History matters: development and institutional persistence of the Habsburg Military Frontier in Croatia

Tkalec, Marina

doi:10.3326/pse.44.1.4.

4193
Views

1835
Downloads

History matters: development and institutional persistence of the Habsburg Military Frontier in Croatia*

Marina Tkalec*

Download citation

https://doi.org/10.3326/pse.44.1.4

FULL ARTICLE

FIGURES & DATA

REFERENCES

CROSSMARK POLICY

METRICS

LICENCING

PDF

Table 1
Descriptive statistics

	Both sides				Military Frontier		Non-Military Frontier
	Mean	SD	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Part of Military Frontier	0.139	0.346	0	1	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Individual-level variables
Age of respondent	50.299	17.613	18	95	52.420	17.534	49.957	17.605
Male respondent	0.587	0.492	0	1	0.619	0.486	0.582	0.493
Worked for income during last 12 months	0.479	0.500	0	1	0.360	0.481	0.498	0.500
Education (omitted category: no degree)
Compulsory schooling education	0.147	0.355	0	1	0.195	0.396	0.140	0.347
Secondary education	0.456	0.498	0	1	0.410	0.492	0.464	0.499
Professional, vocational school or training	0.170	0.375	0	1	0.159	0.366	0.171	0.377
Higher professional degree (university, college)	0.136	0.343	0	1	0.083	0.276	0.145	0.352
Post-graduate degree	0.026	0.159	0	1	0.021	0.143	0.027	0.161
Religion (omitted category: atheist)
Buddhist	0.001	0.024	0	1	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.026
Jewish	0.001	0.024	0	1	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.026
Christian	0.900	0.300	0	1	0.928	0.260	0.895	0.306
Muslim	0.012	0.109	0	1	0.031	0.174	0.009	0.095
Other	0.007	0.085	0	1	0.004	0.064	0.008	0.087
Household-level variables
Household has a car	0.713	0.452	0	1	0.609	0.489	0.730	0.444
Household has a bank account	0.713	0.452	0	1	0.654	0.476	0.723	0.448
Household has a credit/debit card	0.750	0.433	0	1	0.587	0.493	0.782	0.413
Household has a mobile phone	0.856	0.351	0	1	0.739	0.440	0.875	0.330
Household has a computer	0.584	0.493	0	1	0.437	0.497	0.608	0.488
Household has access to internet at home	0.558	0.497	0	1	0.420	0.494	0.581	0.494
Household size (equivalent scale)	1.755	0.624	1.000	4.500	1.774	0.656	1.752	0.619
Household number of children under 14	1.353	0.757	1	7	1.416	0.809	1.343	0.748

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 2
Trust and corruption in courts and police

	Trust in		Bribes to
	courts	police	courts	traffic police
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Part of Military	0.392**	0.273**	0.835***	0.469*
Frontier	(0.189)	(0.137)	(0.259)	(0.258)
Age of respondent	-0.001	0.010***	-0.008**	-0.018***
	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Male respondent	-0.120*	0.075	0.090	0.131
	(0.064)	(0.061)	(0.099)	(0.094)
Used service in			0.547***	0.644***
last 12 months			(0.165)	(0.123)
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for LiTS wave	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,361	3,411	3,272	3,302
No. of locations	164	164	164	164
Pseudo-R²	0.016	0.019	0.029	0.046

Notes: Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following institutions?” Column (1): The courts. Column (2): The police. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) and (4) is answer to the question “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/gifts in these situations?” Column (3): Interact with the courts. Column (4): Interact with the traffic police. Answer categories are: 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Refusal set to missing in regressions. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 3
Trust and corruption in courts and police: border specification

	Trust in		Bribes to
	courts	police	courts	traffic police
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Part of Military Frontier	0.383** (0.188)	0.285** (0.139)	0.813*** (0.261)	0.448* (0.260)
Age of respondent	-0.001 (0.002)	0.010*** (0.002)	-0.007** (0.003)	-0.018*** (0.003)
Male respondent	-0.119* (0.066)	0.068 (0.063)	0.084 (0.010)	0.118 (0.094)
Used service in last 12 months			0.599*** (0.167)	0.652*** (0.124)
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for LiTS wave	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,272	3,319	3,183	3,213
No. of locations	159	159	159	159
Pseudo-R²	0.016	0.018	0.029	0.047

Notes: Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Border sample: respondents living within 200 km from the former Military Frontier border. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following institutions?” Column (1): The courts. Column (2): The police. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) and (4) is answer to the question “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/gifts in these situations?” Column (3): Interact with the courts. Column (4): Interact with the traffic police. Answer categories are: 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Refusal set to missing in regressions. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 4
Geographic regression discontinuity design

Trust in

Bribes to

courts

police

courts

traffic police

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Polynomials in latitude and longitude

Linear polynomial

(reference specification)

0.329*

(0.192)

0.267*

(0.147)

0.869***

(0.270)

0.450*

(0.253)

Quadratic polynomial

in latitude and longitude

0.225

(0.232)

-0.076

(0.191)

0.902**

(0.445)

0.402

(0.341)

Cubic polynomial

in latitude and longitude

0.214

(0.243)

-0.077

(0.199)

0.825*

(0.485)

0.287

(0.332)

Quartic polynomial

in latitude and longitude

0.275

(0.311)

-0.210

(0.249)

0.697

(0.715)

0.356

(0.469)

Polynomials in distance to border

Linear polynomial

in distance to border

0.352

(0.244)

0.055

(0.184)

0.781**

(0.371)

0.460*

(0.301)

Quadratic polynomial

in distance to border

-0.006

(0.052)

-0.196**

(0.083)

0.773**

(0.372)

0.458***

(0.146)

Interacted linear polynomial

in distance to border

0.241

(0.285)

-0.021

(0.206)

0.929**

(0.395)

0.711**

(0.295)

No. of observations

3,272

3,319

3,183

3,213

Notes: All reported estimates are coefficients of the variable “Part of Military Frontier” in a model specification that includes all control variables shown in Table 3. Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Border sample: respondents living within 200 km from the former Military Frontier border, based on GIS-computed distance from border. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 5
Different bandwidths around Military Frontier border

	Trust in		Bribes to		No. of
	courts	police	courts	traffic police	observations	clusters
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Border specification (as in Table 3) (distance from border in km)
<200	0.383** (0.188)	0.285** (0.139)	0.813*** (0.261)	0.448* (0.260)	3,272	159
<150	0.403** (0.188)	0.289** (0.139)	0.830*** (0.263)	0.469* (0.261)	3,232	157

<100	0.367* (0.188)	0.268* (0.141)	0.825*** (0.264)	0.449* (0.265)	3,054	148

<50	0.401** (0.195)	0.213 (0.150)	0.850*** (0.279)	0.451* (0.268)	2,178	105

<25	0.131 (0.243)	0.117 (0.183)	0.735* (0.394)	0.527 (0.329)	967	51

RDD specification with linear polynomial in latitude and longitude (as in Table 4) (distance from border in km)
<200	0.329* (0.192)	0.267* (0.146)	0.869*** (0.270)	0.450* (0.253)	3,272	159

<150	0.356* (0.192)	0.282* (0.147)	0.895*** (0.271)	0.484* (0.253)	3,232	157

<100	0.300 (0.192)	0.257* (0.150)	0.853*** (0.276)	0.447* (0.258)	3,054	148

<50	0.227 (0.196)	0.264 (0.175)	0.813*** (0.309)	0.482* (0.261)	2,178	105

<25	0.004 (0.232)	0.015 (0.185)	0.839* (0.456)	0.605 (0.371)	967	51

Notes: All reported estimates are coefficients of the variable “Part of Military Frontier” in a model specification that includes all control variables shown in Table 3. The number of observations and clusters reported in columns (5) and (6) refer to the average number of observations/ clusters in all four model specifications. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 6
Additional control variables

	Trust in		Bribes to
	courts	police	courts	traffic police
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Border specification
Part of Military Frontier	0.324*	0.229*	0.825***	0.476*
Part of Military Frontier	(0.185)	(0.137)	(0.265)	(0.260)
Age of respondent	-0.004	0.006**	-0.004	-0.014***
Age of respondent	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.125)
Male respondent	-0.094	0.045	0.024	0.046
Male respondent	(0.064)	(0.065)	(0.104)	(0.094)
Used service in last 12 months			0.589***	0.587***
Used service in last 12 months			(0.171)	(0.125)
Worked for income during last 12 months	-0.048	-0.179**	0.198*	0.216*
Worked for income during last 12 months	(0.077)	(0.085)	(0.101)	(0.095)
Urban area	0.089	-0.043	0.110	-0.004
Urban area	(0.121)	(0.112)	(0.225)	(0.194)
Household size(equivalent scale)	0.036	0.173**	0.195*	0.094
Household size(equivalent scale)	(0.079)	(0.077)	(0.114)	(0.101)
Household number of children under 14	0.116**	0.059	-0.097	-0.038
Household number of children under 14	(0.055)	(0.052)	(0.074)	(0.073)
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for LiTS wave	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for household property (4 variables)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for education level (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,272	3,319	3,183	3,213
No. of locations	159	159	159	159
Pseudo-R²	0.020	0.022	0.033	0.051
RDD specification with linear polynomial in latitude and longitude
Part of Military	0.280	0.220	0.880***	0.474*
Frontier	(0.188)	(0.143)	(0.274)	(0.254)
Controls (as above)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Notes: Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Sample: respondents living within 200 km from the former Military Frontier border, based on GIS-computed distance from border. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following institutions?” Column (1): The courts. Column (2): The police. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) and (4) is answer to the question “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/gifts in these situations?” Column (3): Interact with the courts. Column (4): Interact with the traffic police. Answer categories are: 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Refusal set to missing in regressions. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 7
Interpersonal trust and membership in organizations

	Trust in		Membership in
	other people	trade unions	political parties	civic organizations
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Border specification
Part of Military Frontier	-0.329*	-0.141	0.016	0.103**
Part of Military Frontier	(0.185)	(0.195)	(0.105)	(0.149)
Controls (as in Table 6)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,243	3,196	3,370	3,370
No. of locations	158	159	159	159
Pseudo-R²	0.013	0.008	0.052	0.116
RDD specification with linear polynomial in latitude and longitude
Part of Military Frontier	-0.299	-0.126	0.010	0.105**
Part of Military Frontier	(0.190)	(0.198)	(0.105)	(0.152)
Controls (as in Table 6)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,243	3,196	3,370	3,370
No. of locations	158	159	159	159
Pseudo-R²	0.015	0.009	0.059	0.118

Notes: Columns (1) and (2): Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Columns (3) and (4): marginal effects and standard errors from probit estimations. Sample: respondents living within 200 km from the former Military Frontier border, based on GIScomputed distance from border. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following [...]?” Column (1): Other people. Column (2): Trade unions. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) is answer to the question “Are you a member of a political party?”. Dependent variable in columns (4) is answer to the question “Are you a member of (other) civic/voluntary organizations?”. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016; see main text for details.

Table 8
Trust and corruption in courts and police

	Trust in		Bribes to
	courts	police	courts	traffic police
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Part of Military Frontier	0.325	0.153	0.804**	0.567
Part of Military Frontier	(0.230)	(0.139)	(0.344)	(0.348)
Age of respondent	-0.002	0.010***	-0.009***	-0.019***
Age of respondent	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Male respondent	-0.127*	0.064	0.051	0.123
Male respondent	(0.068)	(0.067)	(0.106)	(0.100)
Used service in last 12 months			0.509***	0.637***
Used service in last 12 months			(0.178)	(0.130)
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)
Controls for LiTS wave	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,036	3,080	2,957	2,994
No. of locations	147	147	147	147
Pseudo-R²	0.016	0.020	0.023	0.043

Notes: Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Sample: areas behind the frontline at arrival of UN forces in 1992 are excluded. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following institutions?” Column (1): The courts. Column (2): The police. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) and (4) is answer to the question “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/gifts in these situations?” Column (3): Interact with the courts. Column (4): Interact with the traffic police. Answer categories are: 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always. Category 6 = Difficult to say/ Don’t know/Refusal set to missing in regressions. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016 and Šterc and Pokos (1993); see main text for details.

Table 9
Trust and corruption in courts and police

	Trust in		Bribes to
	courts	police	courts	traffic police
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Part of Military Frontier	0.288	0.141	0.821**	0.577*
Part of Military Frontier	(0.231)	(0.142)	(0.340)	(0.343)
Age of respondent	-0.001	0.009***	-0.009***	-0.018***
Age of respondent	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Male respondent	-0.129*	0.067	0.045	0.124
Male respondent	(0.067)	(0.064)	(0.103)	(0.095)
Used service in last 12 months			0.513***	0.615***
Used service in last 12 months			(0.173)	(0.126)
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls for religious affiliation (6 categories)
Controls for LiTS wave	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
No. of observations	3,184	3,230	3,106	3,143
No. of locations	155	155	155	155
Pseudo-R²	0.015	0.018	0.026	0.044

Notes: Coefficients and standard errors from ordered logit estimation. Sample: areas behind the frontline at arrival of UN forces in 1992 on the territory of former Military Frontier are excluded. Dependent variable in columns (1) and (2) is answer to the question “To what extent do you trust the following institutions?” Column (1): The courts. Column (2): The police. Answer categories are: 1 = Complete distrust; 2 = Some distrust; 3 = Neither trust nor distrust; 4 = Some trust; 5 = Complete trust. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Not applicable/Not stated are set to missing in regressions. Dependent variable in columns (3) and (4) is answer to the question “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/ gifts in these situations?” Column (3): Interact with the courts. Column (4): Interact with the traffic police. Answer categories are: 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always. Category 6 = Difficult to say/Don’t know/Refusal set to missing in regressions. Standard errors clustered at the level of PSU or place of residence are in parentheses: *significance at 10, **5, ***1 percent.

Source: Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) 2006, 2010 and 2016 and Šterc and Pokos (1993); see main text for details.

Crossmark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the Crossmark logo, the Institute of Public Finance is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking on the Crossmark logo will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

For more details see IPF Crossmark policy page.

March, 2020
I/2020

Iva Tomić
Employment protection reforms and labour market outcomes in the aftermath of the recession: Evidence from Croatia

Ivan Tomaš
A stochastic forecast for the Croatian pension system

Šime Smolić, Ivan Čipin, Petra Međimurec
How is health associated with employment during later working life in Croatia?

Marina Tkalec
History matters: development and institutional persistence of the Habsburg Military Frontier in Croatia

Dubravko Mihaljek
Capitalism without capital: the rise of the intangible economy