Skip to content

JoIE Blog

The official blog of the Journal of Institutional Economics

Menu
  • Home
  • Latest Posts
  • Editor-in-chief page
  • About this journal
    • Aims
    • Achievements
    • Citation Impact
    • Subscribe
    • Notes for Contributors
    • Editors
    • International Advisory Board
    • Journal Issues
    • Elinor Ostrom Prize
    • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Contact
Menu

Economic Freedom and Antisemitism

Posted on January 25, 2021January 25, 2021 by Nikhilesh Sinha

Summary of JOIE article ( First View 27 October 2020) by Niclas Berggren, Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm, Sweden, and Therese Nilsson, Department of Economics, Lund University, Sweden. The full article is available on the JOIE website.

One of the oldest forms of intolerance and hatred is directed against Jews for being Jews. As Lipstadt (2019) documents, this intolerance is still around. Yet, the degree to which people are antisemitic differs between countries – even within Europe. According to the survey-based indicator ADL GLOBAL 100, only 4 percent of the Swedish population are antisemites, while 67 percent of the Greek population are.

In our article, we investigate if the noted cross-country variation can be explained by differences in economic freedom, that is, by differences in policies in institutions pertaining to the economy. This approach builds on earlier work on ours that relates economic freedom and globalization to various indicators of tolerance (Berggren and Nilsson, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016; Berggren et al., 2019).

We focus on economic freedom since our overall research approach tries to locate seeds of tolerance and intolerance in institutions, and since antisemitism has a strong economic component. Jews are often stereotyped as being greedy and part of an international financial network taking advantage of economic freedom across borders. We argue that these stereotypes follow from a historic role of Jews as money-lenders (Johnson and Koyama, 2019), and from folk-economic beliefs about how the market economy works, regarding such things as being a zero-sum game and entailing exploitation. 

We present two hypotheses of how economic freedom affects the prevalence of antisemitism. First, if the legal system is fair and effective, people do not feel threatened by those who are different, since the system ensures that economic life proceeds on an honest and mutually beneficial manner. This will entail less antisemitism. Second, if international markets are open, this may cause people with stereotypical perceptions of Jews as thinking that they will be better able than others at taking advantage of this openness, often at the expense of others. This will entail more antisemitism.

Our empirical analysis makes use of the indicator ADL GLOBAL 100 as the outcome variable. It gives the share of people in a country who say that at least six out of eleven negative statements about Jews are “probably true”. For example, one statements reads: “Jews have too much power in international financial markets.” We then try to explain variation in antisemitism across 106 countries by the Economic Freedom of the World index and its five areas, applying a number of control variables that are regularly used in the literature. 

The findings show that the two hypotheses are both confirmed. The quality of the legal system is negatively related to antisemitism, while openness is positively related to antisemitism. Furthermore, the results are non-trivial in terms of the size of the estimated effects. If one increases economic openness by one unit (on a ten-unit scale), this is associated with an increase in the share of antisemites of 5.5 percentage points, while a one-unit increase of the quality of the legal system is related to a lower share of antisemites of about 3.5 percentage points.

It is certainly difficult to establish that these effects are causal, so we do not make strong claims about the effect of economic freedom on antisemitism. Still, the results hold quite well when we carry out an instrumental-variable analysis, lending some support to a causal interpretation. Moreover, we undertake an interaction analysis, and one important finding is that countries that make their economies more open can counteract the effect on antisemitism by strengthening the rule of law (at least if the initial rule of law is below six on the ten-point scale).

Like previous research, this study establishes a link between institutions and culture, in the form of economic-legal institutions having the capacity to influence how tolerant people in a society are. For other indicators of tolerance, economic freedom is almost entirely positive in its influence; but for attitudes towards Jews, we find mixed results, giving a reason for caution when liberalizing economies for international trade and capital movements. Fortunately, strengthening the rule of law appears to offer a force for combatting antisemitism, and such an institutional reform could certainly be implemented in conjunction with other reforms that cater to old stereotypes and prejudices.

References

Berggren, N., M. Ljunge and T. Nilsson (2019), ‘Roots of tolerance among second-generation immigrants’, Journal of Institutional Economics 15(6): 999–1016.

Berggren, N. and T. Nilsson (2013), ‘Does economic freedom foster tolerance?’, Kyklos 66(2): 177–207. 

Berggren, N. and T. Nilsson (2014), ‘Market institutions bring tolerance, especially where there is social trust’, Applied Economics Letters 21(17): 1234–1237.

Berggren, N. and T. Nilsson (2015), ‘Globalization and the transmission of social values: The case of tolerance’, Journal of Comparative Economics 43(2): 371–389. 

Berggren, N. and T. Nilsson (2016), ‘Tolerance in the United States: Does economic freedom transform racial, religious, political and sexual attitudes?’, European Journal of Political Economy 45(December): 53–70.

Johnson, N. and M. Koyama (2019), Persecution & Toleration: The Long Road to Religious Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipstadt, D. (2019), Antisemitism: Here and Now, New York: Schocken.

  • tweet 
  • share 
  • share 
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Links

Cambridge University Press

Journal of Institutional Economics homepage

Millennium Economics Ltd

WINIR

Search the site

Find posts by keywords

Article summary Buchanan climate change conflict resolution contract cooperation criminal justice crowdfunding Democracy Economic anthropology economic development Editor-in-chief posts Equal treatment for equals Equity exchange institutions Fiscal federalism Fiscal Justice Gift Glorious Revolution impact factor informal institutions institutional change institutional economics institutions institutonal persistence integrative institutions Journal of Institutional Economics Mauss money preferences property law property rights prosecutorial independence Public finance public goods resource-based development resource curse rule of law segregative institutions sequential exchange Simons Symposium on Corporations transition economies Uncategorized Violence

Categories

  • Article Summary (23)
  • Blog Editor Post (1)
  • Uncategorized (2)

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
©2021 JoIE Blog | Built using WordPress and Responsive Blogily theme by Superb