Cosmopolitanism in the World: an Empirical Comparative Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cosmopolitanism in the World: an empirical comparative study Alexander Kustov GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences University of Mannheim, Germany Premises Global discourses New wave of cosmopolitan discussion Empirical Inquires of cosmopolitanism Nationalism • The world is divided into distinct peoples, holding that “the political and the cultural unit should be congruent” • Nation-state is a world model* for a proper political organization of “the container model of society”, comprising democracy, citizenship, social security and national self-determination *Meyer et al. (1997) Global discourses • Globalization, i.e. increased flows of capital, goods, information and people • Global Governance, i.e. the rise of supranational organizations and international institutions • Transnationalism, i.e. migration and diasporas • Human Rights protection and Human Security • Global Civil Society and Global Public Policy Cosmopolitanism • M. Nussbaum ‘cosmopolitan morality’ • D. Archibugi, D. Held ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ • K. Appiah ‘cosmopolitan patriotism’ • U. Beck ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’ → agenda for empirical research Cosmopolitan theory • relies on the idea that people have multiply identities (non-hierarchical and contextual) • assumes interconnectedness of the world as a whole (both explicit and latent) • expand locus of concern from nation to humanity compatible with nationalism (e.g. cosmopolitan patriotism) puts individuals over groups (human rights vs. rights of peoples) Empirical research on cosmopolitanism ISSP WVS P. Norris (1999) – attachment to Schueth (2007) – feeling of world Identity continent citizenship Attitudes F. Pichler(2009) – Orientation V. Roudometof, Haller (2007, 2010) – Identity & local-cosmopolitan continuum, P. Norris (2000) – feeling of world detachment/nationalism citizenship, support for global policy Attitudes A. Ofsson, S. Ohman (2007) - and institutions detachment/protectionism Research purposes • suggest a new theoretically and empirically grounded operationalization • evaluate the prevalence, distribution and dynamics • create a formal model of cosmopolitan identity and orientation Methodology World Values Survey (5th wave) • Direct operationalization (world citizen identity and relevant attitude variables) • Wide scope Methods: OLS Regressions on individual and country level; HLM Analysis First step: • Measure the quantity and distribution of cosmopolitans Second step: • Revealing individual predictors using linear regression Third step: • Cross-country comparison using linear regression (creating cosmopolitan indices for countries) Last step: • HLM for predicting cosmopolitan identity considering individual and country level variation Hypotheses Cosmopolitanism is linked with: H1: ↑ secular and self-expression values H2: ↑ capability to benefit from globalization H3: ↑ country’s involvement in globalization H4: ↑ country’s prosperity and information freedom Conceptualization Cosmopolitanism 1) Identity: «world citizenship», belonging to humanity or world as a whole 2) Orientation: similar desire of justice and attitude to all people, regardless of their prescribed characteristics Not multiculturalism Not tolerance 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% China Japan S Korea Argentina Morocco Germany and distribution Prevalence Romania Sweden Bulgaria Slovenia " Finland Strong Uruguay USA Italy " Poland cosmopolitans Australia Spain Georgia Andorra Trinidad and Tobago Brazil Moldova , Chile % Ukraine Egypt of wave(5th Indonesia Canada Norway Serbia Thailand Zambia WVS) Switzerland Vietnam Mexico India Cyprus Jordan Turkey Malaysia Ethiopia S Africa Rwanda Burkina Faso Ghana Mali Operationalization Dependent Variables Individual level: 1) Relative cosmopolitan identity: RCI = CI - average (NI+LI) 2) Cosmopolitan Orientation Index: - Trust in others (nationalities, religions, strangers) - No national priority (labor and migrants, poverty) Country level: %RCI and average COI 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 5% Georgia Jordan Japan Vietnam Egypt Romania and distribution Prevalence China Argentina Morocco Bulgaria cosmopolitans Relative Poland Trinidad and Tobago South Korea Ghana Finland USA Rwanda Slovenia Norway Sweden Moldova , Zambia Burkina Faso %, Thailand 5 Cyprus WVS of th wave Spain Uruguay Australia Mali Chile Turkey Mexico Indonesia Brazil India Serbia Italy South Africa Ethiopia Canada Ukraine Germany Malaysia Andorra Switzerland 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Jordan Egypt Malaysia Indonesia Chile Morocco and distribution Prevalence Slovenia Zambia Georgia Turkey Cosmopolitan orientation, mean, WVS 5th waveof Brazil Cyprus China South Korea Trinidad and Tobago Mexico Moldova Romania Thailand India South Africa Ghana Vietnam Poland Bulgaria Germany Ukraine Italy Serbia Argentina Uruguay Ethiopia USA Rwanda Spain Burkina Faso Mali Finland Canada Andorra Australia Switzerland Norway Sweden Dynamics No clear trend, lack of data • 1-4 wave – 5 countries • 2-4 wave – 23 countries Cosmopolitans % 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 1980 1989 1994 2000 Dynamics 1980 1989 1994 2000 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Identity Orient. Identity Orient. Identity Orient. IndividualB β B β predictorsB β B β B β B β Constant 4.55 4.518 44.25 33.34 44.3 11.88 Female -0.04 -0.01 -.017 -0.01 -0.01 0.001 0.11 0.04 -0.07 -0.02 0.014 0.005 4.00E 7.00E -0.01 -0.12 0.05 -0.01 -0.12 0.01 -0.01 -0.15 0.004 0.044 Age -03 -02 City size 0.04 0.07 0.048 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.052 Migrant parents 0.29 0.06 0.558 0.11 0.31 0.06 0.52 0.1 0.19 0.04 0.261 0.053 manual/cognitiv 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.001 0.001 -.002 -.004 routine/creative 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.033 0.069 independence 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.012 0.023 Education 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.11 -0.02 -0.04 0.014 0.024 Income 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.006 0.01 Rational values 0.03 0.03 0.055 0.062 Self-expression 0.07 0.07 0.368 0.384 R2 Adjusted 0.022 0.022 0.031 0.085 0.038 0.23 *All the models and variables (except the one marked grey) are significant on the level p<0.05 Orientation Identity Model Cons. CountryB β predictorsR2 Sig Cons. B β R2 Sig GDP per 2.90E- 1.20E- 4.5 0.61 0.363 0.00 0.1 0.26 0.046 0.083 capita PPP 05 06 Information 3.92 0.02 0.63 0.389 0.00 0.09 0.001 0.23 0.034 0.125 freedom Globalizatio 3.8 0.02 0.4 0.109 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.029 0.137 n Index Survival/Sel 0.12 0.03 0.4 0.568 0.00 4.94 0.5 0.76 0.143 0.07 f-express. Traditional/ 0.13 0.01 0.2 0.248 0.00 5.1 0.4 0.52 0.019 0.128 secular Coefficients for multiply linear regressions at the country level (Orientation) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Country predictors B β B β B β B β Constant 5.947 5.00 7.335 4.82 Actual Flows -0.004 -0.1 -0.008 -0.2 Restrictions -0.007 -0.15 -0.009 -0.19 Personal Contacts 0.023 0.7 0.016 0.48 Informational flows -0.033 -0.75 -0.024 -0.56 Cultural proximity 0.019 0.73 0.003 0.11 Political globalization 0 0.01 -0.004 -0.08 Survival/Self-expression values 0.185 0.26 0.372 0.51 0.25 0.34 Traditional/secular values 0.443 0.66 0.432 0.64 0.45 0.67 Ethnolinguistic fractionalization 0.49 0.2 Adjusted R2 0.398 0.61 0.725 0.702 Coefficients for multiply linear regressions at the country level (identity) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Country predictors B β B β B β B β Constant 0.13 0.122 0.208 0.054 Actual Flows 0.001 0.28 0.001 0.251 Restrictions -0.001 -0.31 -0.002 -0.413 Personal Contacts 0.001 0.33 0.001 0.282 Informational flows -0.001 -0.35 -0.001 -0.312 Cultural proximity 0.001 0.28 0.00 0.152 Political globalization 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.006 Survival/Self-expression values 0.005 0.08 0.01 0.169 0.016 0.238 Traditional/secular values 0.025 0.38 0.014 0.236 0.025 0.37 Ethnolinguistic fractionalization 0.173 0.508 Adjusted R2 0.044 0.127 0.046 0.356 Summary • Most people feel attachment to the world as a whole, though only every tenth is relatively cosmopolitan • In 1980-2000 there was no clear trend of (de)cosmopolitanization of the world • The effect of mobility characteristics, globalization, postmodernizaton values, informational freedom and prosperity was confirmed • The identity measure is more elusive then orientation, predicted merely by linguistic fractionalization • Agenda: Exploring ELF effects and applying HLM, interaction models Thank you for your attention! .