How Intergroup Contact Can Foster Nation Building Figures

Figures Figure 1: Map of Transmigration Villages Outer Islands Inner Islands Notes: Each colored location on the map corresponds to a Transmigration village settled between 1979 and 1988. The white areas outlined in grey are other villages. Figure 2: Transmigration Generated a Persistent Continuum of Diverse Communities Notes: This figure plots the kernel density of ethnic fractionalization in 2000 for Transmigration villages and nonTransmigration villages greater than 30 kilometers from the boundaries of Transmigration villages. For both densities, we employ an Epanechnikov kernels and rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Figure 3: Initial Transmigrant Assignment and Long-Run Inner-Island Ethnic Share Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric Robinson (1988) regression and 95 confidence interval of the Inner-Island ethnic share in 2000 (based on the Population Census) on the log of the transmigrant population from Java/Bali placed in that village in the initial year of settlement. The local linear regression is conditional on island fixed effects and the vector x of predetermined site selection variables described in the paper, and it is estimated based on an Epanechnikov kernel, Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth, and trimming of the top 5th and bottom 1st percentile for presentational purposes. This provides a semiparametric view of the first stage of our main IV specification. Figure 4: Initial Transmigrant Assignment Uncorrelated with Proxies for Sorting (a) Linguistic Similarity with Natives (ex ante) (b) Post-Program Immigration Share (ex post) Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric Robinson (1988) regression and 95 confidence intervals of the Inner-Island ethnic share in 2000 (based on the Population Census) on (a) the linguistic similarity between the Inner-Island ethnic population and the indigenous Outer-Island group according to the Ethnologue and World Language Mapping System, and (b) the share of the population that immigrated to the village between 1995 and 2000. We use a local linear regression with 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 percentiles for presentational purposes. Figure 5: Ethnic Diversity and National Language Use at Home Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric Robinson (1988) OLS estimate and 95 percent confidence interval for the effect of ethnic diversity (Inner-Island ethnic share) on the likelihood of reporting the national language, Bahasa Indonesia, as the primary language used at home as reported by household heads in the 2006 Susenas data. The sample includes all individuals within 10 km of Transmigration villages including those villages. These estimates condition on island fixed effects, the x vector of predetermined village-level controls, and individual-level controls for age, age squared, gender, and education. The estimates are based on an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Standard errors are clustered by village, of which there are 135. The Härdle and Mammen (1993) test rejects the null of a linear shape with a p-value of 0.002 and fails to reject the null of a quadratic parametric shape with a p-value of 0.21. Figure 6: Reduced Form: Initial Transmigrant Assignment and National Language Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric (Robinson, 1988) estimate of the reduced form effects of the initial number of transmigrants (the instrument in Table 2) on the likelihood of reporting the national language as the primary one used at home. The estimate is otherwise based on the same specification as Figure 5. See the notes to that figure for further details. Figure 7: Ethnic versus National Language Use, by Group (a) Outer-Island Ethnic Groups (b) Inner-Island Ethnic Groups Notes: These figures report Inner- and Outer-Island group-specific semiparametric Robinson (1988) estimates of the effect 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 as reported by the household in 2006 Susenas data for villages within 10 km of Transmigration villages.. Panel (a) is estimated over all individuals belonging to Outer-Island ethnic groups, and Panel (b) is estimated over all those belonging to Inner-Island ethnic groups. The specifications are analogous to those in Figure 5 for the full population and are based on the 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. Standard errors are clustered at the village level. The Härdle and Mammen (1993) test fails to reject the null of a linear relationship with national language use with p-values of 0.12 and 0.11 in panels (a) and (b), respectively. For the other group’s language, threshold regression tests identify inflection points at 0.487 Inner-Island ethnic share in the second figure in panel (a) and 0.360 Inner-Island ethnic share in the third figure in panel (b) with significantly different slopes above and below those thresholds Figure 8: Ethnic Diversity and Intermarriage Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric Robinson (1988) OLS estimate and 95 percent confidence interval for the effect of ethnic diversity (Inner-Island ethnic share) on the overall share of young cohort marriages that occur between Inner and Outer Islanders. We define the younger generation as those individuals who were under 16 years of age during the period of settlement in the 1980s, but results are unchanged using other cutoffs. The regressions include 832 Transmigration villages and condition on island fixed effects and the x vector of predetermined village-level controls. The estimates are based on an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Standard errors are clustered by district. Figure 9: Ethnic Diversity and Indonesian Mother Tongue among Children Notes: This figure reports a semiparametric Robinson (1988) OLS estimate and 95 percent confidence interval for the effect of ethnic diversity (Inner-Island ethnic share) on the Indonesian identity as reflected in reported mother tongue among children of household heads in the Supas data. The regressions condition on island fixed effects and the x vector of predetermined village-level controls plus individual-level controls for age and years of education fixed effects. Full details on the sample are provided in the notes to Table 7. The estimates are based on an Epanechnikov kernel and Fan and Gijbels (1996) rule-of-thumb bandwidth. Standard errors are clustered by district. Tables Table 1: National Identity Formation through Language Use at Home Dependent Variable as Adult in 2014: Speaks Changes In Trust Indonesian Ethnicity Interethnic Other Ethnic at Home from 1997 Marriage Groups (z-score) (1) (2) (3) (4) Panel A: Baseline Indonesian was Primary Language at Home as Child in 1997 0.156 (0.022)*** 0.062 (0.019)*** 0.053 (0.023)** 0.148 (0.054)*** Panel B: Adding Parental Intermarriage Indonesian was Primary Language at Home as Child in 1997 Parents from Different Ethnic Groups 0.151 (0.022)*** 0.053 (0.021)** 0.045 (0.019)** 0.177 (0.030)*** 0.046 (0.023)** 0.092 (0.031)*** 0.131 (0.054)** 0.160 (0.055)*** Number of Individuals Dependent Variable Mean Age, Gender, Education Fixed Effects Village Fixed Effects 8,623 0.369 Yes Yes 6,594 0.114 Yes Yes 5,628 0.103 Yes Yes 8,236 0.00 Yes Yes Notes: This table reports estimates of the correlation between parental daily Indonesian language use at home as a child in 1997 and the given column’s dependent variable for individuals in the 2014 round of the Indonesia Family Life Survey. Panel B augments the baseline specification with a control for whether the child’s parents hail from different ethnic groups. The sample is restricted to all individuals greater than 15 years old who live in a different household in 2014 compared to 1997. The dependent variables include in column (1) an indicator for whether the individual used the Indonesian language at home on a regular basis in 2014, (2) an indicator for whether the individual switched his/her reported ethnicity between 1997 and 2014, (3) an indicator for whether a married individual is in an interethnic marriage in 2014, (4) 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. 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 columns. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent level. Table 2: Ethnic Diversity and National Language Use At Home Dependent Variable: Indonesian is Main Language at Home OLS IV OLS IV (1) (2) (3) (4) Inner-Island ethnic share Inner-Island ethnic share squared 0.665 (0.284)** -0.854 (0.312)*** 0.845 (0.379)** -0.927 (0.382)** Inner-Island ethnic share, bottom tercile Inner-Island ethnic share, middle tercile Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Sanderson-Windmeijer E1 p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer E2 p-value Hansen J test p-value 0.390 [0.012]** 0.456 [0.015]** 2,126 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.066 (0.058) 0.203 (0.059)*** -0.042 (0.067) 0.187 (0.110)* 2,126 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.206 Notes: This table reports estimates of the effect of ethnic diversity—captured by the Inner-Island ethnic share—on national language use at home in 135 villages in the 2006 Susenas survey within 10 kilometers of Transmigration villages, including those villages. The mean of the dependent variable is 0.25 across all columns. 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 and 4 are dummies for 20 equally sized bins (i.e., ventiles) of the number of initial transmigrants settled within 10 km of the given village. Each regression controls for (i) predetermined village characteristics, xv , used in selecting village locations and determining carrying capacity as detailed in the text, and (ii) individual-level controls, xi , for the household head’s age, age squared, dummies for education level and gender. The IV regressions are estimated by generalized method of moments to account for the many instruments. The null hypotheses of (i) the Sampson-Windmeijer test is that the instruments for the given endogenous variable are weak, and (ii) the Hansen J test is that the instruments are uncorrelated with the error term and correctly excluded from the second stage. 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 significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 3: Robustness Checks on Ethnic Diversity and National Language Use At Home Column 2 Table 2 (1) Inner-Island ethnic share Inner-Island ethnic share squared Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Sanderson-Windmeijer Linear p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Quadratic p-value Hansen J test p-value Baseline x Controls + Ethnic + Occupation Homeland FE FE (2) (3) Village Controls (4) Excluding Individual Controls (5) All x Controls (6) Dropping Villages w/ High Recent Squiggly Immigration Borders (7) (8) 0.845 (0.379)** -0.927 (0.382)** 0.765 (0.373)** -0.815 (0.384)** 1.103 (0.202)*** -1.409 (0.268)*** 1.166 (0.542)** -1.417 (0.503)*** 0.829 (0.350)** -0.927 (0.353)** 1.257 (0.554)** -1.590 (0.494)*** 1.396 (0.635)** -1.386 (0.611)** 0.862 (0.369)** -0.958 (0.407)** 0.456 [0.015]⇤⇤ 0.391 [0.000]⇤⇤⇤ 0.469 [0.024]⇤⇤ 0.412 [0.018]⇤⇤ 0.447 [0.011]⇤⇤ 0.395 [0.014]⇤⇤ 0.504 [0.017]⇤⇤ 0.450 [0.016]⇤⇤ 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.161 2,078 0.000 0.000 0.279 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.167 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.130 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.132 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.111 1,823 0.000 0.000 0.344 1,902 0.000 0.000 0.134 Notes: This table reports robustness checks on the baseline IV result in column 2 of Table 2, reproduced in column 1 here for reference. The mean of the dependent variable is 0.25 across all columns. Column 2 adds dummy variables for the indigenous ethnolinguistic homeland in the given village as reported in the Ethnologue and World Language Mapping Survey data, which is missing for three villages. Column 3 adds 18 exhaustive dummy variables for occupation of the household head. Column 4 removes the village-level controls, xv , column 5 removes the individual-level controls, xi , and column 6 removes all controls. Column 7 drops the top 10th percentile of villages in terms of the share of the population that migrated to the village between 1995 and 2000. Column 8 drops the top 10th percentile of villages in terms of the fractal dimension of the village boundary as a proxy for the potential endogeneity of borders. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district, of which there are 50. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 4: Further Robustness Checks on Sorting Using Auxiliary Survey Data (1) Sample Restrictions Inner-Island ethnic share Inner-Island ethnic share squared Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Dependent Variable Mean Sanderson-Windmeijer Linear p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Quadratic p-value Anderson-Rubin Weak IV Robust p-value Dependent Variable: Indonesian is Main Language at Home (2) (3) (4) (5) None Excl. Faraway APDDT Immigrants Only Initial Period Immigrants HH Head Not Intermarried HH Heads Not Indonesian Mother Tongue 1.519 (0.395)*** -1.523 (0.431)*** 1.328 (0.394)*** -1.334 (0.430)*** 1.331 (0.423)*** -1.366 (0.460)*** 1.586 (0.378)*** -1.594 (0.423)*** 0.659 (0.192)*** -0.601 (0.222)*** 0.499 [0.001]*** 0.498 [0.003]*** 0.487 [0.004]*** 0.498 [0.001]*** 0.548 [0.021]** 28,532 0.159 0.073 0.091 0.004 24,595 0.139 0.067 0.088 0.004 17,175 0.130 0.076 0.041 0.020 25,509 0.126 0.068 0.110 0.000 25,313 0.081 0.067 0.064 0.005 Notes: This table reports estimates of the relationship between the Inner-Island ethnic share and national language use at home in the auxiliary 1995 Supas survey data. Because the data are prior to the 2000 Population Census, we construct a measure of the Inner-Island ethnic share based solely on the 2000 population that did not live elsewhere in 1995. As in the main Susenas-based regressions, we include all villages within 10 km of a Transmigration village, and the instrumental variables are ventiles of the number of initial transmigrants within 10 km of the given village. The regressions condition on the x vector of predetermined village-level controls plus individual-level controls for age fixed effects, years of education fixed effects, gender dummy, and relationship to household head fixed effects. Column 1 is the baseline with no sample restrictions. Column 2 drops all non-Inner-Island ethnics born outside the district of the given village, i.e., those native Outer Islanders that migrated from far distances. Column 3 drops all individuals who migrated to the village more than 3 years after the initial year of settlement. Column 4 drops all individuals residing in households where the head is married to someone with a different mother tongue. Column 5 drops all individuals who reside in households where the head and spouse report Indonesian as the mother tongue. The p-values for the inverted-U turning points are based on the exact test of Lind and Mehlum (2010). Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 5: Identifying Conditions That Facilitate Integration Mechanisms Spatial Inner-Island ethnic share squared isolation index (Inner, Outer) Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Sanderson-Windmeijer Linear p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Quadratic p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Isolation p-value Hansen J test p-value Economic distance to major historical roads low high (2) (3) majority group ethnic fractionalization low high (4) (5) linguistic similarity w/ native homeland low high (6) (7) 1.421 (0.552)** -1.559 (0.583)** -0.056 (0.032)* 0.238 (0.794) -0.605 (0.797) 1.366 (0.197)*** -1.584 (0.186)*** 0.350 (0.469) -0.571 (0.555) 1.690 (0.544)*** -1.367 (0.459)*** 0.774 (0.337)** -0.796 (0.381)** 0.456 [0.007]⇤⇤⇤ 0.197 [0.383] 0.431 [0.000]⇤⇤⇤ 0.307 [0.230] 0.618 [0.010]⇤⇤ 0.486 [0.034]⇤⇤ 2,126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.152 1,070 0.000 0.000 1,056 0.000 0.000 1,072 0.000 0.000 1,054 0.000 0.000 1,137 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.221 0.214 0.068 0.501 (1) Inner-Island ethnic share Social 0.067 (0.142) 0.032 (0.149) agroclimatic similarity low high (8) (9) 1.543 (0.687)** -1.373 (0.736)* -0.755 (0.146)*** 0.597 (0.171)*** 0.562 [0.073]⇤ 0.633 (U) [0.037]⇤⇤ 814 0.000 0.000 1,023 0.000 0.000 992 0.000 0.000 0.565 0.415 0.578 Notes: This table explores mechanisms underlying the baseline IV result on national language use at home from column 2 in Table 2. Column 1 adds a variable capturing ethnic residential segregation across Census blocks within villages. This isolation index is normalized to have mean zero and standard deviation one. This specification also dummies out the four villages with zero Inner-Island ethnic share and define their isolation index to equal zero. This overall isolation index is instrumented using the isolation index among the older generation of initial Columns 2–9 estimate separate regressions for villages with the given variable below (low) and above (high) the median in even and odd columns, respectively. Columns 2–3 split by proximity to the nearest historical (i.e., early 20th century) road. Columns 4–5 split by the agroclimatic similarity among the Java/Bali-born migrants, capturing the similarity in agroclimatic conditions between origin and destination (see Appendix D). Columns 6–7 split by the linguistic similarity between the Inner-Island ethnics’ languages and the language of the local indigenous group (see notes to Figure 4 on this variable). Columns 8–9 split by the ethnic fractionalization among the Inner or Outer Islanders depending on which of the two broad groups comprises the majority in the village. See the notes to Table 2 for details on the reported instrument and turning point diagnostics. Note that the turning point is for a U rather than inverted-U shape in column 5 and falls outside the unit interval in 7 and hence is not computed. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 6: Regional Ethnopolitical Balance and Integration Sample Restriction Median Sample Splitting by Size of Largest Outer-Island Group. . . Within Subdistrict Within District Within Province low high low high low high (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Inner-Island ethnic share -0.446 (0.376) -0.103 (0.382) Inner-Island ethnic share squared Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Sanderson-Windmeijer Linear p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Quadratic p-value Hansen J test p-val 1.172 (0.327)*** -1.341 (0.329)*** -0.593 (0.273)** -0.087 (0.291) 0.437 [0.000]*** 1,072 0.000 0.000 0.158 1,054 0.000 0.000 0.223 1,071 0.000 0.000 0.411 1.306 (0.228)*** -1.233 (0.324)*** 0.869 (0.440)* -1.213 (0.479)** 0.850 (0.198)*** -0.846 (0.268)*** 0.530 [0.007]*** 0.358 [0.029]** 0.502 [0.014]** 1,055 0.000 0.000 0.481 1,071 0.000 0.000 0.567 1,055 0.000 0.000 0.294 Notes: This table explores an additional political economy mechanism underlying the baseline IV result from column 2 in Table 2. Each pair of columns splits the sample by whether the given village’s largest Outer-Island ethnic group constitutes a share of the Outer-Island population in the given region—province, district, or subdistrict—that is above (high) or below (low) the median in the sample. For example, the village of Sanuanggamo has 54 percent Inner-Island ethnic share and 39 percent Tolaki, an Outer-Island ethnic group native to Southeast Sulawesi, in a district where Tolaki comprise 65 percent of the population. In this village, the largest Outer-Island group has an above median representation at the district level in column 4. Such measures are computed for all administrative levels. Note, though, that ethnicity is a key mobilizing force at the district and subdistrict levels where contestable resources are often at the discretion of officials elected or appointed through majority voting schemes. The province is not a relevant political unit in the post-1998 era. See the notes to Table 2 for details on the reported instrument and turning point diagnostics. Note that the turning point falls outside the unit interval in 1 and 3 and hence is not computed. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 7: Ethnic Diversity and Intergenerational Transmission of National Identity Dependent Variable: Indonesian is Child’s . . . Main Language Reported Mother Tongue at Home (1) (2) (3) (4) Inner-Island ethnic share Inner-Island ethnic share squared 1.709 (0.489)*** -1.713 (0.534)*** 2.269 (0.529)*** -2.316 (0.559)*** parents intermarried 2.023 (0.530)*** -2.043 (0.564)*** 0.197 (0.038)*** father has Indonesian mother tongue mother has Indonesian mother tongue Turning point p-value Number of Individuals Sanderson-Windmeijer Linear p-value Sanderson-Windmeijer Quadratic p-value Anderson-Rubin Weak IV Robust p-value Hansen J test p-value 1.015 (0.332)*** -0.952 (0.350)*** (5) 0.390 (0.026)*** 0.466 (0.032)*** 0.844 (0.324)** -0.764 (0.345)** 0.147 (0.026)*** 0.384 (0.025)*** 0.460 (0.032)*** 0.499 [0.003]*** 0.490 [0.000]*** 0.495 [0.001]*** 0.533 [0.011]** 0.553 [0.037]** 12,579 0.087 0.082 0.004 0.535 12,579 0.087 0.082 0.001 0.517 12,579 0.090 0.085 0.001 0.513 12,579 0.125 0.109 0.012 0.544 12,579 0.127 0.111 0.005 0.469 Notes: This table reports the effects of village-level and intrahousehold ethnolinguistic diversity on children’s ethnolinguistic identity captured in column 1 by an indicator for whether the child reports Bahasa Indonesia as the main language used at home, and in columns 2–5 by an indicator for whether the child reports Bahasa Indonesia as their mother tongue. The mean in column 1 is 0.166 and in columns 2–5 is 0.158, but note that the latter group is not a strict subset of the former. Moreover, some children report an Indonesian mother tongue while their co-resident mother reports primarily speaking another language. We consider this more stringent test of national identity in Appendix Table A.3. We define children based on their relationship to the household head, and although this includes some co-resident adult children, 96 percent of the sample is less than age 25. We dummy out households where the spouse is not resident. These results are based on the 1995 Supas survey sample used in Table 4. As in the Susenas-based regressions, the instrumental variables are ventiles of the number of initial transmigrants within 10 km of the given village. The Inner-Island ethnic share is based on the 2000 Population Census as in other tables and figures but here restricted to those individuals residing in the village in 1995, which we compute using place of residence five years ago. The intermarried parents variable equals one if the household head and spouse reporting different ethnolinguistic identities (mother tongues). Each parent’s national language affinity is then allowed to have a different effect on their child’s reported mother tongue. Standard errors in all columns are clustered by district. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels. Table 8: Effects of the Transmigration Program on Nation Building ATT Estimate (1) Dependent Variable Indonesian Language Inner-Island Language Outer-Island Language Control Mean (2) Panel A: Primary Language at Home 0.250 (0.126)** -0.002 (0.068) -0.248 (0.162) 0.122 0.073 0.805 Panel B: Intermarriage marriage rate intermarriage rate (inner, outer) adjusted intermarriage rate (inner, outer) 0.019 (0.013) 0.050 (0.006)*** 0.177 (0.035)*** 0.830 0.023 0.253 Notes: Each cell in column 1 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 2 reports the mean outcome for control villages. Panel A is based on the 2006 Susenas survey, and Panel B on the 2000 Population Census. The sample size in panel A is 2,878 individuals comprising 134 villages within 10 km of a Transmigration village and 47 villages within 10 km of a control village, panel B is 1,500 villages comprising 832 Transmigration and 668 control villages. The marriage outcomes are restricted to individuals below an age that implies the marriage would likely have taken place after the initial period of settlement. The adjusted intermarriage rate divides the actual intermarriage by the rate determined by random matching. We estimate the ATT using 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 and the x vector of predetermined village-level controls. Standard errors are clustered by district across all specifications. */**/*** denotes significance at the 10/5/1 percent significance levels.