Reassessing Horizontal Inequalities and Current Priorities for Research

Reassessing Horizontal Inequalities and Current Priorities for Research

The concept of horizontal inequalities, developed most thoroughly by Frances Stewart, is foundational to our work. As Stewart illuminates, horizontal inequalities are inequalities between groups, commonly ethnic groups, that are often a root cause of conflict. A key implication, therefore, is that development and peacebuilding efforts need to work to reduce intergroup inequalities. Diversity, Violence & Recognition takes up this challenge and puts one such approach to the test -- recognizing ethnic groups in state institutions. 

Stewart is Emeritus Professor of development economics at Oxford and has led research initiatives on human well-being and conflict.  Her early work brought a basic needs perspective into mainstream development economics, which at the time focused largely on macroeconomic indicators. In the mid 1990s Stewart began to write more intensively on conflict, part of a wave of interdisciplinary social science scholarship on conflict at the time. Analyzing cross-country data, she observed that the high incidence of civil conflict and the toll that it inflicted, meant that “any comprehensive strategy to tackle poverty must give the prevention of conflict a central place” (Stewart 2000). She argued that effective prevention needs to address the motivations that animate the conflict--- in contrast to, e.g., Collier and Hoeffler (2004) and Fearon and Laitin (1993), who dismissed consideration of motivations to focus on capabilities to launch insurgencies. Her 1998 paper on “root causes” of conflict introduced the idea of “horizontal inequality,” proposing that group identity offers a basis for mobilization and inequality a motivation for it (Stewart 1998). Subsequent work developed the analysis, pointing for example to Malaysia’s NEP as an especially successful intervention to prevent conflict and allow for development.

We are honored to share a recent conversation with Prof. Stewart about her work and ours. She was kind enough to share her reactions to our argument that ethnic recognition builds peace and to help us think forward to next questions in the field. (Might we be thinking about book #2?!) Thank you and welcome to the blog, Frances!

*****

King & Samii: Our analysis suggests that “recognition-based” strategies are a good way to do it. In our book, recognition means explicitly naming ethnic groups as part of the body politic (in constitution or peace agreement, often with legislation for group-differentiated rights that follows )(Hillesund et al., 2018). How do you think about the value of “ethnic recognition”? How does this square with your current thinking on strategies to address horizontal inequality?

Stewart: Recognition has a role to play in some circumstances. But it also has downsides.

In general being inclusive, sharing political power and economic and social resources, makes for a peaceful and cohesive society. Recognition – in the form of power-sharing and/or affirmative action - is one way of achieving this. It can be particularly helpful in bringing a conflict to an end, as it reassures the various parties that they will be included.   It also draws explicit attention to problems of horizontal inequalities which may otherwise be overlooked.  It can be helpful, even essential, in peace settlements by reassuring the various groups that they will be included in the political settlement.

The downsides are first, that it can enhance and entrench difference – people who had previously not thought of themselves as being part of a particular group become categorised and may be othered or other others. Secondly, the more privileged groups can be resentful and even violent if they believe their privileges are being eroded by the policies implied by recognition. Thirdly, political systems organised on a group basis can be quite rigid, and also undemocratic as group leaders confer benefits on their particular associates. Lebanon is often quoted as an example; Burundi another. Yet in both cases, the recognition and power-sharing has kept the peace and empowered groups who might otherwise have had little or no power. However, in the case of Lebanon, the peace currently appears fragile, and successive governments have been weak and corrupt, so the power sharing was not a panacea. 

There’s a similar debate about economic and social affirmative action (AA). In India, for example, they talk of the ‘creamy layer’ - i.e. a small elite of scheduled caste people who get the benefits of AA, while the vast mass of dalits remain discriminated against and highly impoverished.

Nonetheless, on balance I favour recognition. Non-recognition can lead to neglect, complacency and, potentially, conflict. For the most part, recognition – and the political and economic policies associated with it – is more effective in reducing horizontal inequalities than more universal approaches.

King & Samii: How might your thinking have changed since you wrote those seminal pieces on horizontal inequalities?  Is this still a core concept that you would recommend for students trying to understand the root causes of conflict around the world today? 

Stewart: I continue to think that horizontal inequalities (HIs) are a significant factor in causing many conflicts. In fact, much empirical research over the last couple of decades has confirmed my hypotheses – see e.g. (Cederman, Weidmann, & Gleditsch, 2011; Hillesund et al., 2018). Political HIs, or political exclusion, is particularly provocative, but socio-economic inequalities remain significant factors which may not lead to immediate conflict but pose a long-term risk. Most current conflicts have some sort of horizontal inequalities at their root – including in Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia, and the Jihadist movements in West African countries, for example.  Many contemporary conflicts appear to be about religion, but almost always there are economic and political imbalances that underlie the religious conflicts. So yes, I think this remains a core concept.

Perhaps the earlier work was a bit simplistic in focussing mainly (perhaps exclusively) on absolute inequalities between groups as a significant cause of conflict, and not appreciating sufficiently the importance of change in inequalities. It’s apparent that relatively privileged groups can be particularly resentful – even to the extent of using violence – when they feel other groups are catching up and thereby reducing their privileges, relatively.  This seems to be part of the explanation for the resentment of the white working class against immigrants and people of colour. In India, violence often occurs, instigated by upper castes, when dalits do a bit better.

Of course, it’s not the only relevant concept in analysing wars; fights over control of economic resources -- drug wars in Colombia or Mexico for example, or wars over mineral resources, as in the Congo, -- are also pertinent factors. Another element I’d emphasise is the nature of authorities – are they strong enough and determined enough to prevent or suppress conflicts? If a conflict erupts do the authorities act to try and solve the disputes peacefully or rather enflame the process? Similarly, the role of external actors is clearly highly relevant as to whether a conflict escalates or dies down.

Today I would emphasise that HIs are relevant to many situations outside violent conflict – notably to social cohesion in rich as well as poor societies, and often by presenting barriers to effective poverty programmes. Global migration is making the issue particularly relevant, as new horizontal inequalities are emerging as a consequence of the migration. Moreover, HIs on an international basis are at the root of many migrations.

King & Samii: What do you think are the big questions for scholars of conflict and intergroup relations in the next decade?

Stewart:  First, the concept of HIs – and associated policy implications - has been largely accepted by those studying conflict, but it has not informed development policy more widely. In development policy generally, most policy-makers focus on vertical inequality (between individuals). The World Bank, which dominates the provision of global data, provides no data on HIs, and almost all their policy analysis of inequality is about vertical inequality. The extent, causes and consequences of HIs in non-conflict countries should be a priority issue. Appropriate policies need to be developed for all countries, in order to promote fair and cohesive societies and to avoid conflict.

Second is the role of religion and its interface with HIs. In this connection, I wrote a paper exploring HIs of Muslims v. non-Muslims world wide and arguing that manifold interactions across countries meant that HIs in one country might express itself – in terms of protests, violence and terrorism – in another (Stewart, 2010).

Third is exploration of the causes of HIs, particularly their persistence. I find the latest book by Wilkerson on caste very interesting in this respect (Wilkerson, 2020)

Then, on the policy front, priority issues include (i) exploring the political obstacles to effective redistribution, (ii) identifying and assessing ‘integration’ policies which need to accompany recognition and redistribution, and (iii) developing guidelines for good national and global data collection.

Finally, we need more work on justice for future generations and how to bring it about. This is my current preoccupation – a new form of HIs (see (Stewart, 2020)).

References

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.

Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A., 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), pp.563-595.

Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D., 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(1), pp.75-90.

Hillesund, S., Baghat, K., Barrett, G., Dupuy, K., Gates, S., Nygard, H. M., . . . Ostby, G. (2018). Horizontal inequality and armed conflict: a comprehensive literature review. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 39(4), 463-480.

Stewart, F. (1998). The Root Causes of Conflict: Some Conclusions." Queen Elizabeth House, Working Paper Series 16.

Stewart, F. (2000). Crisis Prevention: Tackling Horizontal Inequalities. Oxford Development Studies, 28:3, 245-262

Stewart, F. (2010). Global aspects and implications of horizontal inequalities: inequalities experienced by Muslims worldwide. In J. Clapp & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Global Governance, Poverty and Inequality (pp. 265-294). London: Routledge.

Stewart, F. (2020). Overcoming Short-Termism: Incorporating Future Generations into Current Decision-Making. Irish Studies in International Affairs.

Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste, The Lies that Divide Us. London: Allen Lane.