Skip to main content
Log in

Individualism and racial tolerance

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores how cultural values associated with individualism versus collectivism affect attitudes toward racial tolerance. Individualism refers to social norms and cultural values that support individual rights and self-determination. Therefore, individualism is inherently egalitarian and should transcend racial identities, fostering attitudes of racial tolerance. To empirically examine the correlation between values associated with individualism and attitudes favoring racial tolerance, individual-level data from the Integrated Values Surveys is collected across multiple countries and over a span of time (1981–2021). The results indicate a positive association between individualism and racially tolerant attitudes. Furthermore, this conclusion remains robust after controlling for demographic and socio-economic variables such as income, education, religious affiliation and attendance, social trust, as well as country and time fixed effects. The within-country analysis enables the isolation of the impact of individualism from other potential confounding factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a summary of public choice literature on anti-discriminatory theory, see Magness (2020).

  2. Berggren and Nilsson (2015) find that globalization fosters general social tolerance.

  3. Related, Enlightenment ideals also argued that when you trade with other people you become more tolerant of their differences because mutual understanding increases with greater contact. Tolerance is in most people’s individual self-interest because the truly intolerant forgo economic benefits. As commerce increases, discrimination and prejudice should diminish.

  4. Norris (2002) argues that this question is more akin to measuring racial prejudice.

  5. Based on author’s cross-country calculations from the Integrated Values Survey (1981–2021).

  6. Davis and Williamson (2020) also drop this question from their individualism index.

  7. Results are unchanged if income is included as a set of dummy variables. Results are available upon request.

  8. The education coefficients are significantly different from each other. This suggests that the response is nonlinear in education.

  9. An urbanized area is defined as a population greater than 50,000 by the U.S. Census Bureau.

  10. Selection of included demographic control variables is based on data availability and the effect on sample size.

  11. Results for religious dummy variable affiliations are not reported in the table to save space but are available upon request.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. (2005). Identity and the economics of organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2014). Family ties. In A. Philippe & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (pp. 177–215). North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., & Yang, C. S. (2018). Racial bias in bail decisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1885–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., & Hull, P. (2022). Measuring racial discrimination in bail decisions. American Economic Review, 112(9), 2992–3038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination (2nd ed.). Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Elinder, M. (2012a). Is tolerance good or bad for growth? Public Choice, 150(1), 283–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Elinder, M. (2012b). Tolerance and growth: Modeling the empirical relationship. Public Choice, 153(3), 495–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2013). Does economic freedom foster tolerance? Kyklos, 66(2), 177–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2014). Market institutions bring tolerance, especially where there is social trust. Applied Economics Letters, 21(17), 1234–1237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2015). Globalization and the transmission of social values: The case of tolerance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(2), 371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2016). Tolerance in the United States: Does economic freedom transform racial, religious, political and sexual attitudes? European Journal of Political Economy, 45(December), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., Bjørnskov, C., & Nilsson, T. (2017). What aspects of society matter for the quality of life of a minority? Global evidence from the new gay happiness index. Social Indicators Research, 132(3), 1163–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., Bjørnskov, C., & Nilsson, T. (2018). Do Equal rights for a minority affect general life satisfaction? Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(5), 1465–1483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., Ljunge, M., & Nilsson, T. (2019). Roots of tolerance among second-generation immigrants. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(6), 999–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettendorf, L., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2010). Religion and income: Heterogeneity between countries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74(1–2), 12–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, H. A., Collins, M. C., & Cyree, K. B. (1997). Do black-owned banks discriminate against black borrowers? Journal of Financial Services Research, 11(1), 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, H. A., Robinson, B. L., & Schweitzer, R. L. (2001). Do lenders discriminate against low-income borrowers? The Review of Black Political Economy, 28(4), 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borowczyk-Martins, D., Bradley, J., & Tarasonis, L. (2017). Racial discrimination in the U.S. labor market: Employment and wage differentials by skill. Labour Economics, 49, 106–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cline, B. N., & Williamson, C. R. (2017). Individualism, democracy, and contract enforcement. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 284–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cline, B. N., Williamson, C. R., & Xiong, H. (2021). Culture and the regulation of insider trading across countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 67, 101917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (2009). A Theory of Tolerance. Journal of Public Economics, 93(5–6), 691–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, J., DiRienzo, C., & Tiemann, T. (2008). A global tolerance index. Competitiveness Review, 18(3), 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2016). Individual responsibility and economic development: Evidence from rainfall data. Kyklos, 69(3), 426–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. (2021). On the origin of religious values: Does Italian weather affect individualism in Bolivia? Journal of Economics, Management and Religion, 2(02), 2150007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. S., & Abdurazokzoda, F. (2016). Language, culture and institutions: Evidence from a new linguistic dataset. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(3), 541–561.

  • Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2016). Culture and the regulation of entry. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(4), 1055–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., & Williamson, C. R. (2018). Open borders for business? Causes and consequences of the regulation of foreign entry. Southern Economic Journal, 85(2), 508–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2019). Does individualism promote gender equality? World Development, 123, 104627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2020). Cultural roots of family ties. Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(6), 785–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2022). Individualism and women’s economic rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 198, 579–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., & Wu, S. (2020). The taste for status in international comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(6), 2237–2256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, N., Giddings, L., & Sobel, R. S. (2022). Does trust always help gender role attitudes? The role of individualism and collectivism. Social Indicators Research, 159(1), 379–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2019). An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force. Journal of Political Economy, 127(3), 1210–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gani, A. (2016). Measures of tolerance and economic prosperity. International Journal of Social Economics, 43(1), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. (2005). The political economy of hatred. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 45–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2011). Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth? American Economic Review, 101(3), 492–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2012). Understanding the individualism-collectivism cleavage and its effects: Lessons from cultural psychology. In M. T. Aoki & G. R. Kuran (Eds.), Institutions and comparative economic development. Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2017). Culture, institutions, and the wealth of nations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3), 402–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2021). Culture, institutions and democratization. Public Choice, 187(1), 165–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & B. Puranen (Eds.). (2021). World Values Survey Time-Series (1981–2020) Cross-National Data-Set. Madrid, Spain and Vienna, Austria: J.D. Systems Institute and WVSA Secretariat. Data File Version 2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.15

  • Heine, S. J. (2010). Cultural psychology. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 254–266). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, M., & Sloan, C. (2022). Does race matter for police use of force? Evidence from 911 calls. American Economic Review, 112(3), 827–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. F., Borinskaya, S., Cotter, A., Harro, J., Inglehart, R., Ponarin, E., & Welzel, C. (2013). Genes, security, tolerance and happiness. Working Paper No. BRP 31/SOC. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow.

  • Jha, C. K., Joshi, S., & Kabiraj, S. (2023). Racial Attitudes and behaviors and economic growth. Working Paper.

  • Johansson, A., Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2022). Intolerance predicts climate skepticism. Energy Economics, 105, 105719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn–Lang, A. (2018). Missing black men? The impact of under-reporting on estimates of black male labor market outcomes (Unpublished).

  • Ladd, H. F. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in mortgage lending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, K., & Kahn-Lang Spitzer, A. (2020). Race discrimination: An economic perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 68–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, C. W. (2002). Democracys dilemma: Explaining racial inequality in egalitarian societies. Sociological forum (Vol. 17, pp. 681–696). Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 659–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (2005). Second treatise of government (10th ed). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved 28 Nov 2018.

  • Magness, P. W. (2020). The anti-discriminatory tradition in Virginia school public choice theory. Public Choice, 183(3), 417–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mocan, N., & Raschke, C. (2016). Economic well-being and anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and racist attitudes in Germany. European Journal of Law and Economics, 41(1), 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma. The Negro problem and democracy. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaev, B., & Salahodjaev, R. (2017). Historical prevalence of infectious diseases, cultural values, and the origins of economic institutions. Kyklos, 70(1), 97–128.

  • Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Peri, G. (2006). The economic value of cultural diversity: Evidence from U.S. cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(1), 9–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitlik, H., & Rode, M. (2017). Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(3), 575–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, H. (2013). Diversity versus tolerance: The social drivers of innovation and entrepreneurship in U.S. cities. Urban Studies, 50(13), 2718–2735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In K. Uichol, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabellini, G. (2008). Institutions and culture. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2–3), 255–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabellini, G. (2010). Culture and institutions: Economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2022). Historical lynchings and the contemporary voting behavior of Blacks. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(3), 224–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. R., & Kerekes, C. B. (2011). Securing private property: Formal versus informal institutions. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(3), 537–572.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the editors, including the guest editors of this special issue, and referees for valuable comments and suggestions. I also thank participants at the 2022 Dr. Harold A. Black Academic Conference, including Dr. Harold A. Black. There is no funding information to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Williamson Kramer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Data description

Appendix 1 Data description

Variables

WVS description

Dependent variables

Racial tolerance

Equal to one if respondent did not indicate that people of a different race is a group of people they do not want as neighbors. Data are standardized

Muslim tolerance

Equal to one if respondent did not indicate that Muslim people group they do not want as neighbors. Data are standardized

Jewish tolerance

Equal to one if respondent did not indicate that Jewish people is a group they do not want as neighbors. Data are standardized

Immigrant tolerance

Equal to one if respondent did not indicate that immigrants/foreign workers is a group of people they do not want as neighbors. Data are standardized

Individualism measures

Private ownership

Coded from 1 to 10 where 10 indicates completely agree that private ownership of business and industry should be increased versus government ownership of business and industry should be increased. Data are standardized

Competition good

Coded from 1 to 10 where 10 indicates completely agree that competition is good versus competition is bad. Data are standardized

Free choice control

Coded from 1 to 10 where 10 indicates a great deal of free choice and control over life versus feeling no control at all to what happens to them. Data are standardized

Justifiable: Homosexuality

Coded from 1 (never justifiable) to 10 (always justifiable): homosexuality is justifiable. Data are standardized

Justifiable: Abortion

Coded from 1 (never justifiable) to 10 (always justifiable): abortion is justifiable. Data are standardized

Obedience

Dummy variable = 1 if obedience is an important quality that children can be encouraged to learn at home. Data are standardized

Tolerance and respect

Dummy variable = 1 if tolerance and respect for other people is an important quality that children can be encouraged to learn at home. Data are standardized

Individualism indices

Individualism BMH index

Index created by extracting the first principal component from four individualism questions: (1) private ownership, (2) make parents proud, (3) homosexuality justifiable, (4) abortion justifiable. A higher score reflects a greater level of individualism. Index is standardized

Economic individualism index

Index created by extracting the first principal component from three economic individualism questions: (1) private ownership, (2) competition good, (3) free choice and control. A higher score reflects a greater level of individualism. Index is standardized

Social individualism index

Index created by extracting the first principal component from four social individualism questions: (1) homosexuality justifiable, (2) abortion justifiable, (3) obedience, (4) tolerance and respect. A higher score reflects a greater level of individualism. Index is standardized

Individualism index

Index created by extracting the first principal component from the three economic and the four social individualism questions: (1) private ownership, (2) competition good, (3) free choice and control, (4) homosexuality justifiable, (5) abortion justifiable, (6) obedience, (7) tolerance and respect. A higher score reflects a greater level of individualism. Index is standardized

Demographic controls

Age

Equal to age of respondent

Age2

Equal to age squared

Female

Dummy variable = 1 if female

Married

Dummy variable = 1 if married

Income

Income scales coded as a variable going from one to eleven, where one indicates the lower step in the scale and eleven the highest step in income scale

Education

Dummy variables = 1 for low, middle, and upper, respectively. Low education is excluded group

Employed

Dummy variable = 1 if respondent indicated her employment status as full-time employed, part-time employed, or self-employed

Urban

Dummy variable = 1 if town size is 50,000 or greater

Social Class

Dummy variables = 1 for five subjective social class categories, lower class, working class, lower middle class, upper middle class, and upper class, respectively. Lower class is excluded group

Social controls

Trust

Dummy variable = 1 if answered yes to the question most people can be trusted

Trust other nationality

Dummy variable = to 1 if answered trust completely or trust a little to the question how much do you trust people of another nationality

Religious attendance

Coded from 1 (never) to 8 (more than once a week) to the question: How often do you attend religious services? Higher score reflects more religious service attendance

Religious denomination dummies

Dummy variables = 1 if individual belongs to major religious denomination: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Other Christian, or Other, respectively. Do not belong is excluded group

National pride

Dummy variable = 1 if respondent is very proud or proud to be of nationality of their country

Job preference nationals

Dummy variable = 1 if agree that when jobs are scarce employers should give priority to nation people than immigrants

Men better leaders

Dummy variable = 1 if agree or strongly agree that "On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do"

Political ideology

Coded from 1 to 10 to the question: How would you place your views on this scale, left (1) to right (10)? Higher score represents more right leaning ideology

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kramer, C.W. Individualism and racial tolerance. Public Choice 197, 347–370 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01079-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01079-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation