Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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).
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.
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
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?