4
Professional Development Reading Pack No. 8 Reading packs are commissioned by the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) for independent study and professional development use. They are intended to be thought-provoking introductions to emerging issues and debates within the subject areas they cover. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GSDRC, its partner agencies or DFID. © DFID Crown Copyright 2015. Licensed under the Open Government Licence: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence Suggested citation: Stewart, F. (2015) Horizontal Inequalities. GSDRC Professional Development Reading Pack no. 8. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham. www.gsdrc.org Horizontal Inequalities Professor Frances Stewart March 2015 Civil wars are one of the main sources of state fragility, low incomes and poor human development. Hence, policies to prevent conflict must be a high priority for those concerned with promoting development in poor countries. There is increasing evidence that the presence of horizontal inequalities (HIs), or inequalities among groups, raises the risk of conflict, and this is the central issue covered in these readings. There has long been controversy as to the role of inequality in causing conflict, with some econometric studies finding little connection (Fearon & Laitin 2003; Collier & Hoeffler 2004). Yet such studies only look at vertical inequality, or inequality among individuals or households, in a society. In contrast, horizontal inequalities have been shown to be associated with conflict (Cederman, Weidmann & Gleditsch 2011). Horizontal inequalities occur along a number of dimensions, including: economic dimensions, where it is not just income, but land ownership and employment, among other aspects, that are relevant to people’s wellbeing and grievances; social dimensions, such as access to health and education; political dimensions, encompassing participation and control in central and local government, the bureaucracy and the army, as well as other sources of power; and cultural dimensions, including societal respect for a group’s religious practices, language, or dress. In civil wars, people mobilise in groups. While people can be grouped in a variety of ways, for understanding conflict it is necessary to identity differences that are salient to people and thus may form the basis of mobilisation. The relevant categorisation differs across societies and time. Frequently, however, it is ethnic or religious differences that constitute the unifying banner under which people mobilise. Frances Stewart is Emeritus Professor of Development Economics, University of Oxford. She has been director of Oxford’s Department of International Development and Chair of the United Nations Committee on Development Policy. She received the Mahbub ul Haq award from the UNDP for lifetime services to Human Development and the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought, by the Global Development And Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University. She is author of Technology and Underdevelopment (Macmillan 1976) and co- author of UNICEF’s influential study Adjustment with a Human Face (OUP 1987). She is also co-editor of War and Underdevelopment (OUP 2001) and editor of Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict (Palgrave, 2008).

Horizontal Inequalities - GSDRC...relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Horizontal Inequalities - GSDRC...relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups

Professional Development Reading Pack No. 8

Reading packs are commissioned by the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) for independent study and professional development use. They are intended to be thought-provoking introductions to emerging issues and debates within the subject areas they cover. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GSDRC, its partner agencies or DFID. © DFID Crown Copyright 2015. Licensed under the Open Government Licence: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence

Suggested citation: Stewart, F. (2015) Horizontal Inequalities. GSDRC Professional Development Reading Pack no. 8. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.

www.gsdrc.org

Horizontal Inequalities

Professor Frances Stewart

March 2015

Civil wars are one of the main sources of state fragility, low incomes and

poor human development. Hence, policies to prevent conflict must be a

high priority for those concerned with promoting development in poor

countries. There is increasing evidence that the presence of horizontal

inequalities (HIs), or inequalities among groups, raises the risk of conflict,

and this is the central issue covered in these readings.

There has long been controversy as to the role of inequality in causing

conflict, with some econometric studies finding little connection (Fearon &

Laitin 2003; Collier & Hoeffler 2004). Yet such studies only look at vertical

inequality, or inequality among individuals or households, in a society. In

contrast, horizontal inequalities have been shown to be associated with

conflict (Cederman, Weidmann & Gleditsch 2011). Horizontal inequalities

occur along a number of dimensions, including:

economic dimensions, where it is not just income, but land

ownership and employment, among other aspects, that are

relevant to people’s wellbeing and grievances;

social dimensions, such as access to health and education;

political dimensions, encompassing participation and control in

central and local government, the bureaucracy and the army, as

well as other sources of power; and

cultural dimensions, including societal respect for a group’s

religious practices, language, or dress.

In civil wars, people mobilise in groups. While people can be grouped in a

variety of ways, for understanding conflict it is necessary to identity

differences that are salient to people and thus may form the basis of

mobilisation. The relevant categorisation differs across societies and time.

Frequently, however, it is ethnic or religious differences that constitute the

unifying banner under which people mobilise.

Frances Stewart is Emeritus Professor of Development Economics, University of Oxford. She has been director of Oxford’s Department of International Development and Chair of the United Nations Committee on Development Policy. She received the Mahbub ul Haq award from the UNDP for lifetime services to Human Development and the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought, by the Global Development And Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University. She is author of Technology and Underdevelopment (Macmillan 1976) and co-author of UNICEF’s influential study Adjustment with a Human Face (OUP 1987). She is also co-editor of War and Underdevelopment (OUP 2001) and editor of Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict (Palgrave, 2008).

Page 2: Horizontal Inequalities - GSDRC...relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups

2

Where there are large inequalities in access to socio-economic resources between major groups,

people in low-income groups may be ready to mobilise to improve their position, while those in the

richer groups may mobilise to protect their privileges. Such differences can lead to violent conflict, if

there are no peaceful ways of securing change. In the presence of socio-economic HIs, violent

conflict is especially likely where groups are also excluded politically (i.e. also face political HIs) and

consequently leaders of a group are unable to participate in government.

This group of readings explores the relationship between HIs and conflict. Reading 1 provides an

overview of the argument and some evidence. More systematic evidence is contained in Reading 2.

Reading 3 provides a West African case study to illustrate how HIs can generate conflict in practice

and the type of policies that may prevent them leading to conflict. Reading 4 discusses the range of

policies that would reduce HIs, arguing that these should be applied in all cases where there are

significant HIs and not only where there has been conflict. Reading 5 considers some implications for

aid. And reading 6 shows that the relationship between HIs and conflict applies at global as well as

national level, and may partly explain current global conflicts concerning Muslims and non-Muslims.

Readings

Reading 1: Stewart, F. (2000). Crisis prevention: Tackling horizontal inequalities. Oxford Development Studies, 28(3), 245-262. http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Crisis_Prevention_Tackling_Horizontal_Inequalities.pdf

This paper analyses the economic and social causes of conflict, drawing conclusions for conflict

prevention. There has long been discussion as to whether inequality causes violent conflict. Evidence

suggests that vertical inequality (i.e. inequality among individuals in a society) is not associated with

conflict. Civil wars normally occur when groups mobilise against each other, on the basis of some

cultural characteristic like ethnicity or religion. It is suggested here, with supporting case study

evidence, that horizontal inequalities provide the basis for inter-group animosity. Horizontal

inequalities are inequalities between groups with a common identity. These inequalities may

manifest in political, economic or social dimensions. The paper concludes that policies to limit high

horizontal inequalities are needed in all vulnerable countries.

Reading 2: Cederman, L.-E., Weidmann, N. B., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2011). Horizontal inequalities and ethno-nationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478-495. http://www.econ.uzh.ch/faculty/groupzilibotti/Conferences/2010Nov25Conflict/Cederman_Weidmann_Gleditsch.pdf

Contemporary research on civil war has largely dismissed the role of political and economic

grievances, focusing instead on opportunities for conflict. However, these strong claims rest on

questionable theoretical and empirical grounds. Whereas scholars have examined primarily the

relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities

between politically relevant ethnic groups and states at large can promote ethno-nationalist conflict.

Extending the empirical scope to the entire world, this article introduces a new spatial method that

combines a newly geocoded data on ethnic groups’ settlement areas with spatial wealth estimates.

Based on these methodological advances, the paper finds that, in highly unequal societies, both rich

and poor groups fight more often than those groups whose wealth lies closer to the country

average. The results remain robust to a number of alternative sample definitions and specifications.

Page 3: Horizontal Inequalities - GSDRC...relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups

3

Reading 3: Langer, A. (2008). When do horizontal inequalities lead to conflict? Lessons from a comparative study of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. In F. Stewart (Ed.), Horizontal inequalities and conflict: Understanding group violence in multiethnic societies (chapter 8). London: Palgrave. Available as Working Paper, CRISE WP 82, 2015. http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper82.pdf

This paper reviews the experience of two West African countries in terms of horizontal inequalities

and conflict. It shows that in many respects Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire are similar ‒ in economic

structure, ethnic composition and horizontal inequalities. Both countries have severe socio-

economic horizontal inequalities between the North and the South. Yet Côte d'Ivoire experienced a

major North-South civil war from 2002-2007 while Ghana avoided any major national conflict. This

paper reviews the reasons for this difference. It provides evidence showing that, while the two

countries had similar socio-economic inequalities, Ghana was consistently politically inclusive, and

consciously respected different cultures and religions. Côte d’Ivoire also followed an inclusive policy

until the death of Houphouët-Boigny, but subsequently Northerners were excluded politically and

culturally. These political and cultural HIs are argued to be the main factors behind the outbreak of

violent conflict.

Reading 4: Stewart, F., Brown, G., & Langer, A. (2008). Policies towards horizontal inequalities. In F. Stewart (Ed.), Horizontal inequalities and conflict: Understanding group violence in multiethnic societies. London: Palgrave. Available as Working Paper, CRISE WP 42, 2007. http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper42.pdf

Severe horizontal inequalities are undesirable in themselves and can lead to violent conflict. It is

therefore important to reduce them wherever possible. This paper reviews a range of policies that

could contribute to reducing HIs in the political, socio-economic and cultural status dimensions.

Relevant policies depend on the context, and hence a first requirement is a careful assessment of

the nature and causes of HIs in the particular society. Among many considerations to be taken into

account, two are especially important. First, if possible, policies should be adopted that reduce

rather than increase the salience of identities. Hence, the paper considers a range of indirect policies

that are likely to reduce HIs because they are designed to help groups in which deprived groups are

numerous, rather than direct policies targeted at the groups themselves. Secondly, policies that

correct HIs can be provocative, leading to mobilisation (sometimes violent) by previously privileged

groups, so caution is needed in design and implementation. Examples of success in introducing such

policies and sustaining peace – such as in Malaysia and Northern Ireland – show that policies can be

effective without provoking a violent reaction. The successful socio-economic cases are shown to

have tackled both social and economic inequalities, while success in reducing political HIs requires

political inclusivity at many levels of the political system. Despite the importance of addressing HIs

where they are large, the paper concludes that considerations of HI are frequently ignored in policy-

making, including in most of the policies advocated by the IMF and World Bank and in poverty

reduction strategies.

Reading 5: Brown, G., & Stewart, F. (2006). The implications of horizontal inequality for aid (CRISE

working paper no. 36). Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity.

http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper36.pdf

Page 4: Horizontal Inequalities - GSDRC...relationship between individual inequality and conflict, here it is argued that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups

4

This paper argues that the reduction of horizontal inequalities should inform aid policy in

heterogeneous countries with severe HIs. It shows how this would change aid allocation across

countries, leading to more aid to heterogeneous countries relative to homogeneous ones, the

opposite of the existing bias in aid distribution. It explores how adopting an HI approach would

affect the use of particular aid instruments, arguing that different instruments are appropriate

according to the attitude and capacity of the government in relation to correcting HIs. Drawing on

case studies of Ghana and Nepal, it argues that at present there is neglect of HI considerations in aid

policy, which can be particularly damaging where aid forms a large part of government resources.

Reading 6: Stewart, F. (2009). A global view of horizontal inequalities: Inequalities experienced by Muslims worldwide (MICROCON Research Working Paper 13). Brighton: MICROCON. http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/RWP13_FS.pdf

Both within and across countries, most attention has been devoted to measuring inequality among

individuals (and globally, among countries). Within countries, increasing evidence shows that

inequalities among groups (HIs) are important for wellbeing. However, the global component of HIs

are generally neglected. The paper argues that HIs at a global level may also be important for world

stability and wellbeing, in much the same way that HIs are relevant at the national level. With this

perspective, the paper reviews Muslim/non-Muslim HIs within developed and developing countries,

and between Muslim and non-Muslim countries, finding that Muslims are systematically

disadvantaged across many dimensions. It argues that, despite much heterogeneity among the

Muslim population, there is evidence of multiple global connections and of shared perceptions, such

that inequalities faced by Muslims in one part of the world may become a source of grievance and

potential mobilisation in other parts of the world. Consequently, socioeconomic and political

inequalities need to be addressed globally, within countries and between them, and politically as

well as with respect to socioeconomic and cultural status.

Questions to guide readings

1. Why might one expect horizontal inequalities to be associated with conflict?

2. What bearing, if any, does the greed/grievance debate have on the question?

3. How robust is the evidence supporting the hypothesis that larger HIs are associated with a

greater risk of violent conflict?

4. Does the HI approach point to policies that differ from the growth and poverty reduction

policies that are generally advocated?

5. Does the approach have any relevance to aid?

6. How would one go about identifying the relevant HIs in a particular country? Consider

current conflicts, for example in Ukraine, the Middle East or Nigeria.

7. Does it make sense to apply the HI approach globally?