In this contribution, we investigate the impact of different institutions on ethnic minorities’ political support. Based on a hierarchical cross-country comparison, we first show that individuals belonging to ethnic minorities have less national identity than the majority groups within the same country. We then test whether this negative effect of belonging to ethnic minorities can be attenuated by institutions. First, we argue that the inclusion of ethnic minorities by power-sharing institutions gives them the possibility to have a say in politics and, therefore, they develop a sense of common identity. Second, when minority groups are given the autonomy to preserve their group identity, e.g., in federal units, they develop positive feelings for the whole nation and finally a national identity. Our multilevel analyses show that autonomy indeed attenuates the negative effect of minority status on national pride, but that this is not the case for inclusive institutions. In light of increasing heterogeneisation of societies because of migration and denationalization, our findings contribute to the discussion on the relationship between growing ethnic pluralism and good functioning of democratic regimes.
JonesK.WestertG. P.VerhoeffR. N.“Multilevel approaches to modelling contextuality: From nuisance to substance in the analysis of voting behaviour”Places and people: Multilevel modelling in geographical research1997UtrechtThe Royal Dutch Geographical Society1943
KeeferP.Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions2007Online im Internet: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRES/Resources/469232-1107449512766/dpi2006_vote_share_variable_definitions.pdf [Stand: 14.10.2010].
Waldron-MooreP.“Eastern Europe at the crossroads of democratic transition: Evaluating support for democratic institutions, satisfaction with democratic government, and consolidation of democratic regimes”Comparative Political Studies19993213262
Keefer (2009): Database of political Institutions: Proportional Representation? (1 if yes 0 if no).
Keefer (2009): Database of Political Institutions: System: Parliamentary (1) Presidential (and assembly elected presidents) (0).
Nordsiek Wolfram (2010): Parties and Elections. The database about parliamentary elections and political parties in Europe; African Election Database http://africanelections.tripod.com/ [11.10.2010]; diverse national websites on government composition.
Keefer (2009): Database of Political Institutions: State: Are there state/province governments locally elected? (0) if neither local executive nor local legislature are locally elected (1) if one or both are locally elected.
Keefer (2009): Database of Political Institutions: Author: Do the state/provinces have authority over taxing spending or legislating? If 1 for any of these category gets a 1. Authority over ‘cultural affairs’ or ‘planning’ in Communist systems does not qualify.
Johnson & Wallack (2006): Database of Electoral Systems and the Personal Vote. Bicameralism: Dummy variable 1 if bicameral system.
Treisman (2006): The number of consecutive years since 1930 that the system had been democratic as of 2000 updated for the current study.
World Bank (2010): World Development Indicators: GDP per Capita (current US$) in 1000.
World Bank (2010): World Development Indicators. Population in 1000.