This time 'round it's a scatterplot (thanks to Steve Sailer for the suggestion!) of the average consanguinity rates and the perceived corruption scores (CPI) for each of the countries (data table below):
There is a negative correlation between the consanguinity rates and the CPI scores of 0.73 (-0.73087). That means that there is a strong or high correlation between consanguinity and corruption. In other words, populations that have higher levels of consanguineous marriages tend to have lower CPI scores or higher rates of corruption. (A low CPI score means that a nation has high levels of perceived corruption.)
Some notes about the data:
- The data on rates of consanguineous marriage come from Consang.net. I selected only data for nations collected after 1980 with the exception of Israel (just curious to compare the Israelis with the Arab populations of the Middle East).
- The data on corruption come from Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
- It would be really useful to have and compare more data. I'll prolly work up another chart using the older consanguinity data from Consang.net which goes back in many cases to the 1950s -- and I will also be looking around for other data to include.
- Some of the data points included on the graph above are clearly better than others. The figure for the U.S., for instance, is only for Roman Catholics in Wisconsin. That's prolly not a representative sample for the entire country.
- The different populations practice different sorts of consanguineous marriages -- 1st cousins vs. 2nd cousins vs. uncle-niece, etc. This is not accounted for in the graph above. What sorts of consanguineous marriage are practiced obviously affects how closely related to each other the individuals within the populations actually are (the coefficient of inbreeding rates).
- The different populations have been practicing consanguineous marriages for different lengths of time which also affects their coefficient of inbreeding rates. For instance, the first-cousin father's brother's daughter marriage (FBD) common in the Middle East and Arab world is thought to have originated in the Middle East well before the birth of Christ and has been practiced by the Arabs long before the appearance of Islam. On the other hand, non-Arabs who adopted Islam later (such as Pakistanis) may have picked up on FBD marriage at a later date from the Arabs during the general Islamic-Arabization process of populations in the 7th-8th cenutry Caliphate.
The data:
Update >> A new chart with some added data. See my comment 29 July '08 @ 01:06 for details.
16 comments:
Great graph.
What's interesting is that in the parts of the US where white corruption was historically higher than the rest of the country - the South - there was also (allegedly) a strong tradition of marriage between close relatives.
Great work!
A big request you may not have time for:
Could you expand upon this by controlling for IQ? I'm curious as to how much corruption is predicted by national mean IQ scores versus endogamy.
It might also be interesting to see how much economic freedom correlates with rates of consanguineous marriage both with and without considering g.
Tommy: Could you expand upon this by controlling for IQ?
That's a good idea -- thanks! I will work on that, but prolly won't get to it for a while.
Thanks for the Index of economic Freedom link -- also a very good idea!
I'd also like to look at some data related to internal conflicts -- tribal warfare and such. This sort of data looks interesting.
If anyone knows of any other good data sources on conflicts or has any other suggestions, do let me know!
Cheers,
HG
The links below are in a very rough descending order of relevance, which does not imply that any of them actually are relevant.
http://www.amren.com/ar/2002/06/#article3
http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/vanhanen.htm Ethnic Conflict Explained by Ethnic Nepotism
http://foster.20megsfree.com/463.htm
http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/dennen.htm
http://www.prio.no/page/Project_detail/Replication_Datasets/9649/42472.html
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/i2ppx6/The%20Vanhanen%20Thesis%20and%20the%20Prospects%20for%20Democracy%20in%20Latin%20America.pdf
http://www.fsd.uta.fi/english/data/catalogue/FSD1216/meF1216e.html
Thanks for the links, Bert! And, belated thanks for the Sesardic links, too. Really good stuff -- I wasn't familiar with him before. Thanks so much! :-)
Belated congrats on the Sailer mention! Great graph.
Unfortunately your work is severely flawed. You're cherry picking your examples to support your hypothesis. Many Asian countries have strong cultural and/or religious taboos against consanguinity but are still very corrupt up to the level of middle eastern countries. Look at Thailand, Philippines, China, Indonesia etc. Also look at Russia, former Soviet republics and Latin American countries.
The problem with Sailer is that he tries to show genetics as a factor in the problems of the middle east when in fact the root of the problems are political in nature.
Anonymous: Look at Thailand, Philippines, China, Indonesia etc. Also look at Russia, former Soviet republics and Latin American countries.
Thanks for your comments, Anon. I will agree with you that this little study of mine is flawed because it is incomplete -- I won't go so far as to say seriously flawed though. ;-)
I didn't include all of the countries you mentioned mostly because there was not good data readily available and I haven't, yet, had the time to do a more comprehensive search for data. I am working on it, albeit slowly (summer is always a busy time for me). I hope to have more time in the autumn to work on this, so check back in autumn/winter to see if I've come up with anything interesting.
As for some of the countries you've mentioned, here are some examples of some data that is available. The list goes like this -- Country - Average consanguinity - CPI ranking.
Thailand = not available - 3.3
Philippines = 0.4% (Manila only) - 2.5
China = 28.85% - 3.5
Indonesia - 17.8% (Timor Island only) - 2.3
Russia = not available - 2.3
Latin American countries (2 examples):
Peru = 2.55% - 3.5
Brazil = 7.8% - 3.5
Adding those data in, I get a negative correlation of 0.63, which is still very high. I've added a new chart for your viewing pleasure. ;-)
Again, I don't have time to work on this more at the moment, but I will do in future.
Anonymous: The problem with Sailer is that he tries to show genetics as a factor in the problems of the middle east when in fact the root of the problems are political in nature.
Human behaviour is biology -- and biology is directed, in part, by genes -- so I agree with Sailer that the root of these problems is related -- at least in part (in good part, I think) -- to genetics.
Anonymous: Many Asian countries have strong cultural and/or religious taboos against consanguinity but are still very corrupt up to the level of middle eastern countries.
Just found some more data on consanguinity levels in Asia. Apparently, there are, in fact, some very high levels of consanguinity in some Asian countries irregardless of the taboos you mention:
Malaysia = 40% (Muslims=20%; Hindus=54.7%; Chinese=7.3%) - CPI=5.1
Thailand = Muslims=36.8%; 3.5%=Buddhists - CPI=3.3
Philippines = Muslims=37.5%; Christians=4% CPI=2.5
Singapore = Chinese=0.3%; Indians=4% - CPI=9.3
1. My calculation for a mean consanguineous rate for China and Brazil using the link you provided is (your figures in brackets)-
China = 9.85% (28.85%)
Brazil = 4.31% (7.8%)
I used your own figures to generate a regression line and I got a correlation of -0.566 not -0.63.
2. Just by glancing at your figures I know that something is wrong. Consanguinity is uncommon and even taboo in far east Asian cultures so your figure of 28.85% for China is way way off. You can't simply average the numbers because the ethnic Han (who have a very low consanguineous rate) comprise 92% of the total population so a simple average would give a grossly skewed figure towards the minorities. In the same way, the Timorese are culturally and ethnically distinct and less than 1% of Indonesia's total population. The practise of consanguinity varies widely in India from very rare among northern Indians to relatively high in the south and among minority Muslim Indians.
2. The reason I said your work is seriously flawed is because you stacked 16 middle east (and near middle east) countries in your list out of 28 which are ruled by medieval despots or military juntas who spend disproportinately on military hardware for internal repression and hand out govt largesse as if were their own money. Decades of harsh repression, lack of freedom, wars and military expansion, militarised and totalitarian societies might have more do to with their problems than consanguinity.
3. I appended the following country data to your original list:
Philippines 0.4 2.5
China(Han) 2.66 3.5
Indonesia(Timor) 17.8 2.3
Peru 2.55 3.5
Brazil 7.8 3.5
Mexico 1.3 3.5
Panama 1.7 3.2
Bolivia 0.6 2.9
Chile 1.3 7
Colombia 3 3.8
Ecuador 6.3 2.1
Uruguay 4.5 6.7
Venezuela 1.3 2
Ecuador 6.3 2.1
Uruguay 4.5 6.7
Venezuela 1.3 2
Croatia 0.1 4.1
And I got a correlation of -0.34276
Appending a dozen East European countries and a dozen more south east Asian countries will weaken the correlation even furthur. But it would still be pointless - see below.
4. Researching this issue requires at least some historical literacy. Along with what I said about the middle east, using Timor 17.8%-2.3 as a data point is very dodgy when you consider that Indonesia invaded the country and killed off a quarter of its people for decades until very recently. The dividing line in the have and have nots
in India is casteism not consanguineous families. I could go on.
5. 'Human behaviour is biology' - You'ved already made a leap across a scientific chasm. Sailer and other so called scientists use bad science to 'prove' what they choose to believe.
Thanks for your input, Anon. I appreciate it!
1. I used your own figures to generate a regression line and I got a correlation of -0.566 not -0.63.
Well, if I'm not mistaken, a correlation of -0.566 is still a high or large correlation, isn't it? Especially when we're talking about the social sciences.
2. You can't simply average the numbers because the ethnic Han (who have a very low consanguineous rate) comprise 92% of the total population so a simple average would give a grossly skewed figure towards the minorities.
Point taken. So you worked out the mean consanguinity rate for the Han Chinese -- is that right? One must somehow include the 8% who are no ethnically Han, though. One cannot leave out a portion of the population.
In the same way, the Timorese are culturally and ethnically distinct and less than 1% of Indonesia's total population.
Yes. I understood that -- which is why I didn't use Indonesia in my initial analysis. For the same reason I didn't include India.
3. I appended the following country data to your original list:
Philippines 0.4 2.5
China(Han) 2.66 3.5
Indonesia(Timor) 17.8 2.3
Peru 2.55 3.5
Brazil 7.8 3.5
Mexico 1.3 3.5
Panama 1.7 3.2
Bolivia 0.6 2.9
Chile 1.3 7
Colombia 3 3.8
Ecuador 6.3 2.1
Uruguay 4.5 6.7
Venezuela 1.3 2
Ecuador 6.3 2.1
Uruguay 4.5 6.7
Venezuela 1.3 2
Croatia 0.1 4.1
Philippines should be higher than that. See my above comment -- recent data shows Muslims=37.5%; Christians=4%.
Indonesia we should leave out for now, don't you agree? Since we only have data for one island.
Your figure for Bolivia is probably an underestimate. You've taken only the "All Bolivia" figure from 1956/67 (0.6%) -- but there is a more recent study from 1961/64 with a larger sample size from Bogota which found a consanguinity rate of 2.0%. Same for Colombia.
Similarly, your figure for Chile may be a slight overestimate. Same for Ecuador and Uruguay.
4. Researching this issue requires at least some historical literacy. Along with what I said about the middle east, using Timor 17.8%-2.3 as a data point is very dodgy when you consider that Indonesia invaded the country and killed off a quarter of its people for decades until very recently. The dividing line in the have and have nots
in India is casteism not consanguineous families. I could go on.
Yes -- like I said -- that is why I did not use the Indonesia figure originally. Nor have I said that consanguinity has anything to do with "haves" and "have nots". I was only looking at levels of corruption.
5. 'Human behaviour is biology' - You'ved already made a leap across a scientific chasm.
Well, can I ask what is your opinion? What is human behaviour if it is not rooted on our biology? Where does it come from then? Out of thin air? From some divine providence? Elsewhere?
For the Philippines, 88.66% of the population is Christian (4% consang rate). 2.82% (37.5% consang rate) are Muslim.
Additional data from this source:
India - National ('92-'93) - 14%
Pakistan - National ('90-'91) - 62.7%
Malaysia - Overall - 40%
Bangladesh - Matlab ('85) - 6.7%
Bangladesh - Teknaf ('85) - 17.9%
Indonesia - W. Timor/W. Flores (RCs) - 17.8%
Thailand - Muslims (4.6% of pop.) - 36.8%
Thailand - Buddhists (95% of pop.) - 3.5%
Philippines - Muslims (2.82% of pop.) - 37.5%
Philippines - Christians (88.66% of pop.) - 4.0%
Singapore - Chinese majority (75.2% of pop.) - 0.3%
Singapore - Indian community (8.8% of pop.) - 4.0%
1. My calculation for a mean consanguineous rate for China and Brazil using the link you provided is (your figures in brackets)-
China = 9.85% (28.85%)
Brazil = 4.31% (7.8%)
My mistake on Brazil. I missed a page of data there! :*)
BTW -- I don't know if you noticed from my original post but, as I said there: "I selected only data for nations collected after 1980."
I know that consanguinity rates have been dropping in some countries over the last generation or two (Japan) while rising in others (poorer parts of Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.), so I was trying to use the most recent consang data. I was trying to look at the most recent generations only and not go back to 40s and 50s (like a lot of the data from Latin America, for instance).
1. Just found some more data on consanguinity levels in Asia. Apparently, there are, in fact, some very high levels of consanguinity in some Asian countries irregardless of the taboos you mention:
Malaysia = 40% (Muslims=20%; Hindus=54.7%; Chinese=7.3%) - CPI=5.1
.....
First off I can immediately see more garbage data. Malaysia's 40% figure is clearly absurd at first sight and it doesn't add up at all. When I mentioned cultural taboo I meant cultures with a Confucian heritage.
2. Point taken. So you worked out the mean consanguinity rate for the Han Chinese -- is that right? One must somehow include the 8% who are no ethnically Han, though. One cannot leave out a portion of the
population.
I just pointed a very big flaw in your simple average (28.85%) of China's consanguinity rates. Putting a small Kirgiz community (consangunity rate of 45%) of around 150k on equal weighting with the Han of 1 billion is plainly absurd. If you just wanted to include China's minorities then your method is inconsistent with
US/UK/Australia - because then their consanguinity rates would've skyrocketted with the inclusion of minority ews/Memnonites/Pakistanis.
3. Yes. I understood that -- which is why I didn't use Indonesia in my initial analysis. For the same reason I didn't include India.
But you did include Timor in the 2nd chart. And you did include India (16.8%) in your first chart and the second.
4. I purposely chose all country statistics because I thought it would be more representative of the countries racial makeup. Anyhow the difference is small and relatively minor compared to your figure given for China.
5. Well, can I ask what is your opinion? What is human behaviour if it is not rooted on our biology?....
You're right if you were talking about insects. Maybe a semester in sociology or cultural anthropology would do you good. Read Dharampal Singh and Paul Bairoch.
6. Your experiment is flawed because statistics isn't a matter of stacking variables and grinding out a correlation. You might as well be looking for a gene for Christianity or democracy or free and available public education. Bittles clearly notes that there are socio-economic factors at work and it complicates the assessment of genetic effects and a failure to account for them would over-estimate the effects of
consanguinity.
Anonymous: Malaysia's 40% figure is clearly absurd at first sight and it doesn't add up at all.
Well, you'll have to take that up with the researchers -- Smith, et. al., 2000.
Anonymous: When I mentioned cultural taboo I meant cultures with a Confucian heritage.
You meant China then. Gotcha.
Anonymous: You're right if you were talking about insects. Maybe a semester in sociology or cultural anthropology would do you good.
My Master's degree is in cultural anthropology.
So, do you believe that biology has nothing to do with human behaviour? Something? Anything? Biology only affects the behaviour of insects and not any other creature on this planet?
Post a Comment