IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v132y2022i646p2308-2324..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrimination Between Religious and Non-Religious Groups: Evidence from Marking High-Stakes Exams

Author

Listed:
  • Victor Lavy
  • Edith Sand
  • Moses Shayo

Abstract

While religions frequently preach preferential treatment of fellow believers, the magnitude and economic implications of religiosity-based discrimination are largely unknown. Religiosity is often confounded with ethnicity, but it varies even within ethnicities and religious denominations. It is also seldom observed in administrative data. This paper exploits a setting that avoids these limitations. We analyse grading decisions in national matriculation exams in Israel, exploiting unique features that reveal student religiosity to the graders, and grader religiosity to the researcher. We find evidence of in-group bias between religious and non-religious groups, but in our setting this effect is very small. There seem to be two main reasons. First, religious in-group bias is limited to male graders only. Moreover, patterns of bunching in the grade distribution suggest the bias is primarily due to the religious—rather than secular—men. This is a small fraction of the grader population. A second potential reason is that many graders live in integrated communities. Our evidence suggests that living and working in close proximity to people with different levels of religiosity attenuates discrimination.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor Lavy & Edith Sand & Moses Shayo, 2022. "Discrimination Between Religious and Non-Religious Groups: Evidence from Marking High-Stakes Exams," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(646), pages 2308-2324.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:132:y:2022:i:646:p:2308-2324.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueac014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:132:y:2022:i:646:p:2308-2324.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.