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. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Does Market Concentration Promote or Reduce New Product Introductions? Evidence from US Food Industry
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behavior
9. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?
10. Studying How E-Markets Evaluation Can Enhance Trust in Virtual Business Communities