Ethnicity, Migration, and Nation Building in Indonesia Appendix

Figures Figure A.1: Estimated Propensity Scores Notes: This figure, also in Bazzi et al. (2016), plots the distribution of estimated probabilities of site selection based on the estimates in Table A.2. 45 Figure A.2: Additional Individual-Level ATT for Intermarriage (Inner, Outer) (a) Local Outer Islands Native Men (b) Local Outer Islands Native Women (c) Local Outer Islands Native High Education (d) Local Outer Islands Native Low Education (e) Local Outer Islands Native Trader Occupation (f) Local Outer Islands Native Non-Trader Occupation Notes: This figure uses the same individual-level, age-specific ATT specification as panel (d) in Figure 4 with the additional restrictions noted in the panel titles to capture potential differences, which prove limited, across gender, education and occupations. 46 Figure A.3: Null ATT for Both Spouses Born in Java/Bali Notes: This figure uses the same individual-level, age-specific ATT specification as panel (b) in Figure 4 to rule out potential identification concerns by showing that the ATT is zero in the case where both spouses are born in Java/Bali. Figure A.4: Individual-Level ATT for Intermarriage Between Any Ethnic Groups (a) Baseline (b) Restricting to Native-Born Outer Islands Ethnicity (c) . . . Local to District of Birth and 5 Years Prior (d) . . . Controlling for Ethnicity Fixed Effects Notes: This figure replicates the sequence of results in Figure 4 but defining the dependent variable as interethnic marriage between any groups rather than restricting to the Inner–Outer breakdown. 47 Figure A.5: Long-Run Diversity and Initial Transmigrants (First Stage) .8 1.5 0.083 (0.023)*** .7 1 density .6 .5 .5 .4 semipar. E(Inner Island ethnic share | X) parametric estimate: .3 0 6 6.5 7 7.5 log total initial transmigrants 8 Notes: This figure reports regressions of the Inner Island ethnic share in 2000 (based on the Population Census) conditional on the log of the transmigrant population from Java/Bali placed in that village in the initial year of settlement (in 1979– 1988). The semiparametric regression is based on the Robinson (1988) partially linear model, and it employs a local cubic polynomial regression that conditions on island fixed effects and the vector x of predetermined site selection variables, an Epanechnikov kernel, Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth, and trimming of the top and bottom percentile. This is similar to the specification used in the first stage of the semiparametric instrumental variables results presented below. The parametric linear estimate adopts the same set of controls with standard errors based on the Conley (1999) approach that allows unobservables to be correlated across all villages within 150 kilometers of each other. 48 Figure A.6: Probing the Validity of the Initial Transmigrants Instrument Notes: This figure reports semiparametric and parametric regressions of several measures of diversity and other characteristics of the population—listed in the y axis on the graphs—observed in Transmigration settlements conditional on the log of the transmigrant population from Java/Bali placed in that village in the initial year of settlement (in 1979–1988). We plot histograms of the latter in the background for reference. The linguistic similarity and origin district Herfindahl indices are from Bazzi et al. (2016). These graphs serve to rule out first order concerns that the instrument for the Inner Island ethnic share (see Figure A.5) is correlated with other measures of diversity and population characteristics associated with the initial immigrant influx. The semiparametric regression is based on the Robinson (1988) partially linear model, and it employs a local linear regression that conditions on island fixed effects and the vector x of predetermined site selection variables, an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. This is similar to the specification used in the first stage of the semiparametric instrumental variables results presented below. The parametric linear estimate adopts the same set of controls with standard errors based on the Conley (1999) approach that allows unobservables to be correlated across all villages within 150 kilometers of each other. 49 Figure A.7: Spillovers from the Transmigration Program Notes: These figures report the 95 percent confidence intervals around the ATT estimates for the given dependent variable estimated at different spatial lags from the centroid of the Transmigration village. The “0 km” distance is just the estimate from column 3 in Tables 3 and 4. The remaining estimates are based on 5 km discs radiating outward from the Transmigration villages. For example, the estimate at 5 km is based on all villages outside the Transmigration village boundary but within 5 km of that boundary, and the estimate at 10 km is based on all villages greater than 5 and less than 10 km. The control group at the given distance includes all villages less than that distance from the control village boundary and including the control village itself. See the notes to Tables 3 and 4 for further details. 50 Figure A.8: Overall Ethnic Fractionalization and Indonesian Language Use Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric (Robinson, 1988) estimate of the impact of ethnic fractionalization across all ethnic groups on the likelihood of national language use at home for all individuals residing within 10 km of Transmigration villages. The estimate is based on the same specification as Figure 5. See the notes to that figure for further details. 51 Figure A.9: Ethnic Diversity and Indonesian Language Use (a) Semiparametric OLS (Robinson, 1988) (b) Semiparametric IV (Su and Ullah, 2008) Notes: These figures report semiparametric estimates of the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the likelihood of reporting the given language (national, Inner Island, Outer Island) as the primary daily one used in the household for all individuals residing within 10 km of Transmigration villages including those villages. The inverted U in Figure panel (a) is reproduced from Figure 5 in the paper. The estimates are based on the Robinson (1988) partially linear model that conditions on our usual x vector of control variables and uses an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. The individual data on language use are from the 2006 Susenas household survey. The estimates in panel (b) are based on the Su and Ullah (2008) control function estimator in which we follow the approach suggested in Henderson and Parmeter (2015) and first run a third degree local polynomial regression based on the first stage in Figure A.5, recover the semiparametric residuals from that regression, and then estimate a second stage local linear regression conditional on those generated residuals. Note that the confidence intervals do not yet account for the generated regressor. In ongoing work, we improve inference by implementing a bootstrap procedure and also reduce bias in the pointwise estimates by implementing a bandwidth optimized for each stage using cross-validation. 52 Figure A.10: Ethnic Diversity and Minority vs. Majority Language Use (a) Inner Island Ethnic Groups (b) Outer Island Ethnic Groups Notes: These figures report semiparametric estimates of the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the likelihood of reporting the given language (national, Inner Island, Outer Island) as the primary daily one used in the household for individuals residing within 10 km of Transmigration villages including those villages. Panel (a) is estimated over all individuals belonging to Inner Island ethnic groups, and Panel (b) is estimated over all those belonging to Outer Island ethnic groups. The estimates are based on the Robinson (1988) partially linear model that conditions on our usual x vector of control variables and uses an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. The individual data on language use are from the 2006 Susenas household survey. IV results based on the Su and Ullah (2008) estimator look similar. 53 Figure A.11: Diversity Thresholds in the Intergenerational Transmission of Identity (a) Semiparametric OLS (Robinson, 1988) (b) Semiparametric IV (Su and Ullah, 2008) Notes: These figures report village-level semiparametric estimates of the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the share of children with reported Inner Island (transmigrant) identities among all children living in households with one parent hailing from Inner Island ethnicities and the other from Outer Island ethnicities. The left graphs are based on all children born to mixed marriages, and the right graphs are based on children born to mixed marriages in which the father belongs to an Inner Island ethnic group and the mother belongs to an Outer Island ethnic group. The left figure in panel (a) is reproduced from Figure 6. The estimates are based on the semiparametric OLS and IV procedures detailed in the notes to Figure A.9. 54 Figure A.12: Ethnic Diversity and Minority Occupational Choice (Instrumental Variables) Notes: These figures report village-level semiparametric estimates of the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the share of the given ethnic group’s working population employed in trading and services occupations as reported in the 2000 Population Census. The left graphs are based on all individuals belonging to Inner Island ethnicities, and the right graphs are based on those belong to Outer Islands ethnicities. The estimates are based on the semiparametric IV procedure detailed in the notes to Figure A.9. Note that the confidence intervals do not yet account for the generated regressor. In ongoing work, we improve inference by implementing a bootstrap procedure and also reduce bias in the pointwise estimates by implementing a bandwidth optimized for each stage using cross-validation. 55 Tables Table A.1: Summary Statistics Mean Std. Deviation 1,961 0.22 0.40 0.34 22 0.78 0.15 0.22 (1,478) (0.23) (0.39) (0.24) (19.4) (0.35) (0.19) (0.25) 0.84 0.06 0.34 (0.15) (0.07) (0.42) (a) Demographics and Residence total population Inner Island-born population share Inner Island ethnic share overall ethnic fractionalization number of ethnic groups Muslim population share religious fractionalization ethnic residential isolation index (inner, outer) (b) Marriage among Young Cohort marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer), young cohort adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer), young cohort Notes: Panels (a) and (b) report summary statistics for the 832 Transmigration villages and 668 control villages in our baseline estimating equations for demographic and marriage outcomes. These results are based on the universal Population Census from 2000. 56 Table A.2: Propensity Score: Determinants of Site Selection (1) log village area, Ha % w/ slope between 0-2% Vector Ruggedness Measure log altitude, m2 Organic Carbon (%) Topsoil Sodicity (ESP) % Topsoil pH (-log(H+)) Coarse texture soils (%) Very poor or poor drainage (%) Imperfect drainage soils (%) Avg. rainfall, 1948-1978 Avg. temp (Celcius), 1948-1978 Distance to Nearest Major Road Distance to Nearest Coast Distance to Nearest River Distance to District Capital -0.103 (0.019)*** 0.006 (0.002)*** -0.164 (0.115) -0.026 (0.009)*** -0.020 (0.006)*** 0.086 (0.093) -0.141 (0.051)*** -0.033 (0.226) 0.073 (0.085) -0.231 (0.138)* -0.001 (0.001) -0.022 (0.014) -0.300 (0.157)* -0.060 (0.038) -0.011 (0.022) 0.025 (0.028) 1470 0.366 -641.9 365.1 N Pseudo R2 Log Likelihood LR χ2 Notes: */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. This table, also reported in Bazzi et al. (2016), presents average marginal effects estimated based on a logit likelihood. The dependent variable is a binary indicator equal to one if the village is a Transmigration site. Standard errors clustered by district in parentheses. 57 Table A.3: Log Initial Transmigrants and Predetermined Development Proxies Dependent Variable wetland rice potential yield (ton/Ha) dryland rice potential yield (ton/Ha) cocoa potential yield (ton/Ha) coffee potential yield (ton/Ha) palmoil potential yield (ton/Ha) cassava potential yield (ton/Ha) maize potential yield (ton/Ha) Golkar vote share, 1977 malaria index, 1978 own electricity (% district pop.) own piped water (% district pop.) own sewer (% district pop.) use modern fuel source (% district pop.) own modern roofing (% district pop.) own radio (% district pop.) own TV (% district pop.) speak Indonesian at home (% district pop.) literate (% district pop.) average years of schooling in district agricultural sector (% district pop.) mining sector (% district pop.) manufacturing sector (% district pop.) trading sector (% district pop.) services sector (% district pop.) wage worker (% district pop.) Site Selection Variable Controls (x) Year of Settlement Fixed Effects 0.004 (0.012) 0.002 (0.007) -0.002 (0.010) -0.002 (0.008) 0.033 (0.018)* 0.020 (0.022) 0.028 (0.022) -0.003 (0.009) -0.049 (0.140) 0.005 (0.010) 0.011 (0.005)** 0.001 (0.006) -0.000 (0.000) 0.006 (0.009) -0.001 (0.007) 0.008 (0.008) -0.003 (0.005) 0.009 (0.005)* 0.064 (0.046) -0.013 (0.011) -0.000 (0.001) 0.002 (0.003) 0.003 (0.003) 0.007 (0.005) 0.006 (0.006) 0.004 (0.010) 0.002 (0.006) -0.002 (0.009) -0.003 (0.007) 0.036 (0.021)* 0.027 (0.018) 0.036 (0.020)* -0.002 (0.008) -0.039 (0.157) -0.003 (0.008) 0.005 (0.003) 0.001 (0.004) -0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.012) 0.001 (0.006) 0.004 (0.005) -0.005 (0.004) 0.008 (0.005) 0.043 (0.040) -0.010 (0.007) 0.000 (0.001) 0.002 (0.002) 0.002 (0.002) 0.006 (0.004) 0.004 (0.004) Yes No Yes Yes Notes: */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Each cell corresponds to a regression of the given variable in the row on log of transmigrants placed in the year of settlement, island fixed effects, and the predetermined villagelevel control variables described in the text. Potential yields are obtained from FAO-GAEZ. The Golkar vote share is the share of the population in the given district that voted President Suharto’s Golkar party in the 1977 legislative elections. The malaria suitability index is based on work by Gordon McCord, who generously provided us with the data. The variables beginning with “own electricity” are (i) based on data from the 1980 Population Census (available on IPUMS International), (ii) measured at the district level based on 1980 district boundaries, (iii) computed using the sampling weights needed to recover district-level population summary statistics, and (iv) restricted to the population in each district that did not arrive as immigrants in 1979 or earlier in 1980 (i.e., the still living population residing in the district in 1978). Standard errors in parentheses are clustered at the (1980) district level for the Census variables and allow for unrestricted spatial correlation between all villages within 150 kilometers of each other (Conley, 1999) for the potential yield variables. 58 Table A.4: Robustness Checks on Intermarriage Impacts of the Transmigration Program (1) marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) Treatment/Control Only Geographic Controls Blinder-Oaxaca Reweighting ATT Estimates (2) (3) Control Group Mean, Cols. 2-3 Panel A: Adding Province Fixed Effects 0.016 0.006 -0.016 0.829 (0.008)** (0.011) (0.020) 0.035 0.056 0.061 0.023 (0.005)*** (0.008)*** (0.010)*** 0.115 0.136 0.120 0.253 (0.037)*** (0.040)*** (0.062)* Panel B: Adding Covariates in Table A.3 0.008 0.005 -0.008 0.829 (0.007) (0.010) (0.024) 0.035 0.059 0.047 0.023 (0.004)*** (0.007)*** (0.009)*** 0.135 0.132 0.262 0.253 (0.030)*** (0.035)*** (0.089)*** Panel C: Adding Ethnolinguistic Homeland Fixed Effects 0.022 -0.002 -0.009 0.829 (0.010)** (0.012) (0.015) 0.036 0.057 0.031 0.023 (0.005)*** (0.006)*** (0.008)*** 0.131 0.138 0.149 0.253 (0.033)*** (0.035)*** (0.050)*** Panel D: Adding (Bad) Controls for Public Goods 0.006 0.014 0.029 0.829 (0.007) (0.012) (0.016)* 0.033 0.056 0.043 0.023 (0.005)*** (0.005)*** (0.007)*** 0.086 0.091 0.099 0.253 (0.040)** (0.038)** (0.044)** No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Notes: */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. This table augments the specifications in Table 4 with the covariates listed in the panel headings. See the notes to that table for further details on other aspects of the estimating equations. The controls for public goods in Panel D include all of those investigated in Martinez-Bravo (2017) as well as the number of INPRES primary schools per student as used in Duflo (2001). 59 Table A.5: Ethnic Diversity, Segregation, and National Language Use At Home in Transmigration Villages Conditional on Fixed Effects for the Indigenous Ethnolinguistic Homeland Estimator: Dep. Var.: Indonesian is Main Language at Home Inner Island ethnic share Inner Island ethnic share squared Inverted U Turning Point [p-value] OLS (1) IV-GMM (2) IV-GMM (3) 0.674 (0.373)* -0.944 (0.423)** 1.376 (0.201)*** -1.783 (0.208)*** 1.082 (0.247)*** -1.548 (0.271)*** 0.357 [0.038]** 0.386 [< 0.01]*** 0.367 [< 0.01]*** Inner Island ethnic share, bottom tercile 60 Inner Island ethnic share, middle tercile ethnic residential segregation (inner, outer) Number of Individuals Mean Dependent Variable Kleibergen & Paap Wald Stat Sanderson & Windmeijer Wald Stat, E1 Sanderson & Windmeijer Wald Stat, E2 Anderson & Rubin Weak Instrument Robust p-value Hansen J Test p-value Lochner & Moretti Wald Stat p-value OLS (4) IV-GMM (5) IV-GMM (6) 0.112 (0.058)* 0.239 (0.068)*** 0.156 (0.073)** 0.346 (0.062)*** 0.172 (0.067)** 0.325 (0.053)*** -0.096 (0.013)*** 2,126 0.25 – – – – – – 2,126 0.25 10.3 60.3 32.7 [< 0.01] [0.25] – 2,126 0.25 8.8 86.9 42.7 [< 0.01] [0.21] – -0.066 (0.010)*** 2,126 0.25 – – – – – [0.25] 2,126 0.25 4.4 7.3 7.1 [< 0.01] [0.14] – 2,126 0.25 4.8 7.7 6.9 [< 0.01] [0.30] – Notes: This table estimates the same set of specifications as in Table 6 but includes 53 dummy variables for the indigenous ethnolinguistic homeland (from Ethnologue) prevailing in the given village. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district, of which there are 50. */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table A.6: Overall Ethnic Diversity and National Language Use At Home in Transmigration Villages Estimator: Dep. Var.: Indonesian is Main Language at Home overall ethnic fractionalization Number of Individuals Kleibergen & Paap Wald Stat Anderson & Rubin Weak Instrument Robust p-value Hansen J Test p-value OLS (1) IV-GMM (2) 0.462 (0.105)*** 0.445 (0.057)*** 2,126 – – – 2,126 11.5 [< 0.01] [0.40] Notes: This table is restricted to the 134 villages in the treated areas from Table 5. The instrumental variables in column 2 includes the ethnic fractionalization among native Java/Bali ethnic groups as well as dummies for 30 equally sized bins of the number initial transmigrants within 10 km of the given village. The null hypotheses of (i) the Anderson & Rubin test is that the coefficients on the endogenous variables jointly equal zero and the overidentifying restrictions are valid, and (ii) the Hansen J test is that the instruments are uncorrelated with the error term and correctly excluded from the second stage. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district, of which there are 50. */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table A.7: Transmigration and Interethnic Preferences over the Long-Run Normalized Index of . . . Ethnic Native Tolerance Leadership (1) (2) ATT: Transmigration village Number of Individuals 0.138 (0.067)** -0.350 (0.079)*** 4,396 4,651 Notes: This table reports estimates of the treatment effects of living within 10 km of a Transmigration site (including those sites) using Susenas 2012 household module. These estimates are based on the 325 treated villages and 132 control villages in the dataset. The column 1 outcome is based on the question “Do you enjoy the activities of people of a different ethnicity in your village?”; column 2 is based on the question “Do you believe that district leaders must be a native?”. All responses are on a four point scale, and we normalize the outcomes to have mean zero and standard deviation one. All regressions are based on a specification analogous to column 2 in Table 3. Standard errors clustered by district are in parentheses. */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. 61