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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a summary of public choice literature on anti-discriminatory theory, see Magness (2020).
Berggren and Nilsson (2015) find that globalization fosters general social tolerance.
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.
Norris (2002) argues that this question is more akin to measuring racial prejudice.
Based on author’s cross-country calculations from the Integrated Values Survey (1981–2021).
Davis and Williamson (2020) also drop this question from their individualism index.
Results are unchanged if income is included as a set of dummy variables. Results are available upon request.
The education coefficients are significantly different from each other. This suggests that the response is nonlinear in education.
An urbanized area is defined as a population greater than 50,000 by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Selection of included demographic control variables is based on data availability and the effect on sample size.
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.
Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2014). Family ties. In A. Philippe & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (pp. 177–215). North Holland.
Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., & Yang, C. S. (2018). Racial bias in bail decisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1885–1932.
Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., & Hull, P. (2022). Measuring racial discrimination in bail decisions. American Economic Review, 112(9), 2992–3038.
Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination (2nd ed.). Chicago University Press.
Berggren, N., & Elinder, M. (2012a). Is tolerance good or bad for growth? Public Choice, 150(1), 283–308.
Berggren, N., & Elinder, M. (2012b). Tolerance and growth: Modeling the empirical relationship. Public Choice, 153(3), 495–502.
Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2013). Does economic freedom foster tolerance? Kyklos, 66(2), 177–207.
Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2014). Market institutions bring tolerance, especially where there is social trust. Applied Economics Letters, 21(17), 1234–1237.
Berggren, N., & Nilsson, T. (2015). Globalization and the transmission of social values: The case of tolerance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(2), 371–389.
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.
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.
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.
Berggren, N., Ljunge, M., & Nilsson, T. (2019). Roots of tolerance among second-generation immigrants. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(6), 999–1016.
Bettendorf, L., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2010). Religion and income: Heterogeneity between countries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74(1–2), 12–29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cline, B. N., & Williamson, C. R. (2017). Individualism, democracy, and contract enforcement. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 284–306.
Cline, B. N., Williamson, C. R., & Xiong, H. (2021). Culture and the regulation of insider trading across countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 67, 101917.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (2009). A Theory of Tolerance. Journal of Public Economics, 93(5–6), 691–702.
Das, J., DiRienzo, C., & Tiemann, T. (2008). A global tolerance index. Competitiveness Review, 18(3), 192–205.
Davis, L. (2016). Individual responsibility and economic development: Evidence from rainfall data. Kyklos, 69(3), 426–470.
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.
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.
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.
Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2019). Does individualism promote gender equality? World Development, 123, 104627.
Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2020). Cultural roots of family ties. Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(6), 785–808.
Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2022). Individualism and women’s economic rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 198, 579–597.
Davis, L., & Wu, S. (2020). The taste for status in international comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(6), 2237–2256.
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.
Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2(1), 3–19.
Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2019). An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force. Journal of Political Economy, 127(3), 1210–1261.
Gani, A. (2016). Measures of tolerance and economic prosperity. International Journal of Social Economics, 43(1), 71–85.
Glaeser, E. (2005). The political economy of hatred. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 45–86.
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2011). Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth? American Economic Review, 101(3), 492–498.
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.
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2017). Culture, institutions, and the wealth of nations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3), 402–416.
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2021). Culture, institutions and democratization. Public Choice, 187(1), 165–195.
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.
Hoekstra, M., & Sloan, C. (2022). Does race matter for police use of force? Evidence from 911 calls. American Economic Review, 112(3), 827–860.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
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.
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.
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.
Lang, K., & Kahn-Lang Spitzer, A. (2020). Race discrimination: An economic perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 68–89.
Leach, C. W. (2002). Democracys dilemma: Explaining racial inequality in egalitarian societies. Sociological forum (Vol. 17, pp. 681–696). Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers.
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.
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.
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.
Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford University Press.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma. The Negro problem and democracy. Harper and Row.
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.
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.
Pitlik, H., & Rode, M. (2017). Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(3), 575–598.
Qian, H. (2013). Diversity versus tolerance: The social drivers of innovation and entrepreneurship in U.S. cities. Urban Studies, 50(13), 2718–2735.
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.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.
Tabellini, G. (2008). Institutions and culture. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2–3), 255–294.
Tabellini, G. (2010). Culture and institutions: Economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677–716.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.
Williams, J. (2022). Historical lynchings and the contemporary voting behavior of Blacks. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(3), 224–253.
Williamson, C. R., & Kerekes, C. B. (2011). Securing private property: Formal versus informal institutions. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(3), 537–572.
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
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01079-4