Research in Focus with Arnim Langer (July 2007)

< Return to this month's Research in Focus

In July 2007, we examined ‘Horizontal Inequalities in Nigeria, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire: Issues and Policies' by Arnim Langer from the Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE). This paper reviews the situations in the three countries and makes recommendations for addressing horizontal inequalities (HIs) as well as examining inequalities in the context of a wider global research project. The paper also addresses the challenges of identifying relevant groups, covering the multiple dimensions of HIs and coping with inadequate data.

Arnim Langer

GSDRC:

Could you explain first of all what horizontal inequalities are and why they are a useful concept in international development?

 

Arnim Langer:

Horizontal inequalities (HIs) are inequalities between culturally defined groups, such as ethnic, religious, racial or caste based groups.  The concept of horizontal inequalities differs from the “normal” definition of inequality, which we call ‘vertical inequality’, because the latter type lines individuals and households up vertically and measures inequality over the range of individuals rather than groups. It is also important to note that horizontal inequalities are multidimensional and encompass political, economic and social as well as cultural status dimensions. 

With regard to the second part of the question, there are several reasons why horizontal inequalities matter in the context of international development.  Let me highlight three main reasons: Firstly, unequal access to political and economic and social resources and inequalities of cultural status can have a serious negative impact on the welfare of the members of the poorer groups whose well-being is affected by their own relative position and that of their group. Secondly, severe horizontal inequalities may reduce the growth potential of a society because horizontal inequalities mean some people, because of the group to which they belong, do not have access to education or jobs on the basis of their potential merit. Finally, as shown by our research, countries with large horizontal inequalities, especially where they are consistent across the different HI dimensions, are more likely to experience political tensions and violent conflict. 

 

GSDRC:

All of the case studies were interesting but I was particularly struck by Nigeria’s issues associated with ethnicity. Could you perhaps talk us through these, the measures already in place and where you think more work can be done?

 

Arnim Langer:

Let me start by saying horizontal inequalities are a structural feature of the Nigerian society. Particularly, the socioeconomic north-south divide, which overlaps to a large extent with ethnic and religious differences, is very severe. Just to illustrate this: core poverty is twice as high in the Northwest of the country as in the Southeast. Similarly, in the political sphere, since the late 1950s, different groups and particularly ethnic groups have been in competition with one another over the representation in government institutions. Often this has resulted in feelings of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race, and religion among the groups that were insufficiently represented. 

Nigeria, however, has introduced some very interesting and imaginative measures to contain the threat to its survival posed by HIs. These include the evolution of federalism, which provides more opportunities for different groups to hold a share of political power; the quota system, which reserves a number of places at university for certain groups; and the adoption of the Federal Character principle and the establishment of the Federal Character Commission which are aimed at ensuring that different groups have equal access to the bureaucracy. 

Although these measures are very interesting and have had a considerable degree of success, our studies suggest that policy needs to address some continuing problems. For instance, while the Federal Character Commission has contributed to ensuring adequate representation of the three largest ethnic groups, the Yoruba, the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo, this is not always the case for the ethnic minority groups. One particular recommendation we suggest in our paper is to say that the Federal Character Commission must do more in order to ensure sufficient representation of Nigeria’s minority ethnic groups. One way of doing this would be to include an urban/rural criterion in the selection procedure within each state. Privileging qualified candidates from the rural areas of a state over those from the urban areas of the same state is likely to improve the chances of minority ethnic groups and other marginal groups within the state. 

With regard to the economic sphere, in contrast to the political sphere, not enough attention has been paid to reducing the socio-economic north-south divide. One recommendation, in this respect, would be to provide the Federal Character Commission with a mandate to monitor the allocation of government projects to ensure fairness and equity. Another possibility is for the Central Bank, the Federal Character Commission and the National Assembly to actively monitor the unequal effects of economic policy and recommend necessary compensatory measures to offset the inequalities.

 

GSDRC:

Your research suggests that the probability of conflict increases where HIs, particularly political and socio-economic HIs, are high. Could you explain a bit more about this relationship and why HIs are likely to act as sources of conflict?

 

Arnim Langer:

While our econometric analyses show that the presence of severe socio-economic horizontal inequalities significantly increases the risk of political violence and conflict, it is also true that many countries with severe socio-economic inequalities between their ethnic and religious groups or between their regions do not experience violence. 

An important reason why these socio-economic inequalities do not result in violent group mobilization is because they are not complemented by the political exclusion of the same socio-economically deprived groups. Conversely, where political and socio-economic HIs are severe and consistent, both political leaders and the mass of the population in the deprived groups have a motive for mobilisation; these being that the political leadership is politically excluded, and the population suffer from socio-economic horizontal inequalities. It is these inequalities which in turn can be used by the leaders to mobilise the people towards violent action.

 

GSDRC:

Did your research in these three countries turn up results that you more or less expected, based on your previous knowledge, or did you find any interesting surprises?

 

Arnim Langer:

Before the inception of CRISE, horizontal inequalities were a largely neglected dimension of development and therefore in many ways our research started from scratch. However, even within the remit that the research was new and original, some of the findings were nonetheless surprising, particularly some of the results of the perception surveys which were conducted in Nigeria and Ghana. 

These surveys were aimed at exploring how people in these countries saw themselves and others, and how important different identity aspects such as ethnicity, religion, and occupation were for the way they thought about themselves.  We also asked questions about how important identities were in the public sphere. I would like to highlight two interesting findings in this context. First, it emerged that in both Ghana and Nigeria, religion came out as one of the two most important identity aspects of the respondents. So in response to the question ‘what are the three most important identity aspects when you think about yourself’, the vast majority, from 70 to 90% depending on location, answered that religion was one of the most important elements.  In contrast ethnicity was considerably less important, particularly in Ghana where it only turned out to be about the 5th most important identity aspect. In comparison, ethnicity was much more important in Nigeria. 

A second interesting finding was that, while religion turned out to be very important in the private sphere, ethnicity was perceived to be far more important in the public sphere.  When we asked the question ‘how important is someone’s ethnic background in getting access to different public services, government jobs and government contracts’, the vast majority of people saw ethnicity as a much more influential factor than religion.

 

GSDRC:

This research is part of a wider global research project involving eight other countries. Could you tell us a little more about the project, for example what are the overall objectives and what’s the lifespan of the project?

 

Arnim Langer:

The Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE) is a development research centre within the University of Oxford and is funded by the Department of International Development (DFID).  The centre was established in 2003 under the directorship of Professor Frances Stewart and our overall aim is to study why some multi-ethnic societies experience political instability and violent conflict, while others maintain the stability necessary for the promotion of sustainable growth and poverty reduction. CRISE conducts in-depth, comparative country studies in partnership with local scholars in eight countries located in three regions. In West Africa we are looking at Ghana, Nigeria and Cote D’Ivoire; in Latin America, Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala are our case studies; and, in South East Asia, Malaysia and Indonesia are being studied. In addition to our in-depth regional comparisons, we also conducted cross-country econometric investigations; we studied educational, cultural and legal systems and policies and, as already mentioned, we also did several surveys of perceptions and attitudes in our case study countries. 

With regard to the lifespan, our initial grant runs out in September 2008 but we are currently in the process of exploring the possibility of extending the project beyond that date as we think there are quite a few issues and areas that require further research.

 

GSDRC:

The research provides many comprehensive policy recommendations for each case study. How have the respective governments and donors responded to these findings and are there any plans to implement the recommendations?

 

Arnim Langer:

Getting research findings and recommendations translated into actual policies is often a big challenge.  Nonetheless, I think, in recent years, the international donor community has increasingly started to acknowledge the importance of horizontal inequalities as an important source of violent conflict.  Just to illustrate, DFID’s 2006 White Paper on “Preventing Violent Conflict” explicitly mentions group inequalities in access to political power and economic resources as a major cause of conflict.  However, more needs to be done to energise the international donor community to make their programmes and projects more HI sensitive. 

One way we aim to do this is by disseminating our results in the form of policy briefings, which are written to capture the essence of particular topics and can feed into policy decision-making. These are circulated to international donors, international organisations and also to the countries we studied. 

Another important way in which we aim to disseminate our results and findings is through conferences.  We recently held a policy conference in Oxford, where we presented our research findings and policy recommendations to a wide variety of policy makers and donors.  We invited key donors such as DFID, OECD, Oxfam, and UNDP in order to increase their awareness of HI issues and discuss appropriate action which can be undertaken. We complement this by organising local policy workshops in our case study countries, where we invite local policy makers and present results and policy recommendations. In the beginning of March, we organised a policy conference in Abuja where many local policy makers, parliamentarians, people from various ministries, and international donors were present and we discussed specifically this paper and the results that are applicable to Nigeria.  It is a multi-faceted approach that we have – we try to make the international community more sensitive to the issues involved through conferences and policy briefings but we also aim to get the message across to the local decision-makers more directly.