Recall from Week 1 — when preparing a paper, identify:
Research question
What is explained (Y)
Main explanatory factor (X)
Theoretical argument/central concepts
Methods/research design
Main findings
Real-world implications
Contribution to the literature
Critique and limitations
1. Research question
Does inequality foster xenophobia?
Puzzle: Immigration triggers xenophobic backlash in some places but not others. Why?
Riaz’s (2023) answer: local economic inequality intensifies backlash against immigration.
2–3. Y and X
Y (outcomes)
[discussed in class]
X (Treatment)
[discussed in class]
Moderator
[discussed in class]
Wait… what’s a moderator?
Moderator vs mediator
Moderator: a factor that changes the strength (or direction) of the relationship between X and Y.
Here: refugee inflow → hate crime is stronger where inequality is high.
Mediator: a factor on the causal path from X to Y: X affects Y (partly) through it.
Example: parental education → child’s education → child’s income
4. Theoretical considerations
Causal chain
Step 1: Inequality → relative deprivation
Local income inequality increases perceptions of relative deprivation (Walker & Pettigrew 1984):
[discussed in class]
Step 2: Relative deprivation → nationalism
Relative deprivation increases incentives for national (vs. class) identification (Shayo 2009).
“The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the ‘poor whites’ to [Black people] in the former slave states of the U.S.A. […] This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class […] It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power.”
Karl Marx, letter to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, 9 April 1870
Why switch from class to nation?
The question is which group provides higher status and feels more cohesive
[discussed in class]
Step 3: Nationalism → stronger backlash
Nationalism and xenophobia in high-inequality places translate into more hate-crime:
[discussed in class]
5. Methods/Research design
(Self-)selection and confounding
Places with more refugee arrivals often already differ.
Self-selection
Refugees might choose places with jobs, co-ethnic networks, or a reputation for being welcoming
Administrative selection
Authorities may send refugees to some municipalities and not others (e.g. available housing, or political considerations)
→ Hangartner et al. (2019) use geographic distance to Turkey as an instrument to guard against confounding introduced by (self-)selection.
How does Riaz deal with this?
[discussed in class]
Local inequality
5. Difference-in-differences
In Riaz (2023):
Outcome → xenophobic hate crimes
Pre/post → before vs after 2015 refugee inflow
“Intervention” line (blue) → onset of the large-scale inflow (2015)
Intervention group (red) → high-inequality municipalities
Comparison group (green) → low-inequality municipalities
Counterfactual (dotted) → path high-inequality places would have followed if intervention wouldn’t have happend (assumed)
Intervention effect → extra post-inflow rise in hate crimes in high- vs low-inequality places, i.e., total difference between control and treatment minus (assumed)counterfactual
Parallel trends assumption
Key assumption: absent the refugee inflow, hate-crime trajectories in high- and low-inequality places would have moved in parallel.
In the figure: the “constant difference” and the dotted counterfactual
Not testable! We cannot observe the counterfactual
Partial check: do the two groups move in parallel before the inflow?
→ If parallel trends fail, the intervention effect could just be divergent pre-trends, not inequality moderating backlash.
Figure 3: Hate crimes over time
Does the partial check speak for parallel trends?
[discussed in class]
6. Findings
7–8. implications/contribution
Reducing inequality may improve within-group relations and reduce xenophobia
Relative deprivation, not only absolute hardship matter
9. Critique (≈5 min)
In groups of 3–4: - collect your critiques of Riaz (2023).
Your Critique
What did not convince you?
Income is somewhat invisible
Relatively deprived individuals will not directly observe the income of their neighbours, peers, or co-workers.
