It's funny when people try to insinuate that bigotry of various kinds (sexism, anti-semitism, etc) are recent phenomena.
I was reading this account of a young Danish man who was captured into slavery by Algerian pirates in 1724.
His experiences are all interesting, but long story short, he eventually earns his freedom back. As he prepares for his journey home, he is given the following odd advice:
“Beware of strong drink, of women and of the Jews in Algiers, that they may not cheat you of your money!”
That's what I argue in a recent piece. Consider, for example, Nigeria's homicide rate.
An organization that monitors homicides from news reports find >3x homicides than official counts, and household surveys suggest >10x.
There are two major sources that compile national homicide rates across the world, including African countries: WHO and UNODC.
WHO, recognizing the unreliability of African homicide statistics, do not even use the official homicide counts and try to estimate it by other means.
How do they estimate it? They use a socio-demographic regression model. They basically say “the country is this poor, this unequal, has this many young males, etc, therefore the homicide is probably about such-and-such.”
But we have no idea how accurate such predictions are.
In this piece, I critically examine the quality and availability of data in Africa. I argue that much African data is highly unreliable.
In particular, I look at economic data, criminal justice data, and population data.
I'm by no means the first to sound alarm about African data quality. It has previously been called "Africa's statistical tragedy". Similarly, a well-known book "Poor Numbers" critically examines Africa's developmental statistics.
There's a lack of proper birth registration, death registration, lack of recent censuses, and much more.
This chart illustrates a composite measure of statistical capacity across the world. As is evident, Africa is the region with the lowest average score.
It is not unusual to see claims that intelligent or otherwise able people have fewer children. But is this universal? In the Nordic countries, the opposite seems to the case.
Consider first this data of IQ-fertility for Swedish men born between 1951–1967.
The data clearly shows that there is a positive relationship between IQ and fertility. To be fair, this is mostly explained by reduced fertility below average IQ. (Note also that "not tested" have very low fertility, but people who weren't tested tend to have very low IQ).
Basically the same is shown for Norway here (Stanine score is just the IQ scores being distributed into bins).
In my most recent piece, I evaluate whether immigrants tend to assimilate with respect to various social outcomes.
One important outcome is crime. Consider for example the following chart. In Denmark, second-generation immigrants are no less criminal than first-generation.
I then went one step further and considered whether differences between different immigrant groups converge. Again, Denmark offers excellent data by nation-of-origin.
There is a remarkable persistence in crime rates between first- and second generation (correlation = 0.9).
It's not just in Denmark. Though Sweden does not report them at the national level, we see the same strong persistence for region-of-origin.
Using data from a variety of countries, I show that ethnic disparities in human capital, economic performance, crime and cultural values tend to show substantial persistence across generations.
First, I consider whether immigrants assimilate in terms of human capital.
Systematic PISA comparisons show that even second-generation immigrants tend to score much more similar to their parents' country-of-origin than the country they were born and raised in.
In fact, even if you control for school and socioeconomic status, students whose parents come from high-scoring countries still tend to score higher on tests. This indicates a strong degree of persistence.
In a new article, I argue that, contrary to common belief, the American story is not one of widespread and rapid immigrant assimilation. The "melting pot" metaphor is largely a fiction.
It is often said that, during the Age of Mass Migration, European migrants rapidly assimilated.
This is mistaken. Not only did large shares of European immigrants return because they couldn't integrate, disparities between European groups did *not* rapidly disappear.
Another example of supposed great assimilation are today's Asian immigrants.
But their success can largely be attributed to pre-arrival characteristics due to extreme immigration selectivity, not to characteristics acquired after arrival due to assimilation.