Income and urbanization controls barely shrink the Southern Democratic-dealignment effect

Evidence

The twelve coefficients above are each from a separate regression. The first panel take the form Demits = βSouth × After + γXits + µs + ηt + eits and the second panel take the form Demits = βSouth × Y ear + γXits + µs + ηt + eits, where South × After is an indicator variable for being surveyed after April 1963 and residing in one of the eleven Southern states at the time of the survey, South·Y ear is a South-specific linear time trend, µs are state fixed effects, ηt are year fixed effects, and Xits is a vector of controls that we vary to test robustness. Income (five categories) and city-type (three categories) fixed effects are included where specified in the table footer. Where “Interactions” are specified, income and city-type fixed effects have each been interacted with South and (separately) with After (when South × After is the explanatory variable of interest) or Y ear (when South × Y ear is the explanatory variable of interest). The “Restricted” sample used in columns 5 and 6 excludes those younger than 21 years in 1963 and current Southern residents who were not born in the South. (These specifications, therefore, exclude those with missing values for place of birth). — Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington, Why Did the Democrats Lose the South?…, 1130

Categorization

• XREF: Directly bears on the reader’s threatened-privilege hypothesis test: if economic/urban composition variables cannot explain the realignment, the mechanism must be something like status or group threat rather than material interests. — connects to: Southern economic catch-up could independently explain realignment away from Democrats. — Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington, Why Did the Democrats Lose the South?…, 43; Economic development cannot explain Southern Democratic dealignment — Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington, Why Did the Democrats Lose the South?…, 798; Racially conservative whites’ defection drove the Southern realignment (+2 more)
• QUESTION: The coefficient barely moves (-0.142 to -0.155) when interacting income and city-type with South and After — worth verifying this against the theory that material redistribution drove abandonment of the party.

Broader Connections

• Economic development cannot explain Southern Democratic dealignment #corroborates (1.00) — Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington, Why Did the Democrats Lose the South?…, 798
• Racially conservative whites’ defection drove the Southern realignment #expands (0.85)