Diffusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin's Ethnic Deportations

Intro Background Data Results Conclusions

Diﬀusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin’s Ethnic Deportations

Alain Blum (EHESS) Alexandra Jarotschkin (PSE) Ekaterina Zhuravskaya (PSE and EHESS)

January 2019

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Motivation

• Does exposure to a group with different cultural norms leads to a cultural diffusion, or in contrast, people reject alien cultures and increase identification with their own? • Experiments designed to answer this question usually assign people of different cultural backgrounds to the same locations randomly • The literature has studied random allocations of children to classes, students to dorms, soldiers to regiments, etc. • In such experiments, representatives of different cultures are forced to interact in a controlled environment

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Motivation

• In a real life, people choose freely whom to interact with • Thus, even when diﬀerent groups co-exist in close proximity, they may self-segregate and avoid interactions with representatives of another group • There are many examples of spontaneously-created ghettos both in history and throughout the world • Jewish ghettos in medieval or 19th-century Europe • African-American neighborhoods in contemporary US cities • Immigrant neighborhoods in contemporary European cities • To study cultural diﬀusion, one needs to combine an experimental setting of cultural exposure with having no control over whom people interact with • Stalin’s ethnic deportations during WWII combine both of these features

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Stalin’s ethnic deportations

• 2.1 million people were deported from the Western parts of the USSR to Siberia and Central Asia in 1939–1944 • With the sole reason of belonging to an ethnicity, representatives of which were suspected of (potential or actual) collaboration with the Nazis against the Soviets • Deportees were not allowed to come back to their homelands (until the Khrushchev’s thaw or the fall of the USSR, depending on ethnicity) • They left right after they were allowed to (1 to 3 generations later) • Unlike Gulag’s prisoners, deportees were not conﬁned to camps and were free to interact with local population

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Ethnic deportees on the round to their destination

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Ethnic deportees working at their destination

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Culture of deportees

• Culturally, deported ethnicities differed along many dimensions, e.g., in terms of religion: • Protestants: Germans, Estonians, Latvians, and Finns • Muslims: Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Balkars, Kurds, Crimean tatars, Turk-meshketians • Catholic christians: Poles, Lithuanians • Orthodox christians: Moldovans, Greeks • Buddhists: Kalmyks, Koreans • In particular, gender norms sharply differed between Muslim deportees from North Caucasus and Protestant deportees from the Volga region • Chechens and Volga Germans were the largest groups of Muslims and Protestants, respectively • We focus on the effect of deportations on this cultural trait

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature Research question

• What are the gender norms among the native local population today in Siberia and Central Asia depending on • whether they live in a locality in the vicinity of a former settlement of mostly-Muslim or mostly-Protestant ethnic deportees • The identification assumption is that: • provided there was a settlement of ethnic deportees in the vicinity, the religious (and ethnic) mix of deportees was orthogonal to factors that determine gender attitudes • As vast majority of the descendants of the deportees left when they were allowed to and we focus on non-migrants, the differences in the norms today is the evidence of cultural diffusion

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Motivation Deportations Question Literature We contribute to the literatures on:

1 Social identity and cultural diffusion that focuses on the effect of co-existence of ethnic and racial groups • e.g., Algan, Hemet and Laitin 2016 on social housing; Chetty Hendren 2015, Rao 2013 on classroom composition; Burns et al. 2013 on dorms assignments; Angrist 1998, Vanden Eynde, 2016 on military service 2 Determinants of gender roles • e.g., Fernandez and Fogli 2009; Fernandez, Fogli and Olivetti 2004; Alesina,Giuliano, Nunn 2013 3 Effects of Stalin’s punitive policies • Ethnic deportations on distrust in central authority (Levkin 2015, using crude region-level data) • Gulag camps on human capital and distrust (e.g., Toews and Vezina 2017; Ciravegna, Toews and Vezina 2016; Kapelko and Markevich 2014)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Timeline of ethnic deportations

• Deportations: • 1939–1941: deportations from the annexed territories, Poland, Baltic republics, and Romania • 1941–1942: “Preventive” deportations of Soviet Germans, Finns, and Greeks • 1943–1944: “Retributive” deportations of the ethnic groups of the North Caucasus and Crimea • Deportees were allowed to return to their homelands in two waves: • 1991: Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Turk-Meskhetians • 1956: All the rest

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Deportations by religion and destination

All Soviet republic of destination, % 000s % Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan

Total 2155.1 100.00 41.86 42.60 7.73 6.58 1.14 0.11 Protestants 1132.5 52.55 30.86 19.64 0.30 0.74 0.91 0.11 Muslims 750.9 34.84 2.29 19.11 7.40 5.82 0.22 0.00 Catholics 142.6 6.62 4.58 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orthodox 66.8 3.10 1.39 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Buddhist 62.3 2.89 2.73 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Deportation locations

Soviet republic of destination All Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Districts (rayons) with deportations 1131 774 190 97 55 12 3

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Size and composition of deportation settlements

• There are no systematic data on gender norms at the time of deportations • Yet, there is anecdotal evidence: • Child marriage among Soviet Muslim population disrupting girls’ education, most pronounced amongst the Chechen-Ingush population (National Archives, GARF) • Polygamy with men having up to ﬁve wives in Chechen-Ingush republic 1963 (e.g., Ro’i 2000, p. 539) • Muslim deportees were more observant in comparison to muslim local population in areas of deportation settlements (Ro’i 2000, p. 407)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Gender norms of Muslims and Protestants before the deportations • There are some pieces of systematic evidence from before and after • Literacy gap between men and women was smaller for Protestants (and Germans) than for Muslims (and North Caucasians) in 1897:

Dependent Var.: Share of population that is literate Comparison group: Male Muslims Male North-Caucasians

Female -0.080*** -0.080*** -0.134*** -0.134*** (0.006) (0.006) (0.009) (0.009) Protestants 0.504*** 0.323*** (0.041) (0.027) Female × Protestant 0.070*** 0.070*** (0.008) (0.008) Germans 0.431*** 0.319*** (0.037) (0.033) Female × Germans 0.110*** 0.110*** (0.011) (0.011) City 0.095*** 0.095*** 0.146*** 0.146*** (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020)

Observations 697 697 570 570 R-squared 0.847 0.934 0.778 0.874 Weighted by ethnic population XX XX Province clustered SEs XX XX Controls - Female and male literacy rates X X Mean literacy of comparison group 0.201 0.201 0.216 0.216 SD for mean literacy of comparison group 0.124 0.124 0.169 0.169

• Contemporary survey data (Life in Transition survey, 2016):

Protestants Muslims Signiﬁcance of diﬀerence Disagree that a woman should do most of the household chores 74% 33% *** Disagree that it is better for everyone if the man earns the money 49% 27% *** Disagree that men make better political leaders 59% 33% *** Same or higher university aspirations for daughter vs. son 97% 91% *** Membership in a women’s rights group 4% 4% Tertiary education, among women 25% 19% *** Tried to start a business, among women 11% 8% *** Obs. 2,053 12,567

• A lot of anecdotal evidence that religious and political leadership in today’s Chechen republic is not opposed to pre-arranged marriages of teenage girls with middle-age men, polygyny, and even female genital mutilation

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Timing Size Destinations Gender norms Gender equality was the oﬃcial policy of USSR

• Equality for men and women was proclaimed as part of ideology, including in the sphere of education • Liquidation of illiteracy campaigns in the 1920s and 30s targeted equally men and women • All people from 8 to 50 years old were required to become literate in their native language • Boys and girls had the same schooling obligations (e.g., Clark, 1995) • It is hard to say whether native population of Central Asian republics was less backward than Chechens at the time of deportations • However, there is evidence that the deported North-Caucasian groups resisted the Soviet ideology, including regarding gender equality, more than Central Asian population (although there was resistance there too, i.e., Basmachi movement)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Data sources

1 Ethnic deportations • Data on exact destinations and the numbers of deportees for each ethnicity in each deported settlement (from census of 1951, source: Russian National Archives) • 19,839 entries, 16 ethnic groups (Koreans are missing) • and non-ethnic deportees: Kulaks, bandits, “anti-Soviet elements” • we matched the destination locations of these entries with 1126 districts (municipalities in the USSR) 2 Contemporary outcomes • Life in Transition survey data, 2016 • 375 PSUs in 5 countries • Out of which 233 PSUs had a (ethnic) deportation in 30km travel-distance vicinity 3 Historical and geographical controls • Gulag locations • Old and new capitals, railroads, ruggedness, climate, etc.

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Check on data: NKVD archives vs. 1970 Soviet census by region (oblast) in USSR

Nb of Protestants, 1970 (ln) Fitted values Nb of Muslims, 1970 (ln) Fitted values 12 12

Tashkentskaya

Samarkandskaya 10 10 8 8

Ashkabad

Molotovskaya 6 6 Molotovskaya Nb of Protestants as 1970 Soviet Census ( ln ) Nb of Sunni Muslims as 1970 Soviet Census ( ln ) Chuvashkaya 4 4 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 Nb of Deported Protestants ( ln ) Nb of Deported Sunni Muslims ( ln ) p−value: 0.000 p−value: 0.000

• By 1970 the biggest group of Muslims (Chechens) were pardoned and left, while Crimean Tatars and Turk-Meskhetians (who were the remaining sizeable Muslim groups) and Germans (the biggest Protestant group) stayed at the deportation locations until 1991

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Map of deportations overlaid with PSU locations

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance The biggest variation among LiTs PSU exposure to ethnic deportations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

• 56 PSUs in Kazakhstan and 62 PSUs in Kyrgyzstan had an ethnic deportation settlement

Variation in Kazakhstan Variation in Kyrgyzstan 100 100 80 80 60 60 Percent Percent 40 40 20 20 0 0

Protestant Share Muslim Share Protestant Share Muslim Share Other ethnicities share Other ethnicities share

PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Kazakhstan PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Kyrgyzstan

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Some variation in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Siberia • 59 PSUs in Uzbekistan, 31 PSUs in Tajikistan, and 25 PSUs in Russia had a deportation settlement with Muslim or Protestant groups

Variation in Uzbekistan Variation in Tajikistan 100 100 80 80 60 60 Percent Percent 40 40 20 20 0 0

Protestant Share Muslim Share Protestant Share Muslim Share Other ethnicities share Other ethnicities share

PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Uzbekistan PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Tajikistan

Variation in Russia 100 80 60 Percent 40 20 0

Protestant Share Muslim Share Other ethnicities share

PSUs that had an ethnic deportation in Russia

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Econometric Strategy

• We explore gender norms of local population in PSUs which were exposed to deportations of Protestants vs. Muslims • Conditional on the selection into having a deportation in the vicinity • Also controlling for subnational region (oblast) fixed effects and a variety of historical and geographical characteristics • The center defined the quotas of deportees at the level of subnational regions • Identification assumption: conditional on covariates and the presence of deportation in the vicinity, the identity of the deportees (e.g., their religion) was orthogonal to any (unobserved) determinants of the gender norms • Balancing tests suggest that this is the case • We restrict the sample to the “title ethnicity” (Natives) of each country (i.e., Kazakhs in Kazakhstan; Russians in Russia) to make sure that descendants of deportees are not in the sample

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Econometric speciﬁcation On all PSUs in Russia and Central Asia:

Yil = β0 + β1 log(P rotl) + β2 log(Musll) + β31{Deportl}+ 0 0 0 +β4 log(P op Den1897u) + σ Dl + γ Xl + δ Ci + µrl + il On all PSUs with deportation settlement in a vicinity:

Yil = α0 + α1P rot Sharel + α2 log(Deport Sizel)+ 0 0 0 +α3 log(P op Den1897u) + σ Dl + γ Xl + δ Ci + µrl + il • i - respondents, l - localities (PSUs), u - 1897 uezds

• P rotl, Musll – nbs on protestants and muslims in the vicinity of l

• 1{Deportl} - dummy for a deportation in vicinity; Deport Sizel - size of deportation; P op Den1897u - population density in 1897 per sq km

• Dl – the size and composition of all other ethnic and non-ethnic deportations

• µrl – subnational region FE; X and C – locality-speciﬁc controls (geography, climate, distances to nearest railroads, capital city, etc.) and individual-level controls (education, age, income, gender, and religion) • SEs corrected for spatial correlation within 150km radius (Conley 1999)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Balance in geography and climate

• Deportation locations were not random, which is not surprising as labor needs determined the destination locations

• Yet, the identity of deportees, provided there was a deportation in the vicinity, seems to be balanced • consistent with historical narrative that the primary demand was for manual labor, so deportees’ skills did not matter much

Deportations dummy Share of Protestant Deportees PLACEBO OUTCOME All PSUs All deportations PSUs with deportation Distance to water (ln) -0.423*** (0.127) 0.115 (0.206) 0.351 (0.336) Distance to railroad (ln) -0.944*** (0.243) 0.073 (0.287) 0.327 (0.378) Distance to gulag (ln) -0.388** (0.160) -0.011 (0.202) 0.145 (0.555) Distance to capital (ln) -0.257** (0.128) 0.144* (0.078) -0.102 (0.383) Ruggedness -27.766* (14.335) -10.160 (10.183) -16.560 (23.450) Soil Suitability low inputs -0.851*** (0.189) 0.041 (0.183) -0.120 (0.298) Soil Suitability high inputs -0.667*** (0.161) 0.111 (0.215) -0.413 (0.309) Precipitation (June-August) (ln) -0.138 (0.123) -0.077* (0.042) -0.063 (0.168) Precipitation (Dec-Feb) (ln) -0.061 (0.063) -0.069 (0.044) -0.048 (0.163) Temperature (June-August) 2.443*** (0.707) 0.155 (0.246) -1.902** (0.968) Temperature (Dec-Feb) 2.356*** (0.655) -0.258 (0.357) -2.468** (0.968) Observations 375 1057 229

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Balance in population composition pre-treatment 1897 Russian Empire Census • Balance in pre-treatment population characteristics, conditional on the distance to the capital city and precipitation

Deportations dummy Share of Protestant Deportees PLACEBO OUTCOME Central Asia CA deportations CA PSUs with deportation Share of Muslims 0.091** (0.040) -0.0180 (0.164) 0.0530 (0.094) Share of Protestants -0.00200 (0.002) -0.00700 (0.005) -0.00400 (0.004) Share of Christians -0.050*** (0.019) 0.0500 (0.072) 0.0140 (0.046) Share of Orthodox -0.077** (0.036) -0.0280 (0.118) -0.0420 (0.092) Share of Germans -0.00200 (0.002) -0.00600 (0.004) -0.00400 (0.003) Share of Russians -0.084** (0.037) 0.0160 (0.159) -0.0500 (0.090) Share of literate females -0.012** (0.005) 0.0280 (0.028) 0.00600 (0.011) Share living in city -0.0300 (0.029) -0.117 (0.088) -0.116* (0.062) Share of merchants and artisans 0.00 (0.010) -0.038* (0.022) 0.00700 (0.025) Share working in agriculture 0.00600 (0.010) 0.0310 (0.025) 0.0100 (0.022) Share working in industry 0.00100 (0.004) -0.0170 (0.015) -0.0260 (0.016) Share working in services/trade 0.00 (0.000) -0.00200 (0.002) -0.003* (0.002) Share in white collar jobs 0.00 (0.000) -0.002*** (0.001) 0.000 (0.001) Obs. (Russian Empire Uezds) 36 39 30 All PSUs All deportations All PSUs with deportation Population density (sq km) (ln) -0.0500 (0.077) 0.0320 (0.429) 0.259 (0.231) Obs. 375 1090 229 Total Size of Deportation X X X Distance to capital, summer precipitation X X X

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Balance: 1941 evacuation of enterprises Deportees sent further east than evacuated enterprises

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Sources Econometric Strategy Balance Balance of deportations and evacuated enterprises in vicinity (30km) to all deportations and PSUs with deportation

• Deportations are larger in areas with also a higher number of evacuated enterprises • No correlation to the composition of deportees i.e., the share of Protestant deportees

All PSUs All deportations PSUs with deportation PLACEBO OUTCOME Deportation dummy Protestant deportee (share) Size of deportations Protestant deportee (share) Size of deportations

Nb. of evacuated enterprises 2.421 (1.622) -6.848 (5.713) 1.072*** (0.395) -7.680 (9.621) 3.272* (1.720)

Evacuation enterprise dummy 0.294*** (0.058) -0.127** (0.050) 0.052*** (0.012) -0.268 (0.176) 0.0770 (0.048)

Observations 375 1057 229

Distance to capital, summer precipitation X X X

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Should a woman should do most of the household chores even if the husband is unemployed?

Disagree or strongly disagree that: A woman should do the household chores

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.015*** (0.005) (0.005) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.014* (0.009) (0.008) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.100 0.073 (0.061) (0.050) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.161*** 0.203*** (0.055) (0.059)

Observations 2,679 2,004 1,643 1,238 R-squared 0.199 0.159 0.223 0.183

p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.161 0.174 0.149 0.158 SD of dependent var. 0.368 0.380 0.356 0.365

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect It is better for everyone involved if the man earns the money?

Disagree or strongly disagree that: It is better if the man earns the money

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.016** 0.019*** (0.007) (0.006) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.007 -0.005 (0.007) (0.008) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.063 -0.014 (0.058) (0.069) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.134** 0.150 (0.053) (0.104)

Observations 2,656 1,995 1,636 1,236 R-squared 0.125 0.146 0.136 0.150 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.008*** 0.006*** Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.205 0.164 0.204 0.155 SD of dependent var. 0.404 0.370 0.403 0.362

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Do men make better political leaders than women do?

Disagree or strongly disagree that: Men make better political leaders

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.034*** 0.014** (0.010) (0.005) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.011* -0.002 (0.007) (0.009) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.072 0.006 (0.076) (0.077) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.142 0.088 (0.090) (0.062)

Observations 2,635 1,978 1,621 1,217 R-squared 0.182 0.146 0.167 0.137 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.057* Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.246 0.176 0.231 0.186 SD of dependent var. 0.431 0.381 0.422 0.389

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect First principal component of gender attitudes from the survey – all factor loadings are positive

1st principal component Progressive gender attitudes

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.016*** (0.005) (0.003) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.009 -0.007 (0.006) (0.005) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.079 0.020 (0.051) (0.045) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.139*** 0.148*** (0.043) (0.056)

Observations 2,572 1,924 1,599 1,193 R-squared 0.161 0.163 0.193 0.187 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.206 0.170 0.195 0.163 SD of dependent var. 0.272 0.256 0.281 0.260

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Did you try to start a business? Signiﬁcant results for women, men sample is placebo

Did you try to start a business?

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.012*** 0.001 (0.004) (0.005) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.012*** 0.008 (0.004) (0.006) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.003 -0.048 (0.037) (0.047) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.135*** -0.061 (0.039) (0.086)

Observations 2,732 2,047 1,669 1,257 R-squared 0.0710 0.0819 0.0823 0.0880 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.382 Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.108 0.177 0.116 0.207 SD of dependent var. 0.310 0.381 0.321 0.406

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Are you a member of a women’s rights group? Signiﬁcant results for men

Membership in women’s rights groups

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.005 0.009*** (0.004) (0.003) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.004 -0.004 (0.005) (0.005) Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.008 -0.012 (0.035) (0.038) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.052 0.114*** (0.078) (0.040)

Observations 2,732 2,047 1,669 1,257 R-squared 0.0620 0.102 0.0883 0.149 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.122 0.035** Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.0437 0.0249 0.0463 0.0257 SD of dependent var. 0.204 0.156 0.210 0.158

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Do you believe it is important that your daughter (son) goes to univesity?

Same or higher university aspirations for daugher compared to son

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.003 -0.004 (0.006) (0.004) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.006 -0.016*** (0.006) (0.004) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.031 0.088** (0.046) (0.043) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.093 0.066 (0.091) (0.073)

Observations 2,512 1,922 1,571 1,196 R-squared 0.0857 0.0905 0.105 0.0795 p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.238 0.033** Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.893 0.859 0.888 0.860 SD of dependent var. 0.309 0.348 0.316 0.347

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Did your mother obtain tertiary education? Quasi-Panel

• Mother’s education is the only variable, which we observe both pre- and post-treatment • We predict the birth year of mothers of respondents • using respondent’s age and aggregate data on the average age of women at the time of birth of their ﬁrst child by women’s birth cohorts in USSR • All mothers are grouped into those who ﬁnished school before deportations and those who went to school after the deportations took place

Respondent’s mother completed tertiary education Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Protestant deportees (ln) -0.004 (0.005) Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.000 (0.005) Mother in school AFTER deportations × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.006* (0.004) Mother in school AFTER deportations × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.010** (0.005) Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.011 (0.034) Mother finished school BEFORE deportations × Protestant deportees (share) -0.007 (0.048) Mother in school AFTER deportations × Protestant deportees (share) 0.071* (0.042)

Observations 4,646 2,846 R-squared 0.200 0.215 p-value - before deportations: Protestant = Muslim 0.535 p-value - after deportations: Protestant = Muslim 0.005** Region FE and Controls XX Sample - Deportations in vicinity X Sample - Gender Both Both Mean of dependent var. 0.142 0.148 SD of dependent var. 0.349 0.355

Mother obtained tertiary education

point estimates 90% confidence intervals .2

−.1 Coeff. on Protestant share X cohort

Pre 1926 1926−30 1931−46 1947−59 Full exposure Post 1959

Possible exposure Birth cohort of respondent’s mother

Mother obtained tertiary education

point estimates point estimates 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals .02 .02

.01 .01

0 0

−.01 −.01

−.02 −.02 Coeff. on log(Muslim deportees) X Cohort X deportees) log(Muslim on Coeff. Coeff. on log(Protestant deportees) X Cohort −.03 −.03

Pre 1926 1926−30 1931−46 1947−59 Pre 1926 1926−30 1931−46 1947−59 Full exposure Post 1959 Full exposure Post 1959

Possible exposure Possible exposure Birth cohort of respondent’s mother Birth cohort of respondent’s mother

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect The mother’s education is not what is driving the results on attitudes of respondents All the results go through controlling for parents’ education and the eﬀect on attitudes does not depend on the cohort Gender attitudes, 1st principal component

point estimates 90 % confidence intervals .25

.15

.05

0 Coeff. on Protestant share X Cohort

Pre 1966 1966−74 1975−81 1982−88 Post 1988 Birth cohort of respondent

Respondents are grouped by mother’s birth cohort (same groups)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Same result for the numbers of Protestant and Muslim deportees

Attitude toward women, 1st principal component

point estimates point estimates 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals .03 .03

.02 .02

.01 .01

0 0

−.01 −.01 Coeff. on log(Muslim deportees) X Cohort X deportees) log(Muslim on Coeff. Coeff. on log(Protestant deportees) X Cohort −.02 −.02

Pre 1966 1966−74 1975−81 1982−88 Pre 1966 1966−74 1975−81 1982−88 Post 1988 Post 1988 Birth cohort of respondent Birth cohort of respondent

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect The eﬀects for Russians vs. Central Asians

Eﬀect on Central Asians (Kyrgyz, Tajik, Uzbek, and Kazakh) 1st principal component Tried to start Progressive gender attitudes a business Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.025*** 0.020*** 0.009** (0.007) (0.003) (0.004) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.017* -0.007 -0.013** (0.010) (0.008) (0.006) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.028 -0.007 0.007 (0.087) (0.065) (0.059) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.114** 0.096 0.032 (0.052) (0.070) (0.050) p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** Observations 2,209 1,782 1,539 1,218 2,343 1,614 R-squared 0.170 0.181 0.166 0.188 0.0671 0.0774 Eﬀect on Russians Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.024** 0.019* 0.034*** (0.010) (0.011) (0.007) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.006 -0.006 -0.011 (0.007) (0.008) (0.007) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.048 0.091 -0.136*** (0.073) (0.108) (0.052) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.313** 0.351*** 0.379*** (0.153) (0.101) (0.067) p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.018** 0.037** 0.000*** Observations 925 526 488 260 997 513 R-squared 0.138 0.150 0.239 0.280 0.0873 0.154

Region FE and Controls XXXXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XXX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Female p-value - Protestant: Central Asia = Russia 0.915 0.923 0.178 0.023** 0.006*** p-value - Muslim: Central Asia = Russia 0.279 0.965 0.879

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect Possible interpretations?

• On average, progressive (and consistent with Soviet ideology) norms of gender equality diffuse more that regressive norms • Progressive norms diffuse to both Russians and Central Asians • Whereas discriminatory gender norms diffuse to Central Asians but not to Russians, possibly because of pre-existing cultural affinity (common religion) • One cannot reject the equality of the effects (it could be that there is just less precision due to smaller number of observations for Russians)

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Attitudes Behavioral outcomes Time-variant eﬀect The eﬀects for Orthodox vs. Muslims

Eﬀect on Muslims 1st principal component Tried to start Progressive gender attitudes a business Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.021*** 0.008** (0.007) (0.003) (0.004) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.018* -0.005 -0.013* (0.010) (0.008) (0.006) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.029 -0.015 0.001 (0.085) (0.072) (0.063) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.120** 0.092 0.036 (0.051) (0.062) (0.052) p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.002*** 0.000*** Observations 2,180 1,764 1,522 1,204 2,309 1,592 R-squared 0.169 0.181 0.166 0.194 0.0597 0.0632 Eﬀect on Orthodox Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.017 0.026 0.034*** (0.012) (0.017) (0.007) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.012 -0.019*** (0.007) (0.010) (0.006) Muslim or Protestant Deportation 0.025 0.078 -0.125** (0.081) (0.130) (0.056) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.356** 0.410*** 0.411*** (0.168) (0.133) (0.080) p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.078* 0.079* 0.000***

Observations 840 422 435 190 907 458 R-squared 0.125 0.171 0.0964

Region FE and Controls XXXXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XXX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Female p-value - Protestant: Muslim = Orthodox 0.534 0.776 0.121 0.007*** 0.007*** 0.002*** p-value - Muslim: Muslim = Orthodox 0.361 0.562 0.515

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Conclusions

• Our results are consistent with diffusion of gender norms at the time of the deportations and their subsequent persistence after the deportees had left • These results are important because they show that cultural diffusion may occur even without regulating the communication between groups • We find that both the norms of gender equality and of gender discrimination were adopted by people exposed to another group with those norms • The results for diffusion of norms of gender equality are stronger

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect

Appendix

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Exposure to deportations matters not only for the very large deportations

1st principal component – Progressive gender attitudes Below median deportation size × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.021*** (0.008) (0.007) Above median deportation size × Protestant deportees (ln) 0.026*** 0.017*** (0.005) (0.003) Below median deportation size × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.011 -0.008 (0.008) (0.006) Above median deportation size × Muslim deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.007 (0.006) (0.005) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.073 0.012 (0.052) (0.046) Below median deportation size × Protestant deportees (Share) 0.093 0.151** (0.064) (0.065) Above median deportation size × Protestant deportees (Share) 0.325*** 0.118** (0.081) (0.059)

p-value - Below median: Protestant = Muslim 0.001*** 0.001*** p-value - Above median: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** Observations 2,572 1,924 1,599 1,193 R-squared 0.158 0.164 0.195 0.181 Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.203 0.171 0.194 0.166 SD of dependent var. 0.271 0.258 0.279 0.262 p-value - Protestant: Below median = Above median 0.940 0.529 0.032 0.526 p-value - Muslim: Below median = Above median 0.469 0.406

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Summary statistics, PSU level

Sample: All Conditional on ethnic deportations Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Nb of Protestant Deportees (30km radius) 1266.16 2773.61 0 22221 2037.81 3289.72 0 22221 Nb of Muslim Deportees (30km radius) 3182.82 5087.70 0 24787 5122.56 5634.60 0 24787 Share of Protestant deportees (30km radius) 0.20 0.30 0 1 0.31 0.33 0 1 Share of Muslim deportees (30km radius) 0.38 0.42 0 1 0.61 0.37 0 1 Size of deportations (30km radius) 4824.20 6744.07 0 34100 7756.19 7106.93 1 34100 Capital (old or new) 0.14 0.35 0 1 0.17 0.37 0 1 Urban 0.47 0.50 0 1 0.52 0.50 0 1 Distance to capital (km) 515.45 876.88 0 7319 419.50 674.57 0 6463 Distance to railroad (km) 15.31 27.88 1 159 10.18 18.88 1 136 Distance to gulag (km) 127.84 102.50 0 437 126.69 104.11 0 428 Distance to water (km) 11.24 11.88 1 94 10.42 9.42 1 52 Ruggedness 143.88 140.14 1 818 143.38 123.39 1 496 Number of PSUs 375 233

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Summary statistics, PSU sample

Sample: All Conditional on ethnic deportations Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Nb of Protestant Deportees (30km radius) 1101.22 2558.85 0 22221 1844.07 3097.67 0 22221 Nb of Muslim Deportees (30km radius) 2737.39 4821.04 0 24787 4583.93 5518.93 0 24787 Share of Protestant deportees (30km radius) 0.19 0.31 0 1 0.32 0.35 0 1 Share of Muslim deportees (30km radius) 0.36 0.42 0 1 0.61 0.39 0 1 Size of deportations (30 km radius) 4137.68 6110.91 0 34100 6918.77 6581.76 1 34100 Capital (old or new) 0.12 0.33 0 1 0.14 0.35 0 1 Urban 0.44 0.50 0 1 0.47 0.50 0 1 Distance to capital (km) 558.03 946.77 0 7319 463.96 740.25 0 6463 Distance to railroad (km) 16.33 28.92 1 159 10.35 17.34 1 136 Distance to gulag (km) 132.91 104.09 0 437 133.59 107.65 0 428 Distance to water (km) 11.71 12.50 1 94 10.83 9.82 1 52 Ruggedness 146.14 145.25 1 818 139.27 124.44 1 496 Observations 5727 3420

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Religiosity (measured as trust in religious institutions) does not interact with treatment

1st principal component – Progressive gender attitudes

Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.021*** 0.015** (0.007) (0.007) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.010 -0.010* (0.008) (0.005) Religiosity of respondent -0.064*** -0.039* -0.039 -0.020 (0.020) (0.023) (0.029) (0.015) Religiosity of respondent × Protestant (ln) 0.006 -0.002 (0.008) (0.005) Religiosity of respondent × Muslim (ln) -0.001 0.004 (0.006) (0.003) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.081 0.050 (0.055) (0.038) Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.155** 0.180** (0.065) (0.085) Religiosity of respondent × Protestant (share) 0.033 -0.030 (0.102) (0.044)

Observations 1,758 1,373 1,098 859 R-squared 0.180 0.201 0.187 0.227 Region FE and Controls XXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Mean of dependent var. 0.206 0.170 0.195 0.163 SD of dependent var. 0.272 0.256 0.281 0.260

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect The largest deported Protestant group – Volga Germans

• Catherine II called on Europeans to immigrate to Russia in the late 18th century promising religious freedom, exemption from military service, and thirty years without having to pay taxes • Volga German colonists were refugees from the war-ravaged German states • The bulk of those Germans came from largely Protestant regions of Hesse and Palatinate • Settlers were allowed to keep their language, traditions, and religion • Girls were not excluded from education

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Correlation of unbalanced covariates and 1st principal component of progressive gender attitudes

1st principal component Progressive gender Attitudes Distance to capital (ln) -0.014 (0.011) Precipitation (June-August) -0.001 (0.003) Temperature (June-August) -0.001 (0.002) Temperature (Dec-Feb) -0.003 (0.002) Evacuated enterprise dummy 0.049* (0.026) Share living in city -0.214* (0.110) Share working in services/trade -14.643 (11.985) Share in white collar jobs 0.903 (37.063)

Observations 3,231 3,231 3,231 3,231 3,231 2,197 2,197 2,197 R-squared 0.138 0.137 0.136 0.137 0.137 0.0664 0.0654 0.0610 Conley SE XXXXXXXX Region FE XXXXX Geographic Controls XXXX Demographic & Deportations in vicinity Controls XXXXXXXX Sample - Deportations in vicinity XXXXXXXX Mean of dependent var. 5.051 20.51 22.40 -3.860 -3.860 0.133 0.00371 0.000774 SD of dependent var. 1.742 22.77 4.325 6.638 6.638 0.100 0.00221 0.000296

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Condensed Balance Table

Main Explanatory Var.: Deportations dummy Share of Protestant Deportees Sample: All PSUs with and without deportations N All districts with deportations N All PSUs with deportations N Panel A. Geography Balance PLACEBO OUTCOME VAR. Distance to water (ln) -0.423*** (0.127) 375 0.115 (0.206) 1057 0.351 (0.336) 229 Distance to railroad (ln) -0.944*** (0.243) 375 0.073 (0.287) 1057 0.327 (0.378) 229 Distance to gulag (ln) -0.388** (0.160) 375 -0.011 (0.202) 1057 0.145 (0.555) 229 Distance to capital (ln) -0.257** (0.128) 375 0.144* (0.078) 1057 -0.102 (0.383) 229 Ruggedness -27.766* (14.335) 375 -10.160 (10.183) 1057 -16.560 (23.450) 229 Soil Suitability low inputs -0.851*** (0.189) 375 0.041 (0.183) 1057 -0.120 (0.298) 229 Soil Suitability high inputs -0.667*** (0.161) 375 0.111 (0.215) 1057 -0.413 (0.309) 229 Precipitation (June-August) (ln) -0.138 (0.123) 375 -0.077* (0.042) 1057 -0.063 (0.168) 229 Precipitation (Dec-Feb) (ln) -0.061 (0.063) 375 -0.069 (0.044) 1057 -0.048 (0.163) 229 Temperature (June-August) 2.443*** (0.707) 375 0.155 (0.246) 1057 -1.902** (0.968) 229 Temperature (Dec-Feb) 2.356*** (0.655) 375 -0.258 (0.357) 1057 -2.468** (0.968) 229 Panel B. Evacuated Enterprises Balance Nb. of evacuated enterprises 2.421 (1.622) 375 -6.848 (5.713) 1057 -7.680 (9.621) 229 Evacuation enterprise dummy 0.294*** (0.058) 375 -0.127** (0.050) 1057 -0.268 (0.176) 229 Panel C. 1897 Census Balance Population density (sq km) (ln) -0.0500 (0.077) 375 0.0320 (0.429) 1090 0.259 (0.231) 229 Sample: All counties in Central Asia PSUs with and without deportations N All counties in Central Asia with deportations N All counties in Central Asia PSUs with deportations N Share of Muslims 0.091** (0.040) 36 -0.0180 (0.164) 39 0.0530 (0.094) 30 Share of Protestants -0.00200 (0.002) 36 -0.00700 (0.005) 39 -0.00400 (0.004) 30 Share of Christians -0.050*** (0.019) 36 0.0500 (0.072) 39 0.0140 (0.046) 30 Share of Orthodox -0.077** (0.036) 36 -0.0280 (0.118) 39 -0.0420 (0.092) 30 Share of Germans -0.00200 (0.002) 36 -0.00600 (0.004) 39 -0.00400 (0.003) 30 Share of Russians -0.084** (0.037) 36 0.0160 (0.159) 39 -0.0500 (0.090) 30 Share of literate females -0.012** (0.005) 36 0.0280 (0.028) 39 0.00600 (0.011) 30 Share living in city -0.0300 (0.029) 36 -0.117 (0.088) 39 -0.116* (0.062) 30 Share of merchants and artisans 0.00 (0.010) 36 -0.038* (0.022) 39 0.00700 (0.025) 30 Share working in agriculture 0.00600 (0.010) 36 0.0310 (0.025) 39 0.0100 (0.022) 30 Share working in industry 0.00100 (0.004) 36 -0.0170 (0.015) 39 -0.0260 (0.016) 30 Share working in services/trade 0.00 (0.000) 36 -0.00200 (0.002) 39 -0.003* (0.002) 30 Share in white collar jobs 0.00 (0.000) 36 -0.002*** (0.001) 39 0.000 (0.001) 30 Notes: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Robust standard errors in parantheses correct for potential spatial correlation at the 150km distance following Conley (1999). All regressions with the share of Protestant deportees as the main explanatory variable control for all other deportee shares (except for Muslims) and the log of the total size of deportations. Panel A and B also control for region fixed effects. Panel B and C also control for the distance to capital city and summer precipiation.

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Condensed gender attitudes table

Disagree or strongly disagree that: A woman should always do It is better if the Men make better political 1st Principle Component most of the household chores man earns the money leaders than women do Progressive Gender Attitudes Panel A. Levels Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.027*** 0.015*** 0.016** 0.019*** 0.034*** 0.014** 0.026*** 0.016*** (0.005) (0.005) (0.007) (0.006) (0.010) (0.005) (0.005) (0.003) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.008 -0.014* -0.007 -0.005 -0.011* -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 (0.009) (0.008) (0.007) (0.008) (0.007) (0.009) (0.006) (0.005) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.100 0.073 -0.063 -0.014 -0.072 0.006 -0.079 0.020 (0.061) (0.050) (0.058) (0.069) (0.076) (0.077) (0.051) (0.045)

Observations 2,679 2,004 2,656 1,995 2,635 1,978 2,572 1,924 R-squared 0.199 0.159 0.125 0.146 0.182 0.146 0.161 0.163 Sample - All PSUs with and without deportations XX XX XX XX

p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.008*** 0.006*** 0.000*** 0.058** 0.000*** 0.000*** Mean of dependent var. 0.161 0.174 0.205 0.164 0.246 0.176 0.206 0.170 SD of dependent var. 0.368 0.380 0.404 0.370 0.431 0.381 0.271 0.256 Panel B. Shares Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.161*** 0.203*** 0.134** 0.150 0.142 0.088 0.139*** 0.148*** (0.055) (0.059) (0.053) (0.104) (0.090) (0.062) (0.043) (0.056)

Observations 1,643 1,238 1,636 1,236 1,621 1,217 1,599 1,193 R-squared 0.223 0.183 0.136 0.150 0.167 0.137 0.193 0.187 Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX XX XX XX Mean of dependent var. 0.149 0.158 0.204 0.155 0.231 0.186 0.195 0.163 SD of dependent var. 0.356 0.365 0.403 0.362 0.422 0.389 0.280 0.261

Region FE and Controls XX XX XX XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect Condensed gender behaviors table

Tried to start Member of a Same or higher university a business women’s rights group aspirations for daughter vs son Panel A. Levels Protestant Deportees (ln) 0.012*** 0.001 0.005 0.009*** 0.003 -0.004 (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) (0.006) (0.004) Muslim Deportees (ln) -0.012*** 0.008 -0.004 -0.004 -0.006 -0.016*** (0.004) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.004) Muslim or Protestant Deportation -0.003 -0.048 0.008 -0.012 -0.031 0.088** (0.037) (0.047) (0.035) (0.038) (0.046) (0.043)

Observations 2,732 2,047 2,732 2,047 2,512 1,922 R-squared 0.0710 0.0819 0.0620 0.110 0.0857 0.0905 Sample - All PSUs with and without deportations XX XX XX

p-value: Protestant = Muslim 0.000*** 0.382 0.122 0.035** 0.238 0.033** Mean of dependent var. 0.108 0.177 0.0437 0.0249 0.893 0.859 SD of dependent var. 0.310 0.381 0.204 0.156 0.309 0.348 Panel B. Shares Protestant Deportees (Share) 0.135*** -0.061 0.052 0.114*** 0.093 0.066 (0.039) (0.086) (0.078) (0.040) (0.091) (0.073)

Observations 1,669 1,257 1,669 1,257 1,571 1,196 R-squared 0.0823 0.0880 0.0885 0.149 0.105 0.0795 Sample - Deportations in vicinity XX XX XX Mean of dependent var. 0.116 0.207 0.0463 0.0257 0.888 0.860 SD of dependent var. 0.321 0.406 0.210 0.158 0.316 0.347

Region FE and Controls XX XX XX Sample - Gender Female Male Female Male Female Male

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations Intro Background Data Results Conclusions Time-variant eﬀect

All Soviet republic of destination, % 000s % Russia Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan

Nb of districts with deportations 774 190 97 55 12 3

Blum, Jarotschkin, Zhuravskaya Gender Norms and Ethnic Deportations