Ethnicity, Migration, and Nation Building in Indonesia Figures

Figures Figure 1: Transmigration Flows and Oil Prices world oil price (2000=100) transmigrants 150 300 oil price 100 200 50 100 transmigrants placed (000s) 400 200 Study Period 0 1965 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Notes: Authors’ calculations from Transmigration Census data. The oil price index is from Bazzi and Blattman (2014). The dark gray vertical lines correspond to our study period. This figure is also reported in Bazzi et al. (2016). Figure 2: Map of Transmigration and Control Villages 31 Notes: Each colored location on the map corresponds to a Transmigration village or a control (Recommended Development) village. The white areas outlined in grey are neither Transmigration nor control villages. Figure 3: Transmigration and a Persistent Continuum of Diverse Communities 5 Transmigration Village Control Village (RDA) All Villages >30 km from Transmigration Village kernel density 4 3 2 1 0 0 .2 .4 .6 ethnic fractionalization .8 1 Notes: This figure plots the kernel density of ethnic fractionalization in 2000 for Transmigration villages, control villages, and all villages greater than 30 kilometers from the boundaries of Transmigration villages. For all three densities, we employ an Epanechnikov kernels and rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Figure 4: Individual-Level ATT for Intermarriage (Inner, Outer) (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: These figures plot the individual-level, age-specific ATT estimates based on equation (1) where the control group is restricted to RDA villages. Each age-specific ATT identifies the differential likelihood of interethnic marriage between Inner and Outer Island natives for individuals living in Transmigration villages compared to those living in control villages as reported in the 2000 Population Census. All specifications include island fixed effects and the x vector of predetermined village-level controls described in the paper. The specifications in panel (b)-(d) include district of birth fixed effects (FE), panel (b) restricts to individuals belonging to Outer Islands ethnic groups born in the Outer Islands, panel (c) further restricts to those residing in the same district as they were born and lived in 1995, and panel (d) further adds fixed effects for the 900 different ethnicities. Sample sizes are (a) 1,215,730, (b) 564,185, (c) and (d) 500,770. These latter refinements hone in on those Outer Islands natives differentially exposed to the Transmigration program in their locality. Further refinements, validation checks and results for broader definitions of interethnic marriage can be found in Appendix Figures A.2, A.3, and A.4, respectively. The dashed lines are 95 percent confidence intervals based on clustering at the district level, of which there are 94. Figure 5: Ethnic Diversity and Indonesian Language Use at Home Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric estimate and 95 percent confidence interval for the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the likelihood of reporting the national language as the primary language used at home in 2006 where the sample includes all individuals within 10 km of Transmigration villages including those villages. The individual-level estimates are based on the Robinson (1988) partially linear model that conditions on the x vector of predetermined village-level controls and uses an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Figure 6: Transmission of Paternal Ethnic Identity Nonlinear w.r.t. Own-Group Size Notes: This figure reports village-level semiparametric estimates and 95 percent confidence interval for the impact of ethnic diversity (Inner Island ethnic share) on the share of children with reported Inner Island identities among all children living in households the father claiming an Inner Island ethnicity and the mother an Outer Island ethnicity. The Inner Island ethnic share on the x-axis excludes children over which we define this dependent variable. We find similarly upward sloping albeit more linear graphs for those mixed marriages in which the mother belongs to an Inner Island ethnic group (see Appendix Figure A.11). The estimates are based on the semiparametric OLS procedure detailed in the notes to Figure 5. Instrumental variables estimates can be found in Appendix Figure A.11. Figure 7: Ethnic Diversity and Minority Occupational Choice 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 graph is based on all individuals belonging to Inner Island ethnicities, and the right graph is based on those belong to Outer Islands ethnicities. The estimates are based on the semiparametric OLS procedure detailed in the notes to Figure 5. Instrumental variables estimates can be found in Appendix Figure A.12. Tables Table 1: Intergenerational Effects of Socialization through Marriage and Language (1) (2) (3) Dependent Variable in 2014: parents intermarried daily Indonesian use at home as a child Number of Individuals parents intermarried daily Indonesian use at home as a child Number of Individuals parents intermarried daily Indonesian use at home as a child Number of Individuals parents intermarried daily Indonesian use at home as a child Number of Individuals Age, Gender, Education Fixed Effects Village Fixed Effects (a) Indonesian Use at Home (µ = 0.369) 0.070 0.053 (0.021)*** (0.021)** 0.156 0.151 (0.022)*** (0.022)*** 8,668 8,623 8,623 (b) Maintain Same Ethnicity (µ = 0.886) -0.181 -0.177 (0.030)*** (0.030)*** -0.062 -0.045 (0.019)*** (0.019)** 6,626 6,594 6,594 (c) In Interethnic Marriage (µ = 0.103) 0.064 0.056 (0.040) (0.040) 0.063 0.057 (0.028)** (0.027)** 4,403 4,385 4,385 (d) Mistrust Other Ethnic Groups (z-score: µ = 0, σ = 1) -0.176 -0.160 (0.053)*** (0.055)*** -0.148 -0.131 (0.054)*** (0.054)** 8,280 8,236 8,236 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: Each panel reports estimates of the correlation between parental intermarriage, daily Indonesian language use at home as a child and the given dependent variable for a sample of individuals in the 2014 round of the Indonesia Family Life Survey who no longer live in the same household as they did in 1997. The dependent variables (with means µ) include in panel (a) an indicator for whether the individual used the Indonesian language at home on a regular basis in 2014, (b) an indicator for whether the individual switched his/her reported ethnicity between 1997 and 2014, (c) an indicator for whether a married individual is in an interethnic marriage in 2014, (d) an index normalized to have mean zero and standard deviation one based on ordered response on a 4 point scale to the question “Do you trust people from other ethnic groups less than you trust your people from own group?”. Note that the language use at home variable is distinct from the Susenas measure used elsewhere in the paper, which requires that household heads only list a single, primary language at home as opposed to listing all languages used at home. The sample is restricted to all individuals greater than 15 years old who live in a different household in 2014 compared to 1997. All specifications include the fixed effects listed at the bottom of the table where the age FE are for each individual age. Standard errors are clustered at the village level of which there are around 1,300 across panels. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Table 2: Baseline Village Characteristics by Treatment and Control Status log village area, Ha % w/ slope between 0-2% % w/ slope between 2-8% % w/ slope between 8-30% Vector Ruggedness Measure log altitude, m2 Organic Carbon (%) Topsoil Sodicity (ESP) % Topsoil pH (-log(H+)) Coarse texture soils (%) Medium texture soils (%) Very poor or poor drainage (%) Imperfect drainage soils (%) Avg. rainfall, 1948-1978 Avg. temp (Celcius), 1948-1978 Minimum Log Distance to Villages on Java or Bali Log Distance to Nearest Major Road Log Distance to Nearest Coast Log Distance to Nearest River Log Distance to Subdistrict Capital Log Distance to District Capital linguistic similarity with Java/Bali languages Transmigration Treated (T) NonTreated (NT) RDA Control (C) mean (sd) mean (sd) mean (sd) 7.53 (1.0) 37.63 (28.3) 48.25 (25.4) 9.87 (16.5) 0.31 (0.1) 3.29 (2.9) 4.77 (6.2) 1.57 (0.4) 5.07 (0.4) 0.10 (0.2) 0.70 (0.2) 0.39 (0.4) 0.06 (0.2) 225.26 (35.1) 26.26 (1.7) 6.69 (0.5) 0.08 (0.1) 10.56 (1.1) 8.09 (0.8) 2.43 (1.5) 4.12 (1.0) 0.58 (0.1) 6.99 (1.5) 30.19 (30.6) 39.27 (24.7) 20.32 (22.6) 0.28 (0.2) 3.77 (2.7) 3.53 (4.7) 1.50 (0.5) 5.33 (0.7) 0.06 (0.2) 0.71 (0.2) 0.30 (0.3) 0.12 (0.3) 215.29 (41.4) 25.36 (2.7) 6.91 (0.6) 0.07 (0.1) 9.96 (1.5) 7.95 (1.1) 1.73 (1.6) 3.46 (1.4) 0.60 (0.1) 8.24 (1.3) 16.96 (17.7) 48.21 (21.7) 24.73 (19.4) 0.31 (0.1) 4.83 (2.2) 3.06 (5.2) 1.63 (0.5) 5.35 (0.6) 0.09 (0.2) 0.65 (0.2) 0.20 (0.3) 0.21 (0.3) 237.66 (35.8) 25.75 (1.8) 6.91 (0.3) 0.10 (0.1) 10.84 (0.9) 8.22 (0.8) 1.97 (1.8) 4.10 (1.1) 0.60 (0.1) (t-stat) Statistical Difference µT − µN T µT − µC Adjusted µT − µC 5.32*** 2.69*** 3.89*** -6.35*** 2.81*** -1.91* 2.69*** 1.72* -5.22*** 3.44*** -0.49 3.15*** -2.73*** 2.39** 4.74*** -2.66*** 1.48 4.32*** 2.06** 7.54*** 7.33*** -2.36** -4.13*** 5.88*** 0.01 -5.35*** 0.21 -5.08*** 2.77*** -0.86 -2.26** 0.30 1.98* 5.50*** -3.24*** -1.70* 1.77* -1.97* -1.09 -1.65 -1.54 3.35*** 0.13 -1.61 -0.21 0.92 -0.12 0.56 -0.58 1.54 -0.33 1.81* 0.56 -1.12 -0.85 0.87 -0.86 0.31 0.15 -0.73 -0.29 1.07 0.45 1.18 2.40** -1.09 Notes: This table reports the sample means (standard deviations, sd) for the predetermined village-level characteristics that comprise our main covariate vector x, which planners used to inform site selection. We consider three groups of villages: Transmigration villages settled in the period 1979–1988 or treated sites (T), nonTransmigration villages or non-treated sites (NT), and Recommended Development Areas (RDA) or control sites (C) that were suggested as resettlement areas but never received the program due to sudden budgetary cutbacks. Note that C villages are a subset of N T villages. See the Online Appendix of Bazzi et al. (2016) for details on variable construction and definitions. The t-statistics reported in the latter three columns are recovered from the coefficient on the treatment variable in a regression of the given characteristic on the treatment indicator. The final column reweights the control observations by their inverse probability of being a Transmigration village recovered from a first step estimate of the propensity score (see Appendix Table A.2). Standard errors are clustered at the district level. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Table 3: Demographic Impacts of the Transmigration Program (1) log population Java/Bali-born population share Inner Island ethnic share ethnic residential isolation index (inner, outer) ethnic fractionalization number of ethnic groups religious fractionalization Treatment/Control Only Geographic Controls Blinder-Oaxaca Reweighting ATT Estimates (2) (3) 0.355 (0.082)*** 0.321 (0.017)*** 0.484 (0.027)*** -0.114 (0.012)*** 0.154 (0.023)*** 5.176 (2.030)** 0.003 (0.014) 0.195 (0.114)* 0.338 (0.019)*** 0.514 (0.032)*** -0.171 (0.027)*** 0.186 (0.031)*** 3.744 (2.052)* -0.032 (0.023) 0.068 (0.088) 0.335 (0.019)*** 0.540 (0.038)*** -0.184 (0.037)*** 0.126 (0.031)*** 2.637 (2.352) 0.011 (0.022) No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Control Group Mean, Cols. 2-3 7.2 0.021 0.061 0.340 0.238 20.1 0.186 Notes: */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Each cell reports the coefficient from a regression of the given dependent variable listed in the first column on an indicator for whether the village is a Transmigration settlement. Column 1 comprises all Outer Islands villages (with non-missing data). Column 2 restricts to our quasi-experimental design including only Transmigration and control/RDA sites and conditions on the predetermined village-level characteristics that determined site selection. Column 3 is a control function specification based on a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition akin to a reweighting approach as derived in Kline (2011). All specifications include island fixed effects. Regressions include as many as 31,185 villages in column 1, and 832 treated villages and 668 controls in columns 2 and 3. Standard errors are clustered by district, of which there are 94. The final column contains the mean of the control villages in columns 2 and 3. Table 4: Intermarriage Impacts of the Transmigration Program (1) marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) Treatment/Control Only Geographic Controls Blinder-Oaxaca Reweighting ATT Estimates (2) (3) 0.025 (0.010)** 0.036 (0.006)*** 0.136 (0.031)*** 0.006 (0.012) 0.059 (0.005)*** 0.135 (0.033)*** 0.019 (0.013) 0.050 (0.006)*** 0.177 (0.035)*** No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Control Group Mean, Cols. 2-3 0.829 0.023 0.253 Notes: */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Each cell reports the coefficient from a regression of the given dependent variable listed in the first column on an indicator for whether the village is a Transmigration settlement. Column 1 comprises all Outer Islands villages (with non-missing data). Column 2 restricts to our quasi-experimental design including only Transmigration and control/RDA sites and conditions on the predetermined village-level characteristics that determined site selection. Column 3 is a control function specification based on a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition akin to a reweighting approach as derived in Kline (2011). All specifications include island fixed effects. Regressions include as many as 31,185 villages in column 1, and 832 treated villages and 668 controls in columns 2 and 3. Standard errors are clustered by district, of which there are 94. The final column contains the mean of the control villages in columns 2 and 3. The “intermarriage rate” measure captures the share of marriages that are between Inner and Outer Island ethnicities. The marriage rates are restricted to those younger cohorts for whom the marriage likely took place after the initial wave of resettlement in that area (see Section 4.2 for details). See Figure 4 for individual-level, age-specific estimates of the ATT. The “adjusted intermarriage rate” divides the actual intermarriage rate by the average intermarriage rate based on 10,000 simulated random matches in the village marriage market. This serves to adjust the rate of interethnic marriage by the opportunity for such marriages to take place, which is naturally higher in Transmigration villages given the large effects on diversity reported in Table 3. As discussed in the paper, we find similar insights when including (polynomials of) this measure of random intermarriage rates on the right-hand-side as a “bad control.” Table 5: Effects of the Transmigration Program on National Language Use at Home Dep. Var.: P(Daily . . . Language Use) Indonesian Inner Island Outer Island (1) (2) (3) 1. Baseline ATT 0.250 (0.126)** -0.002 (0.068) -0.248 (0.162) 2,878 0.122 2,878 0.073 2,878 0.805 2. Conditional on age, gender, education 0.256 (0.118)** -0.005 (0.070) -0.252 (0.159) 3. Individuals aged ≤ 40 0.249 (0.125)** 0.011 (0.070) -0.260 (0.155)* 4. Conditional on age, gender, education, occupation 0.245 (0.127)* -0.002 (0.068) -0.243 (0.162) 5. Conditional on log household expenditures/capita 0.250 (0.127)** 0.000 (0.068) -0.250 (0.164) 6. Conditional on Malay indigenous language 0.248 (0.131)* -0.003 (0.070) -0.244 (0.165) 7. Conditional on indigenous language distance to Malay 0.243 (0.123)** -0.011 (0.071) -0.231 (0.158) 0.006 (0.136) -0.088 (0.083) 0.082 (0.155) Number of Individuals Control Group Mean 8. Conditional on quadratic Inner Island ethnic share Notes: Each cell corresponds to a separate individual-level, linear probability regression for the ATT of living in a village within 10 km of a Transmigration site (including those sites). The control group includes all individuals within 10 km of a control/RDA site. There are 134 villages in the treated areas, and 47 villages in the control areas. The dependent variables, which are mutually exhaustive, are indicators for whether or not the individual household head reports in column (1) the national language Bahasa Indonesia, (2) an Inner Island language, or (3) an Outer Island language as the primary daily language. All regressions are based on the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition approach of Kline (2011). The data come from the 2006 Susenas household survey. Row (2) controls for household head gender, age, age squared, and an exhaustive set of indicators for education level; (3) restricts to individuals less than 40 years old; (4) augments the row 3 specification with an exhaustive set of indicators for occupation; (5) controls for log household expenditures per capita; (6) includes an indicator for whether the villages lies within the ethnolinguistic homeland of the Malay (the root language of Indonesian); (7) controls for distance of the given ethnolinguistic homeland to Malay using the metric suggested in Fearon (2003) and developed in the Indonesian data based on the procedures detailed in the Online Appendix of Bazzi et al. (2016); and (8) controls for the Inner Island ethnic share and its square. Standard errors are clustered by district, of which there are 63. */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 6: Ethnic Diversity, Segregation, and National Language Use At Home in Transmigration Villages 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) 0.665 (0.284)** -0.854 (0.312)*** 1.388 (0.355)*** -1.572 (0.363)*** 1.544 (0.347)*** -1.814 (0.404)*** 0.390 [0.012]** 0.441 [< 0.01]*** 0.425 [< 0.01]*** Inner Island ethnic share, bottom tercile 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) 0.066 (0.058) 0.203 (0.059)*** -0.031 (0.050) 0.246 (0.080)*** -0.016 (0.070) 0.247 (0.103)** -0.079 (0.024)*** 2,126 0.25 – – – – – – 2,126 0.25 7.8 17.8 28.8 [< 0.01] [0.44] – 2,126 0.25 8.1 24.7 27.2 [< 0.01] [0.42] – -0.035 (0.021)* 2,126 0.25 – – – – – [0.74] 2,126 0.25 13.8 4.9 15.1 [< 0.01] [0.52] – 2,126 0.25 15.7 4.6 13.3 [< 0.01] [0.43] – Notes: This table is restricted to the 134 villages in the treated areas from Table 5. The instrumental variables for the endogenous variables—E1 for the linear or bottom tercile Inner Island ethnic share and E2 for the quadratic or middle tercile Inner Island share—in columns 2–3 and 5–6 are dummies for 30 equally sized bins of the number of initial transmigrants within 10 km of the given village. The ethnic “residential segregation (inner, outer)” is the same one used in Table 3 but normalized to have mean zero and standard deviation one. 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, (ii) the Hansen J test is that the instruments are uncorrelated with the error term and correctly excluded from the second stage, and (iii) the Lochner and Moretti (2015) test is that the OLS estimates of the discrete terciles are consistent (which is similar in spirit to a Hausman test). The p-values for the inverted U turning points in columns 1 and 2 are based on the exact test of Lind and Mehlum (2010). Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district, of which there are 50. */**/*** denotes significant at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels.