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
Prevalence and distribution
"Strong" cosmopolitans, % (5th wave of WVS) 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
USA
Italy
Mali
India
Chile
Spain
Brazil
Egypt
China
Japan
Serbia
Ghana
Jordan
Turkey
Cyprus
Poland
Mexico
Finland
Zambia
Canada
S S Africa
S S Korea
Norway
Ukraine
Georgia
Sweden
Rwanda
Bulgaria
Andorra
Ethiopia
Slovenia
Vietnam
Uruguay
Thailand
Romania
Moldova Malaysia
Australia
Morocco
Germany
Indonesia
Argentina
Switzerland
Burkina Faso Burkina Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and 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
Prevalence and distribution
Relative cosmopolitans, %, 5th wave of WVS 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
0%
USA
Italy
Mali
India
Chile
Spain
Brazil
Egypt
China
Japan
Serbia
Ghana
Jordan
Turkey
Cyprus
Poland
Mexico
Finland
Zambia
Canada
Norway
Ukraine
Georgia
Sweden
Rwanda
Bulgaria
Andorra
Ethiopia
Slovenia
Vietnam
Uruguay
Thailand
Romania
Malaysia
Moldova Australia
Morocco
Germany
Indonesia
Argentina
Switzerland
South Africa South
South Korea South
Burkina Faso Burkina Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Prevalence and distribution
Cosmopolitan orientation, mean, 5th wave of WVS 8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
USA
Italy
Mali
India
Chile
Spain
Brazil
Egypt
China
Serbia
Ghana
Jordan
Turkey
Cyprus
Poland
Mexico
Finland
Zambia
Canada
Norway
Ukraine
Georgia
Sweden
Rwanda
Bulgaria
Andorra
Ethiopia
Slovenia
Vietnam
Uruguay
Thailand
Romania
Malaysia Moldova
Australia
Morocco
Germany
Indonesia
Argentina
Switzerland
South Africa South
South Korea South
Burkina Faso Burkina Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and 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!