant in countries an) regions *ith
lo* levels of segregation an) ine2uality. On the other han)! the same in)ivi)uals may be
e+tremely intolerant in countries an) regions *ith high levels ethnic resi)ential an) occupational
segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality.
/thnic 'ompetition Theory
8ypothesis A. The effects of less e)ucation! blue,collar occupation! an) less income *ill be
*ea7er in countries an) regions *ith higher levels of ethnic resi)ential an) occupational
segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality.
/thnic Segregation Theory
8ypothesis <. The effects of less e)ucation! blue,collar occupation! an) less income *ill be
stronger in countries an) regions *ith higher levels of ethnic resi)ential an) occupational
segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality.
(n a))ition to ethnic occupational an) resi)ential segregation an) ethnic economic
ine2uality! ( *ill also consi)er the role of various economic control variables measure) at the
country an) regional,levels. /+amples inclu)e the percent employment in agriculture! the percent
employe) in mining an) in)ustry! rates of unemployment! an) population change.
(n a))ition to these economic sources of ethnic intolerance! ( am intereste) in the effects
of the institutional )esign an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities on ethnic intolerance. Some
scholars argue that less centrali;e) states )ecrease intolerance an) conflict because they provi)e
greater access to e+clu)e) groups. (n theory 5pluralist approach6! greater access allo*s the state
to balance competing interests. (nstitutional )esigns often associate) *ith less centrali;e) states
are fe)eral systems! presi)ential systems! an) proportional representation.
""
State policies to*ar) ethnic minorities may also have important effects on ethnic
intolerance. The recognition of minority rights by the state may increase soli)arity among ethnic
minorities an) galvani;e intolerance among the ethnic ma1ority. Re)istributive policies )esigne)
to )ecrease inter,ethnic ine2uality may increase the relative resource base of ethnic minorities
*hich! in turn! may increase intolerance among the ethnic ma1ority an) increase the ability of the
minority to engage in conflict. ?inally! one of the most visible an) controversial policy )ecisions
throughout the *orl) has been to eliminate e)ucation in minority languages.
The Role of the State
8ypothesis . 9ess centrali;e) states 5e.g.! countries *ith fe)eral systems! presi)ential systems!
an) proportional representation6 have lo*er levels of ethnic intolerance.
8ypothesis #. Re)istributive policies increase ethnic intolerance among the ethnic ma1ority.
8ypothesis "$. 4olicies )esigne) to assimilate ethnic minorities 5e.g.! no e)ucation in minority
languages6 increases ethnic intolerance for ethnic minorities.
%t the in)ivi)ual,level! ( *ill control for numerous bac7groun) variables inclu)ing age!
se+! marital status! urbanGrural resi)ence! employment status! privateGpublic sector employment!
religiosity! union membership! political i)eology! an) nationalist party i)entification. Those *ho
have e+perience) a more conservative environment )uring important )evelopmental years are
e+pecte) to be more intolerant : for e+ample! ol)er cohorts in the Unite) States 5Sullivan et al.
"#"6 an) younger cohorts in central /urope 5Mc(ntosh et al. "##36. Men! resi)ents of rural
regions! the unemploye)! single in)ivi)uals 5not marrie)6! the religious! union members! an)
members of nationalist parties are e+pecte) to be more intolerant. Religiosity is associate) *ith
intolerance in both the Unite) States 5&eatty an) Balter "#>6 an) the former Hugoslavia
58o)son et al. "##>6. Unemployment! as an in)icator of heightene) economic competition! may
also play an important role in the )evelopment of intolerant attitu)es. 4olitical liberals are
e+pecte) to be less intolerant 5Mc(ntosh et al. "##3= Sullivan et al. "#"6.
"-
(n sum! ( *ill e+amine the )irect effects of country! regional! an) in)ivi)ual,level variables
on ethnic intolerance in -. countries. The main purpose of my )issertation is to test ethnic
competition an) ethnic segregation theories. This analysis is an improvement over prior analyses
in that ( vie* the )evelopment of intolerance as a function of the comple+ interaction bet*een
economic an) political characteristics from the larger environment an) personal characteristics
that )etermine oneDs vulnerability to group competition. &y focusing on intolerance as a multi,
level process! ( am better able to test t*o competing structural theories. ( *ill also e+amine the
role of the institutional )esign of the state an) state policies to*ar) ethnic minorities in generating
or preventing ethnic intolerance.
SUMM%RH
My )issertation *ill investigate ethnic intolerance as a function of ethnic competition! ethnic
segregation! an) the role of the state. Using the multi,level mo)el )escribe) in ?igure "! ( *ill
e+amine the relationship bet*een ethnic intolerance an) the follo*ing topics@
/thnic Resi)ential Segregation! /thnic Occupational Segregation! an) /thnic /conomic
(ne2uality at the 'ountry an) Regional 9evels
Stratification 4osition 5/)ucation! Occupation! an) (ncome6 at the (n)ivi)ual 9evel
The (nteraction bet*een /thnic Resi)ential Segregation! /thnic Occupational Segregation!
an) /thnic /conomic (ne2uality an) the /ffects of Stratification 4osition on /thnic
(ntolerance
?e)eral! 4resi)ential! an) 4roportional Representation Systems! the 4resence of /thnic
4olitical 4arties! the 4resence of /)ucation in Minority 9anguages! State Recognition of
Minority Rights! an) the 4resence of Re)istributive 4olicies
My research *ill )irectly test t*o competing theories : ethnic competition theory an) ethnic
segregation theory. ( *ill e+ten) research on ethnic intolerance by e+amining ethnic segregation
an) ethnic competition theories comparatively! by )eveloping an) testing a multi,level theory of
intolerance! an) by e+amining the role of the state. Through a better un)erstan)ing of the sources
an) conse2uences of ethnic intolerance! ( hope to provi)e a basis to prevent future conflicts
".
bet*een ethnic groups across )iverse settings. This research forms part of a larger pro1ect in the
social sciences to un)erstan) the un)erpinnings of intolerance for minorities an) for minority
rights. Through such research! social scientists hope to i)entify opportunities an) strategies for
achieving a balance bet*een ethnic i)entity an) a sense of share) social an) political community
in comple+ an) ethnically )iverse mo)ern societies. The analysis of ethnic intolerance in -.
countries can she) important light on these issues that! hopefully! *ill allo* states to achieve more
viable long,term strategies of integration an) to avoi) the terrible conse2uences of ethnic conflict.
?igure ". Theoretical Mo)el of /thnic (ntolerance.
">
'OU0TRH,9/F/9F%R(%&9/S
/conomic Fariables
/thnic Resi)ential Segregation
/thnic Occupational Segregation
/thnic /conomic (ne2uality
4olitical Fariables
?e)eral System
4resi)ential System
4roportional Representation
/thnic 4arties
/)ucation in Minority 9anguages
State Recognition of Minority Rights
Re)istributive 4olicies
(0D(F(DU%9,9/F/9
F%R(%&9/S
5Stratification 4osition6
/)ucation
(ncome
Occupation
/T80('
(0TO9/R%0'/
(n)ivi)ual,9evel 'ontrol Fariables
%ge! Se+! Marital Status! UrbanGRural
Resi)ence! Religiosity! Union
Member! 4olitical ()eology! an) 4arty
()entification
R/I(O0%9,9/F/9F%R(%&9/S
/conomic Fariables
/thnic Resi)ential Segregation
/thnic Occupational Segregation
/thnic /conomic (ne2uality
'ountry,9evel 'ontrol Fariables
J /mploye) in%griculture! J
/mploye) in Mining an) (n)ustry! J
Unemploye)! J 'hange in
4opulation! 4ost,'ommunist! /thnic
'onflict! Dominant Religion! Minority
*ith /+ternal 8omelan)
Regional,9evel 'ontrol Fariables
J /mploye) in%griculture! J
/mploye) in Mining an) (n)ustry! J
Unemploye)! J 'hange in 4opulation
Table ". 'ountries in the "##3 0ational ()entity Mo)ule from the (SS4.
'ountries Sample Si;e J of Total
Sample
a
Region Type 0umber of
Regions
/urope
%ustria "$$< ..3
?e)eral 'ountries
#
&ulgaria ""$3 ..# %)ministrative Regions #
';ech Republic """" ..# Districts
Iermany "#> 3.# ?e)eral 'ountries "A
Ireat &ritain "$3 ..< Districts ""
8ungary "$$$ ..3 %)min. UnitsG'ounties "#
(taly "$#> .. Ieographic %reas >
(relan)
b
##> ..3
9atvia "$>> ..< 3
0etherlan)s -$# <.. "-
0or*ay "3-< 3.> 'ounties "#
4olan) "3# 3.A
Russia "33 3.A -$
Slova7 Republic ". >.# Districts >-
Slovenia "$.A ..A Region "-
Spain "--" >.. "<
S*e)en "-#A >.A
0orth %merica
'ana)a "3>. 3.> 4rovince #
Unite) States ".A< >. Regions #
%sia
Japan "-3A >.> %)min. an) Ieographic Regions A
4hilippines "-$$ >.- %rea >
%ustralia
0e* Kealan) "$>. ..< %rea --
a. ( *ill *eight the sample so that the sample n of each country is proportional to the population of that country
relative to the other countries.
b. 0o regions are available (relan).
"3
%44/0D(L %. M/T8ODO9OIH.
(n this section ( )iscuss some of the metho)ological challenges of the propose) analysis. ?irst! ( )iscuss the
challenges pose) by creating a sample of /urope. (n this section ( )iscuss missing )ata! the representativeness of
the samples! an) the comparability of regions an) countries. Secon)! ( )iscuss )ifficulties associate) *ith the
analysis of hierarchical )ata! focusing on the potential problems of heteros7e)asticity an) correlate) errors. Thir)!
( )iscuss metho)s of evaluating the functional e2uivalence of ethnic tolerance : the )epen)ent variable in the
propose) analysis.
% Sample of /urope
Missing Data. &efore creating a sample of /urope from the "##3 (SS4 )ata! it important to as7 the
2uestion@ Bhich in)ivi)uals! regions! an) countries are missingC (f )istinct groups of in)ivi)uals! regions! or
countries are missing! the samples may not accurately represent the populations of the countries an) /urope as a
*hole. (n a))ition! it *oul) be un)esirable to )ra* generali;ations about ethnic intolerance in M/urope.N
One solution commonly use) to )etermine *hether or not missing )ata are problematic is to compare a
mo)el *ith missing values to a mo)el in *hich missing values have been replace). 9arge )ifferences in the effects
of in)epen)ent variables *oul) in)icate biases )ue to missing values. (n my )issertation! ( *ill replace missing
values at the in)ivi)ual level *ith mean values an) compare the coefficients from the t*o mo)els. Missing values
for regions an) countries *ill not be problematic as ( am intereste) mainly in economic an) political variables
constructe) from census )ata.
Of the )ata that are available! there are t*o a))itional concerns. ?irst! ho* representative are the samples
of in)ivi)uals! regions! an) countries of the populations of in)ivi)uals! regions! an) countriesC Secon)! ho*
comparable are the regions an) countriesC
Representativeness of the Data. %ny time that a sample is )ra*n to represent a larger population! it is
important to )emonstrate that the cases in the sample accurately represent the cases in the population. (n my
)issertation! this is true for in)ivi)uals an) regions in countries as *ell as regions an) countries in /urope.
8o* *ell )oes the sample of in)ivi)uals from country + 5e.g.! 4olan)6 represent the population of country
+C To ans*er this 2uestion! researchers generally compare the relative proportion of in)ivi)uals in )ifferent age!
se+! e)ucation! an) racialGethnic categories in the sample to recent census )ata. (f there are significant )ifferences
bet*een the proportions in the sample an) the population! *eights are often applie). (n other *or)s! if the
percentage of men in the sample is 3#J *hile it is only >#J in the population! scholars often )o*n,*eight men in
"A
the sample so that the relative proportion more accurately fits the population. (n my )issertation! ( *ill use *eights
alrea)y provi)e) in the (SS4 )ata.
8o* *ell )oes the sample of regions from country + 5e.g.! 4olan)6 represent the
population of regions from country + an) /urope as a *holeC 4art of the ans*er is simple : all
regions from the "< /uropean countries are represente) in the )ata. (n other *or)s! ( have a
population of regions for the "< countries available in the )ata! not a sample. There is also the
2uestion of ho* *ell the sample of regions represents the population of regions for all of /urope
: inclu)ing the regions outsi)e of the "< countries available in the )ata. To ans*er this 2uestion! (
*ill refer to relevant aggregate statistics for the regions in my sample from country statistical
yearboo7s. Then! ( *ill compare these values to values for /urope as a *hole. (f there are
significant )ifferences! ( *ill either *eight the regions in the sample or e+clu)e outlier regions
from the analysis.
8o* *ell )oes the sample of /uropean countries in the (SS4 )ata represent /urope as a *holeC There are
many country,level in)icators that shoul) be ta7en into account to ans*er this 2uestion. ?or e+ample! the sample
shoul) inclu)e a mi+ture of large an) small countries! rich an) poor countries! post,communist an) non post,
communist countries! an)! since ( am intereste) in ethnic relations! countries *ith )ifferent si;e) ethnic
populations an) )ifferent levels of ethnic conflict.
% revie* of the countries available in the (SS4 )ata reveals several possible shortcomings. ?irst! )ata are
not available from the poorest countries of /urope : for e+ample %lbania! Mace)onia! an) Mol)ova. Moreover!
some of the smallest countries are e+clu)e) : for e+ample 9u+embourg an) 9iechtenstein. Most importantly! some
of the countries *ith high levels of ethnic conflict are not available : for e+ample! Mol)ova. Despite these
)ra*bac7s! the "< countries available in the )ata are attractive in that post,communist an) non,post,communist
countries are present as are countries sprea) over the entire geographic region of /urope. The important point is
that ( am a*are of these possible )eficiencies an) 7eep them in min) *hen )ra*ing conclusions about ethnic
intolerance in M/urope.N
'omparability of Regions an) 'ountries. %n a))itional concern *hen creating a sample of /urope is ho*
comparable are the various regions across the countries an) ho* comparable are the countries themselves. ?or the
"<
most part! region is )efine) on either a political,a)ministrative level or a geographic level an) most countries are
)ivi)e) into roughly ,"- regions. The 2uestion! then! is ho* comparable are these various aggregate unitsC
4erhaps the best *ay to ans*er this 2uestion is to revisit *hy ( am intereste) in aggregate units : e.g. regions an)
countries. &riefly! theories of ethnic competition an) ethnic segregation specify that characteristics of peopleDs
larger environments affect their attitu)es to*ar) minorities. ?or e+ample! in)ivi)uals living in conteste) areas or
in areas *ith tight 1ob mar7ets an) intense competition for *or7 may be more intolerant. (n this sense! the relative
si;e of one region compare) to another )oes not matter! rather! it is important that a Mconteste) areaN or a Mtight
labor mar7etN mean the same across the )ifferent regions. ( argue that they )o. (n fact! ( *ill *eight the aggregate
)ata so that conte+tual effects are e2ual )espite )ifferences in region or country si;e.
Multi,9evel Data
% secon) ma1or challenge of the propose) analysis is )ealing *ith multi,level or neste) )ata. Specifically! (
e+amine in)ivi)ual an) group,level pre)ictors of ethnic tolerance. Since ( am intereste) in country! regional! an)
in)ivi)ual,level effects! ( must )eal simultaneously *ith three )ifferent units of analysis.
% number of strategies have been use) to )eal *ith the unit of analysis problem. ?or e+ample! some
scholars aggregate all variables *hile others use only in)ivi)ual,level )ata! ignoring group,level effects. ?our
common problems are encountere)! ho*ever! *hen failing to a))ress the hierarchical nature of the )ata. ?irst!
*hen in)ivi)uals are neste) *ithin larger units such as cities! one shoul) not assume that the cases are
in)epen)ent. (n fact! it is li7ely that errors are correlate) an) error variances are heteros7e)astic. Secon)! in the
case of aggregation! an aggregation bias is create) since group level variables are assume) to e2ual in)ivi)ual level
variables. Thir)! regression slopes are often heterogeneous : that is! the relationship bet*een the in)epen)ent an)
)epen)ent variables are often not the same across )ifferent groups 5in my case regions an) countries6. ?ourth!
*hen multi,level )ata are e+amine) inappropriately! group,level effects are often systematically un)erestimate).
Tra)itional analyses of ethnic segregation an) ethnic competition have been affecte) by these various
problems. ?or ethnic competition theorists! the most common approach to )ealing *ith the unit of analysis
problem has been to aggregate the )ata. /thnic segregation theorists! on the other han)! e+amine conte+tual an)
in)ivi)ual,level variables. 8o*ever! they )o not use hierarchical linear mo)eling techni2ues. 'onse2uently! it is
possible that they are not controlling for the possibility of correlate) errors an) heteros7a)asticity. They may also
be un)erestimating the effect of conte+tual 5usually competition6 variables an)! therefore! may be )ra*ing incorrect
conclusions regar)ing the importance of competition in generating ethnic intolerance.
"
My )issertation *ill be an improvement over previous analyses because ( *ill use hierarchical linear
mo)eling techni2ues. %s a result! ( *ill be able to control for the potential problems of correlate) errors an)
heteros7e)asticity an) ( *ill be able to e+amine the heterogeneity of regression slopes for )ifferent groups.
Moreover! because ( ta7e all units of analysis into account! ( *ill not create an aggregation bias.
?unctional /2uivalence of the Depen)ent Fariable
% final metho)ological challenge of my propose) )issertation is creating functionally e2uivalent measures across
the )ifferent countries inclu)e) in the analysis. (n or)er to )o this! ( must )emonstrate that the various measures
are vali) an) reliability in each country 5emic vali)ity6 as *ell as e2uivalent across all countries 5etic vali)ity6. (n
this section! ( focus only on the )epen)ent variable : ethnic intolerance. % number of items are available in the
"##3 (SS4 )ata to measure ethnic intolerance. Using the *or7 of Miller! Slomc;yns7i! an) Schoenberg 5"#"6 as a
gui)e! ( *ill use e+ploratory an) confirmatory factor analysis to assess the vali)ity! reliability! an)
comparabilityGe2uivalence of the various ethnic intolerance scales.
/mic Fali)ity. ?irst! ( *ill use e+ploratory factor analysis *ith principal a+is factoring an) orthogonal
rotation to i)entify the items in each country that represent ethnic intolerance an) are )istinguishable from other
relate) attitu)es. (n general! ( *ill i)entify country,specific in)icators of ethnic intolerance as items that loa)
consistently an) strongly on the ethnic intolerance factor an) loa) stronger on the intolerance factor than any other
factor 5Miller et al. "#"6. %fter i)entifying in)icators through e+ploratory factor analysis! ( *ill use confirmatory
factor analysis to assess the overall fit of the mo)el an) to e+amine the factor structure : focusing on the relative
strength of the items as *ell as their relationship to an) among the errors. &est,fitting country,specific scales for
ethnic tolerance *ill then be create).
/tic Fali)ity. T*o strategies *ill be use) to )etermine the functional e2uivalence of scales. ?irst! ( *ill
compare the best,fitting mo)el from country + to an impose) best,fitting mo)el from another country 5impose) etic
vali)ity6. (t shoul) be note) that the impose) mo)el from another country may inclu)e country,specific in)icators.
( *ill then e+amine correlation coefficients to evaluate the strength of the association bet*een the )ifferent scales.
Strong correlations *oul) suggest functional e2uivalence. Secon)! ( *ill compare the factor structures of
constraine) an) unconstraine) factor mo)els : that is! a best,fitting mo)el for country + *ill be compare) to a
mo)el in *hich the factor loa)ings an) errors are constraine) to be e2ual to those in another country for core items
only 5)erive) etic vali)ity6. 0on,significant )ifferences in the chi,s2uare goo)ness of fit statistic *oul) suggest
that the scales are functionally e2uivalent.
"#
%44/0D(L &. D%T%.
(n)ivi)ual,9evel Survey Data
(n my )issertation! ( *ill use the "##3 (nternational Social Survey 4rogram 5(SS46 mo)ule! 0ational ()entity.
'omparable )ata are available for -. countries from /urope! 0orth %merica! %sia! an) %ustralia. ( *ill use these
survey )ata to construct a reliable scale of ethnic intolerance! variables measuring position in the stratification
system! an) other bac7groun) controls. ( *ill also use the survey )ata to estimate country an) regional levels of
ethnic occupational segregation an) ethnic economic ine2uality.
'ountry an) Region,9evel Data
( *ill use )ata from national statistical yearboo7s to create many of the economic variables at the country an)
regional levels 5e.g.! percent employe) in agriculture! percent employe) in mining an) in)ustry! percent
unemploye)! an) percent change in population6. ( hope to fin) )etaile) information on the si;e of ethnic group
populations in the various regions from other national statistical publications. These country an) regional )ata *ill
be lin7e) to the in)ivi)ual,level survey )ata! *hich provi)e information on the country an) region of resi)ence.
Much of this summer *ill be spent searching for these country an) regional,level )ata.
-$
%44/0D(L '. M%JOR /L49%0%TORH F%R(%&9/S.
(n)ivi)ual,9evel Fariables
/thnic (ntolerance. Several items have face vali)ity as in)icators of ethnic intolerance@ O(t
is impossible for people *ho )o not share your countryEs customs an) tra)itions to become fully
5e.g.! &ritish6= ethnic minorities shoul) be given government assistance to preserve their customs
an) tra)itions= some people say that it is better for a country if )ifferent racial an) ethnic groups
maintain their )istinct customs an) tra)itions an) others say that it is better if these groups a)apt
an) blen) into the larger societyP*hich of these vie*s comes closer to your o*n= immigrants
increase crime rates= immigrants are generally goo) for the economy= immigrants ta7e 1obs a*ay
from people *ho *ere born in your country= immigrants ma7e your country more open to ne*
i)eas an) cultures= )o you thin7 the number of immigrants to your country no*a)ays shoul) be
increase) a lot! increase) a little! remain the same! re)uce) a little! or re)uce) a lotCO
Stratification 4osition. ( focus on e)ucation! occupation! an) income as in)icators of
stratification position. ( *ill measure e)ucation *ith t*o variables@ years of schooling complete)
an) type of schooling. ( *ill measure occupation *ith a )ummy variable )ifferentiating bet*een
in)ivi)uals *ith blue an) *hite,collar 1obs. ( *ill measure income *ith t*o variables@ in)ivi)ual
earnings an) total family income.
'ountry an) Region,9evel Fariables
/thnic Resi)ential Segregation. ( *ill measure ethnic resi)ential segregation at the
country,level *ith t*o commonly use) in)ices@ the Dissimilarity (n)e+ 5Taeuber an) Taeuber
"#<A6 an) the Resi)ential (solation (n)e+ 5Ol;a7 et al. "##A6. ( *ill measure regional ethnic
resi)ential segregation *ith the (n)e+ of Qualitative Fariation 5&ohrnste)t an) Kno7e "#6.
The Dissimilarity (n)e+ 5Taeuber an) Taeuber "#<A6 is a measure of ran)om )istribution.
(t is )efine) at the country,level as the proportion of minority group members *ho *oul) have to
-"
move to achieve an even )istribution *ith ma1ority group members in that country. The ma1ority
*ill be )efine) as the ethnic group *ith the largest population in a specific country. The minority
*ill be )efine) as any ethnic group *ithout the largest population in a specific country. The
Dissimilarity (n)e+ can range from ;ero to one. % value of M"N *oul) in)icate that regions in the
country are e+clusively compose) of the ma1ority or minority group *hile a value of M$N *oul)
in)icate that regions *ithin the country are compose) of an even mi+ of the ma1ority an) minority
groups. The Dissimilarity (n)e+ 5D6 is )efine) formally as@
5"6 DR((ccmr,M6G-TM5",M66!
*here in)icates summation across regions in a country= mr is the proportion of national minorities in region r! M
is the proportion of national minorities in the country! an) T is the total population si;e of the country.
The Resi)ential (solation (n)e+ 5Ol;a7 et al. "##A6 is )efine) at the country,level as the
probability that a ran)omly chosen minority in)ivi)ual *ill resi)e in the same regions as another
ran)omly chosen minority in)ivi)ual. 4ossible values for this in)e+ range from ;ero to one! *ith
M$N in)icating e+treme integration an) M"N in)icating e+treme segregation. The Resi)ential
(solation (n)e+ 5R(6 is )efine) formally as@
5-6 R(R55mcrGMc6*5mcrGTcr66!
*here in)icates summation across regions in a country= mcr is the number of national minorities in country c in
region r! Mc is the number of national minorities in country c! an) Tcr is the total population in country c in region
r.
To calculate the Dissimilarity (n)e+ an) the Resi)ential (solation (n)e+ for each of the
countries! the follo*ing information is re2uire)@ the proportion an) number of minorities in each
region! the proportion an) number of minorities in each country! the total population si;e of each
region! an) the total population si;e of each country.
( *ill measure regional ethnic resi)ential segregation *ith the (n)e+ of Qualitative
Fariation 5&ohrnste)t an) Kno7e "#6. This in)e+ in)icates the )egree of ethnic )iversity in a
--
region. The in)e+ can range from ;ero to one. % value of M$N in)icates that all cases are in one
ethnic category 5lo* )iversity6 *hile a value of M"N in)icates that the cases are sprea) evenly over
all the categories 5high )iversity6. The (n)e+ of Qualitative Fariation 5QF6 is formally )efine) as@
5.6 QFR55", p
-
i6G5n,"6n6!
*here n refers to the number of ethnic groups in the county an) p refers to the proportion of
cases in the i
th
ethnic category. To calculate the (n)e+ of Qualitative Fariation for each region! the
follo*ing information is re2uire)@ the number of ethnic categories in each county an) the number
of in)ivi)ual in each ethnic category in each county. % more )irect measure of regional ethnic
resi)ential segregation is not available because region is the smallest geographic i)entifier in the
survey )ata.
/thnic Occupational Segregation. ( *ill use a simplifie) version of the Occupational
(solation (n)e+ 5Ol;a7 "##-6 to measure ethnic occupational segregation at the country an)
regional,level.
The Occupational (solation (n)e+ measures the probability that a ran)omly chosen *or7er
in any of the MnN occupations *oul) belong to the same ethnic group as another ran)omly chosen
*or7er from the same occupation. (n a simplifie) version of this in)e+! ( *ill measure the
probability that a ran)omly chosen blue,collar *or7er *oul) belong to the same ethnic group 5the
ma1ority or a minority6 as another ran)omly chosen blue,collar *or7er. 8igher proportions
in)icate that members of minority groups are highly concentrate) in blue,collar occupations. The
Occupational (solation (n)e+ 5O(6 is mathematically similar to the Resi)ential (solation (n)e+ an)
is formally )efine) at the country,level as@
5>6 O(R55bcmincGallminc6*5bcmincGbcallc66!
*here in)icates summation across occupations in a country= bcminc is the number of blue,collar
*or7ers in the minority population in country c! allminc is the number of all *or7ers in the
-.
minority population in country c! an) bcallc is the number of blue,collar *or7ers from all ethnic
groups in country c.
The Occupational (solation (n)e+ 5O(6! at the regional,level! is formally )efine) as@
536 O(R55bcminrGallminr6*5bcminrGbcallr66!
*here in)icates summation across occupations in a region= bcminr is the number of blue,collar
*or7ers in the minority population in region r! allminr is the number of all *or7ers in the minority
population in region r! an) bcallr is the number of blue,collar *or7ers from all ethnic groups in
region r.
To calculate the Occupational (solation (n)e+ at the country an) regional,levels! the
follo*ing )ata are re2uire)@ the total number of blue,collar *or7ers in a minority group for each
country an) region! the total number of all *or7ers in a minority group for each country an)
region! an) the total number of blue,collar *or7ers in each region. ( *ill estimate this information
using the survey )ata.
/thnic /conomic (ne2uality. The ethnic economic ine2uality in)e+ measures the )egree of
)ifference bet*een the ethnic minority an) the ethnic ma1ority in terms of income. To construct
the ethnic economic ine2uality in)e+! ( *ill calculate the mean level of income in each country an)
region separately for the minority an) the ma1ority. 0e+t! ( *ill subtract the mean level of income
for the minority from the ma1ority an) s2uare) the result. Thus! the ethnic economic ine2uality
in)e+ is a measure of s2uare) )eviation. 8igh scores in)icate that there is a high )egree of ethnic
economic ine2uality in the country or region.
->
R/?/R/0'/S
&elanger! Sarah an) Maurice 4inar). "##". M/thnic Movements an) the 'ompetition Mo)el@ Some Missing
9in7s.N %merican Sociological Revie* 3A 5%ugust6@ >>A,3<.
&onacich! /)na. "#<-. M% Theory of /thnic %ntagonism@ The Split 9abor Mar7et.N %merican Sociological
Revie* .< 5October6@ 3><,3#.
&onacich! /)na an) J. Mo)ell. "#$. The /conomic &asis of /thnic Soli)arity@ Small &usiness in the Japanese
%merican 'ommunity. &er7eley@ University of 'alifornia 4ress.
&os*ell! Terry an) Billiam Di+on. "##$. MDepen)ence an) Rebellion.N %merican Sociological Revie* 33
5%ugust6@ 3>$,3#.
&os*ell! Terry an) Billiam Di+on. "##.. MMar+Ds Theory of Rebellion.N %merican Sociological Revie* 3
5October6@ A",<$-.
8echter! Michael. "#<A. M/thnicity an) (n)ustriali;ation@ On the 4roliferation of the 'ultural Division of 9abor.N
/thnicity .@ -">,->.
8echter! Michael. "#<. MIroup ?ormation an) the 'ultural Division of 9abor.N %merican Journal of Sociology
> 5-6@ -#.,.".
8o)son! Ran)y! Dus7o Se7ulic an) Iarth Massey. "##>. M0ational Tolerance in the ?ormer Hugoslavia.N
%merican Journal of Sociology ##@ "3.>,3.
9ichbach! Mar7 (. "##. M%n /valuation of SDoes /conomic (ne2uality &ree) 4olitical 'onflictCDN Borl) 4olitics
>"@ >.",<$.
Mea)*ell! 8u)son. "##. M/thnic 0ationalism an) 'ollective 'hoice Theory.N 'omparative 4olitical Stu)ies --@
".#,3>.
Me)rano! Juan Die;. "##>. MThe /ffects of /thnic Segregation an) /thnic 'ompetition on 4olitical Mobili;ation
in the &as2ue 'ountry! "#.N %merican Sociological Revie* 3# 5December6@ <.,#.
Miller! Joanne! Ka;imier; M. Slomc;yns7i! an) Ronal) Schoenberg. "#". O%ssessing 'omparability of
Measurement in 'ross,0ational Research@ %uthoritarian,'onservatism in Different Socio,'ultural
Settings.O Social 4sychology Quarterly >>@ "<,#".
Moa))el! Mansoor. "##>. M4olitical 'onflict in the Borl) /conomy.N %merican Sociological Revie* 3#@ -<A,
.$..
-3
Muller! /)*ar) 0. an) Mitchell Seligson. "#<. M(ne2uality an) (nsurgency.N %merican 4olitical Science Revie*
"@ >-3,3$.
0agel! Joane an) Susan Ol;a7. "#-. M/thnic Mobili;ation in 0e* an) Ol) States@ %n /+tension of the
'ompetition Mo)el.N Social 4roblems .$ 5-6@ "-<,>..
0ielsen! ?rancois. "#$. MThe ?lemish Movement in &elgium %fter Borl) Bar ((@ % Dynamic %nalysis.N
%merican Sociological Revie* >3@ <A,#>.
0ielsen! ?rancois. "#3. MTo*ar) a Theory of /thnic Soli)arity in Mo)ern Societies.N %merican Sociological
Revie* 3$ 5%pril6@ "..,>#.
Ol;a7! Susan. "#.. O'ontemporary /thnic Mobili;ation.O 4p. .33,.<> in %nnual Revie* of Sociology Folume #!
e)ite) by Ralph 8. Turner an) James ?. Short. 4alo %lto! '%@ %nnual Revie*s! (nc.
Ol;a7! Susan. "##-. The Dynamics of /thnic 'ompetition an) 'onflict. Stanfor) University 4ress.
Ol;a7! Susan! Su;anne Shanahan! an) /li;abeth 8. Mc/neaney. "##A. M4overty! Segregation! an) Race Riots@
"#A$ to "##..N %merican Sociological Revie* A" 5%ugust6@ 3#$,A"..
Ol;a7! Susan an) /li;abeth Best. "##". M/thnic 'onflict an) the Rise an) ?all of /thnic 0e*spapers.N
%merican Sociological Revie* 3A@ >3,<>.
Ragin! 'harles '. "#<#. M/thnic 4olitical Mobili;ation@ The Belsh 'ase.N %merican Sociological Revie* >>@
A"#,.3.
Rogo*s7i! Ronal). "#3. O'auses an) Farieties of 0ationalism@ % Rationalist %ccount.O 4p. <,"$ in 0e*
0ationalism of the Develope) Best! e)ite) by /)*ar) %. Tirya7ian an) Ronal) Rogo*s7i. 9on)on@ %llen
an) Un*in.
Balton! John an) 'harles Ragin. "##$. MThe Debt 'risis an) 4olitical 4rotest in the Thir) Borl).N %merican
Sociological Revie* 33 5December6@ <A,#$.
-A