Newspaper Presentations of Homosexuality across Nations: Examining Differences by Religion, Economic Development, and Democracy

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Adamczyk ◽  
Chunrye Kim ◽  
Margaret Schmuhl

A lot of research attention has been devoted to understanding cross-national differences in attitudes about homosexuality. A key finding has been that richer, more democratic, and less religious nations are more supportive. However, aside from establishing these relationships, we know little about how public discourse about homosexuality differs across nations. To better understand how public discussions about sexual minorities are framed, this multimethods’ study examines over 800 newspaper articles from Muslim and Protestant-majority nations. Although there are no differences in the extent to which Muslim and Protestant nations discuss homosexuality in the context of religion, Muslim nations are more likely to frame homosexuality as a moral issue and use government claimsmakers. Very poor countries are also more likely to associate homosexuality with morality. Finally, more democratic nations are more likely to discuss homosexuality in the context of rights and include social movement leaders as claimsmakers.

Author(s):  
Amy Adamczyk

This chapter examines the roles of economic development and democracy for shaping attitudes, and it tests competing arguments for other macro-level processes. Theoretical insight from the works of Inglehart, Schwartz, and Hofstede are used to explain why economic development would be associated with cross-national differences in attitudes. The potential macro-level influence of education, gender and economic inequality, and nongovernment organizations are also considered. However, a multilevel analysis of World Values Survey data shows that they do not appear to have an effect in light of the influences of religion, economic development, and democracy. The chapter ends by discussing the limitations with survey data for understanding cross-national attitudes and makes the case for the usefulness of country case studies to better understand how religion, economic development, and democracy shape attitudes within individual nations.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mogens K. Justesen

Differences in property rights institutions are often thought to contribute to explaining cross-national differences in economic development. If secure and universally enforced property rights help produce collectively beneficial economic results, the question is why there is so much variation in the institutions and rules that regulate property rights. Based on institutional analysis, the purpose of this article is to analyse why some states and governments establish and enforce property rights that are good for growth while others do not. The argument is that the incentive to enforce and protect property rights is shaped by particular political institutions, namely those that relate to the size of a government’s supporting coalition and the extent of power sharing among veto players. The empirical analyses show that coalition institutions are strongly related to property rights while the impact of power sharing is less robust.


2014 ◽  
pp. 147-153
Author(s):  
P. Orekhovsky

The review outlines the connection between E. Reinert’s book and the tradition of structural analysis. The latter allows for the heterogeneity of industries and sectors of the economy, as well as for the effects of increasing and decreasing returns. Unlike the static theory of international trade inherited from the Ricardian analysis of comparative advantage, this approach helps identify the relationship between trade, production, income and population growth. Reinert rehabilitates the “other canon” of economic theory associated with the mercantilist tradition, F. Liszt and the German historical school, as well as a reconside ration of A. Marshall’s analysis of increasing returns. Empirical illustrations given in the book reveal clear parallels with the path of Russian socio-economic development in the last twenty years.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002071522098786
Author(s):  
Steve R Entrich

This article examines the cross-national differences in socioeconomic accessibility to shadow education (SE) across 63 societies. Drawing on arguments from two competing theoretical models either emphasizing cross-national cultural, economic, and institutional differences (e.g. model of secondary schooling, scale of SE) or universally working social reproduction mechanisms (e.g. enrichment features of SE), this study provides a novel approach to understanding the role of SE for social inequality. More specifically, while the first model explicitly allows equality in access to SE, the latter suggests that SE fosters inequality under all circumstances. Using data from the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and official sources, first, the difference in the probability of top in comparison to bottom socioeconomic strata to use SE is predicted separately for all societies, before analyzing what causes the found considerable cross-national variation in the socioeconomic gap in access to SE at the country level. Results indicate that differences in SE access are linked to incentives for high-performing students to use SE. These incentives are especially common in societies with higher educational institutional differentiation (e.g. early or mixed tracking schooling models). In societies with less stratified education systems, access to SE is more equal, wherefore the potential effect of SE to social inequality is dampened. Overall, findings suggest that simple generalizations based on existing theoretical models provide no comprehensive explanation for the connection between SE and inequality. Instead, prominent beliefs about the relationship between SE and inequality are questioned.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237802312110198
Author(s):  
Bastian A. Betthäuser ◽  
Caspar Kaiser ◽  
Nhat An Trinh

A large body of literature documents cross-national variation in the level of inequality of educational opportunity (IEO) among children from different social backgrounds. By contrast, relatively little attention has been given to the extent to which IEO varies within counties and across regions. On the basis of data from the European Social Survey, the authors map variation in IEO across regions in Europe and show that IEO varies substantially within counties. This visualization of the heterogeneity of IEO within European countries highlights the need for researchers and policy makers to extend the current focus on cross-national differences and to investigate and address IEO at the regional level. The visualization raises important questions with respect to the contours, causes, and consequences of cross-regional variation in IEO.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document