Table 3. Determinants of ethnic tolerance and participation (coefficients significant at a 5% level are given in bold)
|
_________________________________________________________Ethnic tolerance_________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
_______________England_______________ |
_____________Germany_____________ |
______________Sweden______________ | ||||||||||||||||
|
I |
I |
___________II |
I________ |
I |
I |
__________II |
I________ |
I |
I |
_________II |
I________ | |||||||
|
b |
SE |
b |
_ SE |
b |
SE |
b |
SE |
b |
SE |
b |
SE |
b |
SE |
b |
_ SE |
b |
SE | |
|
Heterogeneity* |
.79 |
.45 |
-.75 |
.47 |
-.73 |
.47 |
3.31 |
.39 |
1.92 |
.39 |
1.68 |
.41 |
2.04 |
.46 |
.90 |
.44 |
.96 |
.48 |
|
Class status________ |
-.17 |
.15 |
-.31 |
.16 |
-.26 |
.16 |
.31 |
.10 |
.10 |
.10 |
.09 |
.12 |
.09 |
.15 |
-.06 |
.16 |
-.09 |
.17 |
|
Class climate______ |
-.21 |
.11 |
-.29 |
.11 |
-.22 |
.11 |
.40 |
.09 |
.30 |
.09 |
.31 |
.09 |
.45 |
.08 |
.34 |
.08 |
.34 |
.09 |
|
Gender (girl = 0) |
-.60 |
.09 |
-.67 |
.09 |
-.49 |
.07 |
-.50 |
.07 |
-1.04 |
.08 |
-1.11 |
.09 | ||||||
|
Identity (maj = 0) |
1.53 |
.14 |
- |
- |
2.06 |
.14 |
1.60 |
.15 | ||||||||||
|
Social background |
.08 |
.03 |
.10 |
.04 |
-.02 |
.03 |
-.02 |
.03 |
.02 |
.04 |
.04 |
.04 | ||||||
|
Civic competence |
.01 |
.003 |
.01 |
.003 |
.02 |
.002 |
.02 |
.002 |
.02 |
.002 |
.02 |
.002 | ||||||
|
Expl var L1 (%) |
0 |
6.3 |
0 |
7.7 |
0 |
10.5 | ||||||||||||
|
Expl var L2 (%) |
9.8 |
2.4 |
43.7 |
43.7 |
45.3 |
61.7 | ||||||||||||
|
N__________ |
2752 |
2688 |
2348 |
3649 |
3564 |
3361 |
2984 |
2624 |
2353 | |||||||||
|
______________________________________________________________Participation______________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Heterogeneity* |
.31 |
.29 |
.04 |
.31 |
.47 |
.25 |
.39 |
.27 |
.66 |
.26 |
.79 |
.30 | ||||||
|
Class status________ |
.15 |
.10 |
.06 |
.11 |
.08 |
.06 |
-.04 |
.08 |
.07 |
.10 |
.09 |
.11 | ||||||
|
Class climate______ |
.09 |
.07 |
.09 |
.07 |
.09 |
.05 |
.08 |
.05 |
.06 |
.05 |
.04 |
.06 | ||||||
|
Gender (girl = 0) |
-.03 |
.08 |
.09 |
.07 |
-.05 |
.08 | ||||||||||||
|
Identity (maj = 0) |
.29 |
.13 |
.19 |
.14 |
.20 |
.15 | ||||||||||||
|
Social background |
.09 |
.03 |
.12 |
.03 |
.05 |
.04 | ||||||||||||
|
Civic competence |
.001 |
.002 |
.000 |
.002 |
.005 |
.002 | ||||||||||||
|
Expl var L1 (%) |
0 |
1.4 |
0 |
1.4 |
0 |
2.2 | ||||||||||||
|
Expl var L2 (%) |
16.5 |
12.7 |
15.2 |
1.5 |
18.7 |
40.2 | ||||||||||||
|
N__________ |
2651 |
2591 |
3506 |
3425 |
2778 |
2457 | ||||||||||||
* I conducted separate analyses for ethnic proportion and immigrants’ share using the same control variables. The effects of ethnic proportion on tolerance are
(shown only for Model III): England -.88 (.53); Germany 2.44 (.60); Sweden 1.64 (.59). The effects of immigrants’ share on ethnic tolerance are (Model III):
England .86 (1.35); Germany 1.23 (.44); Sweden 3.24 (.69). The effects of ethnic proportion on participation are (Model II): England .14 (.32); Germany .69
(.39); Sweden 1.16 (.35). The effects of immigrants’ share on participation are (Model II): England .55 (.39); Germany .70 (.27); Sweden .55 (.39).
25
More intriguing information
1. Bridging Micro- and Macro-Analyses of the EU Sugar Program: Methods and Insights2. The name is absent
3. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
4. The name is absent
5. Temporary Work in Turbulent Times: The Swedish Experience
6. Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations
7. Luce Irigaray and divine matter
8. DEVELOPING COLLABORATION IN RURAL POLICY: LESSONS FROM A STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
9. Spectral density bandwith choice and prewightening in the estimation of heteroskadasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrices in panel data models
10. The Employment Impact of Differences in Dmand and Production