Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethnic Cues and Redistributive Preferences in Post-Soviet Georgia

  • Published:
Studies in Comparative International Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How do citizens in weak democracies evaluate claims on government assistance made by other ethnic groups? This paper analyzes data from an original survey experiment in the Republic of Georgia to determine the role of ethnic cues in the formation of redistributive preferences. In the experiment, ethnic Georgian subjects are randomly assigned a mock news article with variation on implied ethnic (Georgian, Azeri, or Armenian) identity and type of redistributive demand, and asked to evaluate the demand. The results show modest but consistent evidence of ethnic bias conditional on both types of variation, along with ethnic stereotypes, even while subjects are highly pro-redistribution in general. This study highlights how subtle biases can shape redistributive policy preferences in ways inimical to democracy in multiethnic societies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On the institutionalization of nationality categories in the Soviet Union, see Slezkine 1994; Martin 2001.

  2. Georgia also has high religious diversity. Shia Islam predominates among Azeris, Armenians belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the western Georgian region of Ajara has a sizeable population of Sunni ethnic Georgians.

  3. Details on sampling can be found in the appendix.

  4. Kitschelt and Wilkinson (2007: 11) argue that club goods can be allocated according to programmatic or clientelistic principles. A policy would be considered programmatic if it were structured to address general needs that happen to correspond with those of the intended beneficiaries (p. 12). Allocations to alleviate environmental and health problems could work according to either logic, and readers of the vignette may interpret the claim either way.

  5. The vignettes were drafted through several revisions in consultation with Georgian and foreign experts. The differing details in the two vignettes were a product of ensuring that each vignette was internally coherent and possessed experimental realism (McDermott 2002: 333).

  6. Correct identifications were made as follows for the three implied groups: Georgian 83.8 %, Armenian 68.0 %, Azeri 71.8 %.

  7. All three variables are scored so that higher numbers indicate greater sympathy or support for the claim.

  8. For the full sample, the differences in means are .08 and .12, respectively.

  9. For thorough reviews, see Kitschelt and Wilkinson (2007) and Hicken (2011).

  10. A multinomial model estimates the effect of a one-unit change in a predictor variable on the log-odds of moving from one level of the dependent variable to the next highest level. I use the proportional odds variant of the model because there are no theoretical reasons to suspect that changes in score should be non-constant. Thus, change in log odds is the same for the transition from any score on the dependent variable to the next highest score

  11. For an overview, see Bratton (2013).

References

  • Abdelal R, Herrera YM, Johnston AI, McDermott R. Identity as a variable. Perspect Polit. 2006;4(4):695–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Reza B, Easterly W. Public goods and ethnic divisions. Q J Econ. 1999;114(4):1243–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin K, Huber JD. Economic versus cultural differences: forms of ethnic diversity and public goods provision. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2010;104(4):644–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth F, ed. Ethnic groups and boundaries. Universitets Forlaget; 1970.

  • Bates RH. Ethnic competition and modernization in contemporary Africa. Comp Polit Stud. 1974;6(4):457–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky AJ. The two faces of public opinion. Am J Polit Sci. 1999;43(4):1209–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich E. A theory of middleman minorities. Am Sociol Rev. 1973;38(5):583–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader T, Valentino NA, Suhay E. What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. Am J Polit Sci. 2008;52(4):959–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton M, ed. Voting and democratic citizenship in Africa. Lynne Rienner Publishers; 2013.

  • Brubaker R. Nationalism refrained: nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker R. Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton University Press; 2006.

  • Brubaker R, Loveman M, Stamatov P. Ethnicity as cognition. Theory Soc. 2004;33:31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra K. Why ethnic parties succeed: patronage and ethnic head counts in India. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheterian V. Georgia's rose revolution: change or repetition? Tension between state-building and modernization projects. National Pap. 2008;36(4):689–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen FS. Proportional versus majoritarian ethnic conflict management in democracies. Comp Polit Stud. 1997;30(5):607–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Krutz J. Information and ethnic politics in Africa. Br J Polit Sci. 2013;43(2):1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook LJ. Postcommunist welfare states: reform politics in Russia and Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press; 2007.

  • Corneo G, Grüner HP. Individual preferences for political redistribution. J Public Econ. 2002;83(1):83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine PG. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56(1):5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychol Sci. 2000;11(4):315–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive racism. In Olson JM and Zanna MP eds., Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 36. Academic Press; 2004.

  • Dunning T, Harrison L. Cross-cutting cleavages and ethnic voting: an experimental study of cousinage in Mali. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2010;104(1):21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly W, Levine R. Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions. Q J Econ. 1997;112(4):1203–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood W. Processions in the street: Georgian orthodox privilege and religious minorities’ response to invisibility. Anthropol East Eur Rev. 2010;27(1):20–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert B, Miguel E, Posner DN. Political competition and ethnic identification in Africa. Am J Polit Sci. 2010;54(2):494–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze M. Multi-ethnic society in Georgia: a pre-condition for xenophobia or an arena for cultural dialogue? Anthropol East Eur Rev. 2008;26(1):37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearon JD. Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. J Econ Growth. 2003;8(2):195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon JD, Laitin DD. Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. Int Organ. 2000;54(4):845–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flintoff C. Anti-gay riot in Tblisi tests balance between church, state, NPR, July 30, 2013; http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/07/30/204511294/GEORGIA-CHURCH-ANTI-GAY-RIOT.

  • Freedman DA. Statistical models for causation what inferential leverage do they provide? Eval Rev. 2006;30(6):691–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George JA. The dangers of reform: state building and national minorities in Georgia. Cent Asian Surv. 2009;28(2):135–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse A. Beyond clientelism incumbent state capture and state formation. Comp Polit Stud. 2008;41(4–5):638–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habyarimana J, Humphreys M, Posner DN, Weinstein JM. Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? Am Polit Sci Rev. 2007;101(4):709–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendoorn L, Linssen H, Tumanov S, editors. Intergroup relations in states of the former Soviet Union: the perception of Russians. Philadelphia: Psychology Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale HE. Explaining ethnicity. Comp Polit Stud. 2004;37(4):458–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicken A. Clientelism. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2011;14:289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz DL. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ichino N, Nathan NL. Crossing the line: local ethnic geography and voting in Ghana. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2013;107(2):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai K, King G, Lau O. Zelig: everyone's statistical software 2009.

  • International Crisis Group. Georgia’s Armenian and Azeri minorities. November 22, 2006.

  • Kasara K. Tax me if you can: ethnic geography, democracy, and the taxation of agriculture in Africa. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2007;101(1):159–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt H, Wilkinson SI. Citizen-politician linkages: an introduction. In: Kitschelt H, Wilkinson SI, editors. Patrons, clients, and policies: patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R. The quality of government. J Law Econ Org. 1999;15(1):222–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitin DD. Hegemony and culture: politics and change among the Yoruba. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1986.

  • Lau RR, Redlawsk DP. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Am J Polit Sci. 2001;45(4):951–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med. 1991;10(10):1595–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman ES, Singh P. Conceptualizing and measuring ethnic politics: an institutional complement to demographic, behavioral, and cognitive approaches. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2012;47(3):255–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A. Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsmeyer C, Nordstrom Y. East versus west: comparing political attitudes and welfare preferences across European societies. J Eur Pub Policy. 2003;10(3):339–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin T. The affirmative action empire: national and nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–39. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott R. Experimental methodology in political science. Polit Anal. 2002;10(4):325–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg T. Executing Hortons: racial crime in the 1988 presidential campaign. Pub Opin Q. 1997;61:134–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg T. The race card: campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miguel E, Gugerty MK. Ethnic diversity, social sanctions, and public goods in Kenya. J Public Econ. 2005;89(11–12):2325–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobles, M. Shades of citizenship: race and the census in modern politics. Stanford University Press; 2000

  • Peffley M, Rohrschneider R. Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: a multi-level model of democratic learning. Polit Res Q. 2003;56(3):243–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley M, Hurwitz J, Sniderman PM. Racial stereotypes and whites’ political views of blacks in the context of welfare and crime. Am J Polit Sci. 1997;41(1):30–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen RD. Understanding ethnic violence: fear, hatred, and resentment in twentieth-century Eastern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pop-Eleches G. Throwing out the bums: protest voting and unorthodox parties after communism. World Polit. 2010;62:221–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner DN. The political salience of cultural difference: why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2005a;98:529–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner DN. Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005b.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves K. Voting hopes or fears? White voters, black candidates, and racial politics in America. Oxford University Press; 1997.

  • Remmer KL. The political economy of patronage: expenditure patterns in the Argentine provinces, 1983–2003. J Polit. 2007;69(2):363–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker H. The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JA, Verdier T. The political economy of clientelism. Rochester: Social Science Research Network; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezkine Y. The USSR as a communal apartment, or how a socialist state promoted ethnic particularism. Slav Rev. 1994;53(2):414–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman PM, Piazza T, Tetlock PE, Kendrick A. The new racism. Am J Polit Sci. 1991;53(2):423–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman PM, Hagendoorn L, Prior M. Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(1):35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suny RG. The making of the Georgian nation. Indiana University Press; 1994.

  • Tajfel H. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1981.

  • Taylor DM, Fathali MM. Theories of intergroup relations: international social psychological perspectives. New York: Freeman; 1994.

  • Transue JE. Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. Am J Polit Sci. 2007;51:78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentino NA, Hutchings VL, White IK. Cues that matter: how political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2002;96(1):75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Walle N. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The evolution of political clientelism in Africa. In Kitschelt H, Wilkinson SI, eds. Patrons, clients and policies: patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press; 2007.

  • Wantchekon L. Clientelism and voting behavior: evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Polit. 2003;55(3):399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weghorst KR, Lindberg SI. What drives the swing voter in Africa? Am J Polit Sci. 2013;57(3):717–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley J. Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: one step forward, two steps back. Cent Asian Surv. 2009;28(2):119–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gg.htmll; 2014.

  • Zürcher C. The post-Soviet wars: rebellion, ethnic conflict, and nationhood in the Caucasus. New York: New York University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Koba Turmanidze, Tina Zurabishvili, and Tiko Ambroladze at the Caucasus Research Resource Center in Tbilisi for consultation and implementation of the survey. Julie George, Tim Blauvelt, Hans Gutbrod, Tom Trier, Charles King, Yoshiko Herrera, Elise Giuliano, Resat Kasaba, Sara Curran, Sunila Kale, Anand Yang, Joel Migdal, Jesse Driscoll, and David Siroky provided helpful comments on the proposal and working papers. Patrick Underwood provided valuable research assistance. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the International Studies Association, American Political Science Association, and Arizona State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Thomson Hall, Box 353650, Seattle, WA, 98115, USA

    Scott Radnitz

Authors
  1. Scott Radnitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Radnitz.

Appendix: Survey Methodology

Appendix: Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted by the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) according to a multistage cluster sampling design. The country was divided into four rural and four urban strata plus the capital. Within each stratum, electoral precincts, which functioned as primary sampling units (PSUs), were selected in proportion to the population of registered voters. Households were randomly sampled from a sample frame of households in each PSU and a Kish Grid was used to select the respondent.

The vignettes and questions were translated into local languages (Georgian, Russian, Armenian, and Azeri) and back-translated for validity. They were tested in a pilot survey in September 2012, revised, and fielded as part of the Caucasus Barometer (CB) project in November. Interviewers were sociologists trained by CRRC who spoke local languages. The response rate was 75 %.

Interviewers adhered to the following randomization protocol:

  1. 1.

    Vignettes will be numbered 1 to 6, with the number visible to the interviewer but not to the respondent. Interviewers will select one card, beginning with #1 for the first interview and note on the questionnaire which card they will be using when filling out basic information immediately prior to commencing the interview.

  2. 2.

    When it is time for this block of questions, interviewers will read and show the card to the respondent. The respondent may look at the card the whole time while answering the questions. The interviewer is not allowed to help or reveal any information about the vignette.

  3. 3.

    Interviewers will proceed through the cards in order, until they have gone through all six versions (to six respondents). Then, with the seventh interview, they begin the cycle again, and continue in this manner until they fulfill their quota of interviews.

  4. 4.

    If a respondent drops out and is not included in the CB, then the card intended for that respondent shall be used on the next respondent.

Table 5 and 6

Table 5 Assignment to treatments in full sample of ethnic Georgian respondents
Full size table
Table 6 Assignment to treatments by correct identification of ethnicity
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Radnitz, S. Ethnic Cues and Redistributive Preferences in Post-Soviet Georgia. St Comp Int Dev 52, 278–300 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-015-9204-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-015-9204-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation