Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the U.S. South in the Early 1960s

Similar documents
Problem Set #3 Key. Forecasting

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement

Gail E. Potter, Timo Smieszek, and Kerstin Sailer. April 24, 2015

Preferred citation style

Labor Supply of Married Couples in the Formal and Informal Sectors in Thailand

Appendix A. Table A.1: Logit Estimates for Elasticities

COMPARISON OF CORE AND PEEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR DRY MATTER MEASUREMENT IN HASS AVOCADO FRUIT

Volume 30, Issue 1. Gender and firm-size: Evidence from Africa

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE STATE OF TEXAS 2015

Final Exam Financial Data Analysis (6 Credit points/imp Students) March 2, 2006

Citrus Attributes: Do Consumers Really Care Only About Seeds? Lisa A. House 1 and Zhifeng Gao

The Financing and Growth of Firms in China and India: Evidence from Capital Markets

Missing Data Treatments

DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS (TAX CALCULATOR REVISION, MARCH 2017)

Online Appendix to Voluntary Disclosure and Information Asymmetry: Evidence from the 2005 Securities Offering Reform

Quality of the United States Soybean Crop: Dr. Seth. L. Naeve and Dr. James H. Orf 2

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of LiftFund:

On-line Appendix for the paper: Sticky Wages. Evidence from Quarterly Microeconomic Data. Appendix A. Weights used to compute aggregate indicators

Gender and Firm-size: Evidence from Africa

The Economic Impact of the Craft Brewing Industry in Maine. School of Economics Staff Paper SOE 630- February Andrew Crawley*^ and Sarah Welsh

Notes on the Philadelphia Fed s Real-Time Data Set for Macroeconomists (RTDSM) Capacity Utilization. Last Updated: December 21, 2016

Internet Appendix. For. Birds of a feather: Value implications of political alignment between top management and directors

Occupational Structure and Social Stratification in East Asia: A Comparative Study of Japan, Korea and Taiwan

Not to be published - available as an online Appendix only! 1.1 Discussion of Effects of Control Variables

United States Soybean Quality

Comparing R print-outs from LM, GLM, LMM and GLMM

State Individual Income Tax Rates

ESTIMATING ANIMAL POPULATIONS ACTIVITY

Grain Stocks. Corn Stocks Up 15 Percent from June 2014 Soybean Stocks Up 54 Percent All Wheat Stocks Up 28 Percent

THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S.

This appendix tabulates results summarized in Section IV of our paper, and also reports the results of additional tests.

Appendix Table A1 Number of years since deregulation

OF THE VARIOUS DECIDUOUS and

National Retail Report-Dairy

Lesson 23: Newton s Law of Cooling

Table A.1: Use of funds by frequency of ROSCA meetings in 9 research sites (Note multiple answers are allowed per respondent)

Civil War Battles Crossword Puzzle

STA Module 6 The Normal Distribution

STA Module 6 The Normal Distribution. Learning Objectives. Examples of Normal Curves

Flexible Working Arrangements, Collaboration, ICT and Innovation

Notes on the Philadelphia Fed s Real-Time Data Set for Macroeconomists (RTDSM) Indexes of Aggregate Weekly Hours. Last Updated: December 22, 2016

Demographic, Seasonal, and Housing Characteristics Associated with Residential Energy Consumption in Texas, 2010

Fleurieu zone (other)

Perspective of the Labor Market for security guards in Israel in time of terror attacks

Potatoes 2014 Summary

Method for the imputation of the earnings variable in the Belgian LFS

Survey Overview. SRW States and Areas Surveyed. U.S. Wheat Class Production Areas. East Coast States. Gulf Port States

Labor Requirements and Costs for Harvesting Tomatoes. Zhengfei Guan, 1 Feng Wu, and Steven Sargent University of Florida

Improving Capacity for Crime Repor3ng: Data Quality and Imputa3on Methods Using State Incident- Based Repor3ng System Data

Composition and Value of Loin Primals

Return to wine: A comparison of the hedonic, repeat sales, and hybrid approaches

Need it faster? Use 2-day or overnight shipping! We re sorry, due to state laws we are unable to expedite shipping to AZ, MA or NJ.

The Role of Calorie Content, Menu Items, and Health Beliefs on the School Lunch Perceived Health Rating

The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective

A Comparison of X, Y, and Boomer Generation Wine Consumers in California

Missing Data Methods (Part I): Multiple Imputation. Advanced Multivariate Statistical Methods Workshop

The R survey package used in these examples is version 3.22 and was run under R v2.7 on a PC.

What are the Driving Forces for Arts and Culture Related Activities in Japan?

Online Appendix to. Are Two heads Better Than One: Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games. David C. Cooper and John H.

Potatoes 2011 Summary

PARENTAL SCHOOL CHOICE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN NORTH CAROLINA

PROBIT AND ORDERED PROBIT ANALYSIS OF THE DEMAND FOR FRESH SWEET CORN

Gasoline Empirical Analysis: Competition Bureau March 2005

Adelaide Plains Wine Region

Grain Stocks. Corn Stocks Up 1 Percent from June 2017 Soybean Stocks Up 26 Percent All Wheat Stocks Down 7 Percent

Handling Missing Data. Ashley Parker EDU 7312

This is a repository copy of Poverty and Participation in Twenty-First Century Multicultural Britain.

Multiple Imputation for Missing Data in KLoSA

ICT Use and Exports. Patricia Kotnik, Eva Hagsten. This is a working draft. Please do not cite or quote without permission of the authors.

Phenolics of WA State Wines*

MANGO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT

Effects of political-economic integration and trade liberalization on exports of Italian Quality Wines Produced in Determined Regions (QWPDR)

Climate change may alter human physical activity patterns

National Retail Report-Dairy

Bishop Druitt College Food Technology Year 10 Semester 2, 2018

BRD BREWERS RESOURCE DIRECTORY

Influence of Service Quality, Corporate Image and Perceived Value on Customer Behavioral Responses: CFA and Measurement Model

Online Appendix for. Inattention and Inertia in Household Finance: Evidence from the Danish Mortgage Market,

Photosynthesis: How do plants get energy? Student Advanced Version

Total cheese output (excluding cottage cheese) was 982 million pounds, 4.2 percent above February 2017 but 10.5 percent below January 2018.

National Retail Report-Dairy

Appendix A. Table A1: Marginal effects and elasticities on the export probability

Religion and Innovation

Ex-Ante Analysis of the Demand for new value added pulse products: A

THE STATISTICAL SOMMELIER

November K. J. Martijn Cremers Lubomir P. Litov Simone M. Sepe

The 2006 Economic Impact of Nebraska Wineries and Grape Growers

SA Winegrape Crush Survey Regional Summary Report 2017 South Australia - other

National Retail Report-Dairy

A Web Survey Analysis of the Subjective Well-being of Spanish Workers

Senarath Dharmasena Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University College Station, TX

segregation and educational opportunity

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND VINEYARDS IN NAPA COUNTY

The age of reproduction The effect of university tuition fees on enrolment in Quebec and Ontario,

Regression Models for Saffron Yields in Iran

National Retail Report-Dairy

MEAT DEMAND Table 1: Willingness-to-Pay. Deli Ham

Predicting Wine Quality

AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship

DETERMINANTS OF GROWTH

Transcription:

Michael Biggs and Kenneth T. Andrews Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the U.S. South in the Early 1960s American Sociological Review SUPPLEMENT This supplement describes the results obtained from testing the robustness of Models 2 to 5. The tables must be read in conjunction with Tables 2 and 3. Table S1 varies the spatial decay parameter (φ) for sit-ins (Models 2 to 4) and for desegregation (Model 5). The final rows also replace the single diffusion variable with two diffusion variables, one within the state and one beyond the state. In order to compare how well each variant fits the data while also rewarding parsimony, we use AIC corrected for finite sample size: AIC c = 2log(L) + 2p + 2p( p +1) N p 1 where L is the likelihood, N is the number of observations, and p is the number of parameters to be estimated (Burnham and Anderson 2004). The smaller is AIC, the better. Each entry in the table reports AIC c : AIC c for this variant minus the minimum AIC c over all variants of the model (down each column). The minimum (for each column) is denoted by 0. Variants of the model with AIC c < 2 have substantial support. Table S2 introduces separate intercepts for each state, thus making the models capture only variation within states. States where no cities had been desegregated are necessarily omitted. Table S3 shows jacknife standard errors, which are calculated by replicating the model N times, omitting one observation from the data. This procedure increases the standard error, of course. The jacknife errors are calculated using Stata s option vce(jacknife) for Models 2-4 and vce(jacknife, cluster(id)) for Model 5, where ID identifies each city. For Model 5, the model is replicated 291 times, each replication omitting one city (and not one city-interval) from the data; parameters could not be estimated in one replication. The p-values in Table S3 are derived from the t-distribution, rather than the Normal distribution Table S4 omits each independent variable in turn, showing how this affects the most important estimates. For Models 2-4, the key variables are sit-ins and sit-ins in other cities. For 1

Model 5, the key variable is desegregation in other cities from August 1960 to April 1961. Each row reports these estimates when another independent variable is omitted. In the case of the proxy for racial oppression at the state level, its squared term is simultaneously omitted (the term is already excluded in Model 4). REFERENCE Burnham, Kenneth P. and David R. Anderson. 2004. Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 261-304. 2

Table S1: Alternative measures for spatial variables ΔAICc Other cities with sit-ins Desegregation in other cities Spatial decay parameter (φ) Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.3 4.9 0.2 2.5 0.3 0.1 4.1 0.3 2.1 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.3 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.1 2.8 0.9 5.2 0.7 0.1, within state and beyond state 0.5 1.8 1.2 2.2 0.5, within state and beyond state 0.0 1.2 1.6 3.1 1.0, within state and beyond state 3.5 2.2 6.0 4.1

Table S2: Separate intercepts for each state Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 odds s.e. p odds s.e. p odds s.e. p hazard s.e. p Sit-in, Feb April 1960 4.26 2.75.02 * 4.33 2.63.02 * 7.67 5.21.00 ** 3.27 2.07.06 Other cities with sit-ins weighted by distance 1.31 1.01.73 1.05.77.95 2.99 2.48.19 2.35 1.76.25 NAACP members (logged) 1.45.25.03 * 1.49.22.01 **.97.17.86 1.51.25.01 * NAACP Youth Council.39.23.11.34.19.06.82.51.75.74.40.57 NAACP College Chapter 2.50 3.64.53 1.41 2.13.82 3.05 6.00.57 4.87 5.66.17 SCLC presence.35.39.35.31.36.32.15.22.19.34.36.31 CORE Chapter 3.09 4.38.43 1.34 1.96.84 1.96 3.74.72 4.52 5.07.18 SRC presence.66.42.51.42.24.13.83.52.77.34.21.08 White racial organization in county.14.10.01 **.27.17.04 *.37.28.19.28.15.02 * Racial violence in county 1.58.94.44 1.09.61.88 1.76 1.13.38.71.35.49 Strict segregationist % of gubernatorial vote in county.98.03.47.98.02.46.97.03.34.97.02.10 Black % 1.00.03.95 1.01.03.63 1.00.03.91 1.04.03.17 Workers in major corporations as % of employed.97.01.05.99.01.54.99.02.42.99.01.52 Number of labor unions / employed x 1000 1.15.43.71.83.30.61 1.47.59.34.95.36.89 Retail/hospitality as % of employed 1.06.12.63 1.04.11.72 1.47.21.01 ** 1.29.18.07 Mean income of blacks (logged) 50.97 96.21.04 * 28.39 50.03.06 572.85 1263.96.00 ** 2.73 5.03.59 Aggregate income of blacks in millions (logged) 1.71.75.22 2.39.99.04 * 3.01 1.38.02 * 2.07.85.08 Professional and clerical as % of black employed.87.06.04 *.87.06.04 *.85.07.04 *.79.06.00 ** Crafts and operatives as % of black employed.79.05.00 ***.84.04.00 **.87.05.03 *.82.06.01 ** Private household workers as % of black employed.97.05.53.99.05.89 1.02.06.76.94.05.31 Service workers as % of black employed.97.04.52 1.01.04.78 1.02.05.75.97.04.37 Black college students (logged) 1.47.30.06 1.43.28.07 1.47.34.10 1.48.28.04 * Desegregation in other cities: Aug 1960 April 1961 71.81 102.78.00 ** Desegregation in other cities: April 1961 Dec 1961.04.08.09 Alabama 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Arkansas.97 1.96.99.69 1.35.85 1.90 4.04.76.16.31.35 Florida 2.32 3.94.62 3.83 6.22.41 1.54 2.76.81.11.12.06 Georgia 2.16 3.96.68.93 2.01.97.14.18.13 Kentucky 3.19 5.15.47 2.29 3.64.60 68.27 119.72.02 *.27.37.34 Maryland 1.88 3.44.73 5.77 9.84.30 1.98 3.70.72.28.38.35 North Carolina 16.40 30.74.14 10.74 19.70.20 7.48 15.14.32.13.16.10 Tennessee 8.50 13.61.18 9.82 15.18.14 7.96 13.55.22.31.39.35 Texas 1.51 3.32.85 1.41 2.93.87.38.90.68.08.18.26 Virginia 40.25 68.52.03 * 30.36 50.46.04 * 41.23 73.84.04 * N 215 cities 247 cities 247 cities 890 city-intervals, 199 cities

Table S3: Jacknife standard errors Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 s.e. p s.e. p s.e. p s.e. p Sit-in, Feb April 1960 3.47.02 * 3.06.01 * 4.24.00 ** 1.86.14 Other cities with sit-ins weighted by distance 2.63.00 ** 1.24.02 * 4.15.00 *** 1.50.03 * NAACP members (logged).28.02 *.23.00 **.18.27.29.03 * NAACP Youth Council.28.19.25.14.57.89.51.65 NAACP College Chapter 1.59.95 2.79.84 3.42.40 7.79.54 SCLC presence.47.44.31.25.52.51.86.73 CORE Chapter 12.85.68 2.24.89.22.12 9.08.73 SRC presence.51.66.30.23.86.75.28.18 White racial organization in county.12.02 *.16.03 *.29.23.23.12 Racial violence in county.71.77.52.96.84.52.48.65 Strict segregationist % of gubernatorial vote in county.01.00 **.01.15.01.14.01.03 * Black %.04.91.04.63.04.80.03.39 Black % of state x % born in South.54.00 **.37.00 **.04.00 **.58.14 Black % of state x % born in South squared.01.00 **.01.00 ***.01.10 Workers in major corporations as % of employed.02.16.02.69.02.67.01.91 Number of labor unions / employed x 1000.35.79.29.56.39.82.36.94 Retail/hospitality as % of employed.14.47.11.76.18.03 *.18.24 Mean income of blacks (logged) 68.22.11 60.89.07 108.84.06 3.41.72 Aggregate income of blacks in millions (logged).82.33 1.18.05 1.12.05 1.08.18 Professional and clerical as % of black employed.05.04 *.05.03 *.05.12.07.03 * Crafts and operatives as % of black employed.05.00 ***.05.01 **.05.08.05.01 * Private household workers as % of black employed.06.62.06.91.06.48.06.56 Service workers as % of black employed.04.86.04.61.05.31.04.94 Black college students (logged).29.21.28.20.24.66.33.17 Desegregation in other cities: Aug 1960 April 1961 193.50.01 ** Desegregation in other cities: April 1961 Dec 1961.10.21

Table S4: Omission of independent variables Estimates for (a) Sitin; (b) Other cities with sitins; Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 (c) Desegregation in other cities, Aug 1960 - Apr 1961 (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (c) odds p odds p odds p odds p odds p odds p hazard p Sit-in, Feb April 1960 108.1.00 *** Other cities with sit-ins weighted by distance 112.4.00 *** NAACP members (logged) 4.83.01 ** 5.90.00 *** 4.52.01 ** 3.56.00 *** 6.66.00 ** 9.29.00 *** 73.9.00 *** NAACP Youth Council 4.48.01 * 5.07.00 *** 4.21.01 * 2.87.00 ** 6.84.00 ** 8.39.00 *** 114.8.00 *** NAACP College Chapter 4.98.01 ** 5.08.00 *** 4.79.01 ** 2.86.00 ** 6.87.00 ** 8.68.00 *** 107.7.00 *** SCLC presence 4.79.01 ** 5.45.00 *** 4.32.01 ** 3.05.00 ** 6.49.00 ** 8.64.00 *** 114.8.00 *** CORE Chapter 5.56.00 ** 5.21.00 *** 4.87.00 ** 2.83.00 ** 6.16.00 ** 8.72.00 *** 115.7.00 *** SRC presence 4.66.01 ** 5.08.00 *** 4.13.01 * 2.78.00 ** 7.11.00 *** 8.38.00 *** 138.3.00 *** White racial organization in county 4.48.01 * 4.76.00 *** 4.58.01 ** 2.88.00 ** 6.83.00 ** 8.57.00 *** 73.9.00 *** Racial violence in county 4.94.01 ** 5.12.00 *** 4.79.01 ** 2.82.00 ** 6.62.00 ** 8.45.00 *** 133.6.00 *** Strict segregationist % of gubernatorial vote in county 5.02.01 ** 2.73.00 ** 5.21.00 ** 2.28.01 * 7.08.00 ** 6.53.00 *** 167.8.00 *** Black % 5.03.01 ** 5.05.00 *** 5.01.00 ** 2.78.01 ** 6.74.00 ** 8.38.00 *** 91.3.00 *** Black % of state x % born in South, plus squared 5.75.00 ** 3.36.00 *** 5.69.00 ** 2.44.01 ** 227.7.00 *** Workers in major corporations as % of employed 4.72.01 ** 4.87.00 *** 4.80.01 ** 2.83.00 ** 6.91.00 ** 8.52.00 *** 111.0.00 *** Number of labor unions / employed x 1000 5.02.01 ** 5.05.00 *** 4.66.01 ** 2.84.00 ** 7.03.00 *** 8.34.00 *** 113.8.00 *** Retail/hospitality as % of employed 4.95.01 ** 4.34.00 *** 4.77.01 ** 2.68.00 ** 5.92.00 ** 5.14.00 *** 140.0.00 *** Mean income of blacks (logged) 5.51.00 ** 4.70.00 *** 5.23.00 ** 2.63.01 ** 7.08.00 *** 6.77.00 *** 128.6.00 *** Aggregate income of blacks in millions (logged) 4.65.01 * 4.61.00 *** 4.32.01 ** 2.40.01 * 6.42.00 ** 6.85.00 *** 100.4.00 *** Professional and clerical as % of black employed 4.23.01 * 4.27.00 *** 4.20.01 ** 2.53.01 ** 5.98.00 ** 7.47.00 *** 64.7.00 *** Crafts and operatives as % of black employed 2.86.05 3.09.00 ** 3.39.02 * 2.12.02 * 5.48.00 ** 6.75.00 *** 73.8.00 *** Private household workers as % of black employed 4.65.01 ** 4.98.00 *** 4.85.00 ** 2.83.00 ** 7.36.00 *** 8.27.00 *** 128.3.00 *** Service workers as % of black employed 4.94.01 ** 5.03.00 *** 4.88.01 ** 2.84.00 ** 7.27.00 *** 8.46.00 *** 113.4.00 *** Black college students (logged) 5.73.00 ** 4.96.00 *** 5.43.00 ** 2.75.00 ** 7.24.00 *** 8.20.00 *** 85.5.00 ***