Unity in Diversity? How Intergroup Contact Can Foster Nation Building

Abstract

We use a population resettlement program in Indonesia to identify long-run effects of intergroup contact on national integration. In the 1980s, the government relocated two million ethnically diverse migrants into hundreds of new communities. We find greater integration in fractionalized communities with many small groups, as measured by national language use at home, intermarriage, and children’s name choices. However, in polarized communities with a few large groups, ethnic attachment increases and integration declines. Residential segregation dampens these effects. Social capital, public goods, and ethnic conflict follow similar patterns. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of localized contact in shaping identity. (JEL D63, J12, J15, J18, O15, R23, Z13)

Playing nice in the sandbox: On the role of heterogeneity, trust and cooperation in common-pool resources

“…The key here could be a conflict of interests arising at the moment that two groups are unequal in economic means to appropriate a resource without a sociocultural bond to bridge that inequality gap. However, as Bazzi et al [3] argue, the emergence of coordination depends on whether heterogeneity is shaped by many smaller groups, or a few bigger groups; smaller groups are more prone to find common ground, whereas bigger groups are more prone to ingroup antagonism. The results underline the importance of understanding the influence of various types of heterogeneity, and their interaction, on common-pool resource outcomes.…”

“…This could also serve as an extra test for and comparison with using the MGE to investigate whether subjects behave differently in CPR games if they are grouped by a natural rather than a more artificial characteristic. Lastly, future research could investigate whether the group size of different preference or identity groups influences the outcome of the game, as Bazzi et al [3] suggest.…”

“…However, the ease with which institutional arrangements can be set in place may depend on the type of heterogeneity. Bazzi, Gaduh, Rothenberg and Wong [3] show in their study of a population resettlement program in Indonesia that in the context of polarisation (a situation with a few larger groups with different sociocultural backgrounds) public goods provision is reduced, the likelihood of ethnic conflict is increased and economic development is hampered. In the context of fractionalisation (a situation with many smaller groups) these negative effects of sociocultural heterogeneity are not found.…”

“…This increasing heterogeneity may pose a challenge for the successful management of common-pool resources [CPRs] as it can diversify interests and decrease trust between appropriators [2]. Especially when there are multiple larger groups of different sociocultural backgrounds living together, intergroup antagonism becomes stronger and coordination between groups becomes harder [3]. The deforestation of tropical forests and overfishing of the seas are examples of appropriators failing to work together on the preservation of natural resources.…”

Building Nations through Shared Experiences: Evidence from African Football

“…2 Other countries attempted to integrate geographically segregated ethnic groups through large resettlement programs. See Bazzi et al (2018) for a thorough empirical investigation of the effects of such a program for the case of Indonesia.…”