Cultural differences appear to lie behind many, if not all, current conflicts. Yet there are pluralistic societies which exist peacefully. What makes them different, and how can the threat of conflict be reduced?

In this fifth WIDER annual lecture, Frances Stewart documents the ways in which political power, social demarcations and economic differences combine to produce horizontal inequalities between sub-groups. She argues that historical patterns of privilege can be redressed, but that such policies are not incorporated in the current development agenda and can be at odds with current World Bank or IMF packages.

From sporadic rioting in Britain to all-out massacre in Rwanda, a common factor appears to be horizontal inequalities – the economic, social and political differences that exist between sub-groups differentiated on cultural lines, i.e. by ethnicity, race or religion. In this lecture, Frances Stewart examines a range of societies including Fiji, Uganda, Brazil, Mexico and Sri Lanka, to identify the links between cultural differences, political deprivation, social inequality and tension. In analysing black-white economic performance in Brazil, racial inequalities in South Africa and religious differences in Northern Ireland, for example, she recommends policies that impose constraints on the market so that resource allocation is carefully controlled to achieve better balance between groups – a view at odds with current IMF strategies.

Findings include the suggestions that:

• Where ethnic identities coincide with economic ones, political tension of some sort is likely, for example in Sri Lanka and Chiapas.
• There are two distinct situations: those where political and economic/social deprivations coincide (for example, Chiapas, Brazil and Northern Ireland) and those where the politically powerful represent the relatively deprived (for example, Malaysia and Uganda).
• Affirmative action can work and is common: for example in Malaysia it was probably responsible for lowering horizontal inequality and reducing violence.
• Political factors are often cited as a decisive obstacle to affirmative action, especially since monopolisation of political power by one group is often responsible for horizontal inequalities.

Policy implications include the recommendations that:

• Horizontal inequality should be incorporated in development policy in all societies, not just those which are experiencing or have experienced conflict.
• Public investment should be designed to reduce horizontal inequalities, and this may involve targeting the regional distribution of investment.
• Group distribution requirements could be imposed on the private sector, such as sharing employment among different groups.
• General anti-discrimination laws, supported by a strong judicial system with legal aid for deprived communities, can do much to help reduce horizontal inequalities.
• Democracy in strongly divided countries needs to be a form of constrained democracy, with an emphasis on inclusive government representing all major groups in society, legal protection of rights, job allocations to different groups and decentralisation.

Source(s):
Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development, WIDER annual lecture 5, by Frances Stewart 2001 Full document.

Funded by: UNU/WIDER

id21 Research Highlight: 18 July 2002

Further Information:
Queen Elizabeth House
21 St. Giles
Oxford, OX1 3LA, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1865 273600
Fax: +44 (0)1865 273607
Contact the contributor: Frances.Stewart@qeh.ox.ac.uk

Queen Elizabeth House (QEH), UK

Other related links:
'The road to peace? Tackling violence in Colombia'

'Assessing the odds for peace: conflict resolution in theory and practice'

'Politics vs aid?' Insights #39

CODEP works in development, human rights and peacebuilding

The Department of Peace Studies examines how conflict arises, and how it might be prevented

See the World Bank site for research on conflict