Demographic and Development Policy Context of the Ethnic Conflict

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Horizontal Inequalities as Causes of Armed Conflicts: Conceptual Limitations

Despite the persistence of the horizontal inequality thesis, however, the literature has produced contradictory results (Alesina & Perotti 1996; Auvinen & Nafziger 1999; Muller & Seligson 1987; Sigelman & Simpson 1977; Weede 1981). As well, several studies conducted in various parts of the world provide reasons other than horizontal inequalities as the cause of conflict. In this regard, some scholars of conflict analysis hold that armed conflict develops in poor countries because they have weak governance due to a lack of resources and state capacity (Fearon & Laitin 2003). Referring to Ivory Coast, Langer (2005) points to the fact that both rich and poor people in many ethno culturally diverse societies have been living together in harmony for generations without any violent conflict among them. But this refers to cases of vertical inequality or inequality among individuals (Langer 2005; Nafziger & Auvinen 2002). In this regard, Evans (2007) notes that an individual deprived of political, economic, social and cultural rights cannot revolt, but a deprived group can fight against the state if it is mobilised.
Therefore, Østby (2004) suggests that the inequality-conflict nexus needs to be investigated both vertically and horizontally, with more refined measures of various dimensions of inequality. To the contrary, Cramer (2005) indicates that there are great difficulties in the measurement of inequality as origin of violent political conflict. Data on income inequality are often insufficient, especially as a basis of inter-country comparison. Thus, Cramer (2005) suggests that vertical inequality as a cause of civil conflict could be disregarded, possibly due to inadequate data.
The horizontal inequality hypothesis straddles two important strands in the literature on conflict: on the one hand, that ethnic or religious differences are at the heart of problem (Huntington 1996); and on the other, that cultural differences are not central, and it is economic factors, in which the fundamental roots of conflicts are to be found (Fearon & Laitin 1996). According to the horizontal inequality hypothesis it is a combination of cultural differences and political and economic disparities running along cultural lines that, in part at least, explain contemporary violent conflict. While there is a general consensus that socioeconomic factors influence conflict dynamics, there is little consensus as to how they matter and how much they matter relative to other political and institutional factors (Cramer 2002; Herbst 2000a; Porto 2002). Although Collier and Hoeffler (2004) found that poorer countries face greater risk of conflict, they argue that the low opportunity cost for rebels and the large stock of easily expropriated natural resources or primary commodities in an area are the motivating factors behind the conflict. Although Stewart (2002) found that various dimensions of horizontal inequalities provoked some kind of conflict, ranging from a high level of criminality in Brazil to civil war in Uganda and Sri Lanka, Østby (2004) notes that generalizing to a universal relationship between horizontal inequalities and violent conflict based on few cases is problematic.

The Role of State and Class Politics in Conflict Causation

The role of class relations in ethnic conflicts has become an important issue among scholars who study ethnic conflicts, nation-state and nationalism. They observe ethnic conflicts in class terms and argue that economics, politics, ideology, culture and institutions are inter-related and inter-acting. For instance, Malaquias’s (2000) analysis of civil war in Angola notes that the leadership of the governing Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA) originated from the urban areas, especially the capital city of Luanda, it successfully used class issues within a Marxist-Leninist discourse to gain support from the emerging proletariat, the emerging intelligentsia, and revolutionary mixed race Angolans. It is evident in the literature that the difference between class and nation is that, with class, one can recognise class by looking at their position in the mode of production or the social relations in production and society (Beck 2007; Malaquias 2000, 2001; Trimikliniotis 2001). However, with the nation, matters are more complicated. As Misir (2002:11) notes:
A dynamic relation among the sources of inequality and ethnic conflict- race, ethnicity, and class – exists. All intergroup relations inclusive of ethnic conflict and ethnic insecurity are conjunctively shaped by race, the class structure, and multiethnicity. All societies are characterized by some inequality. Class is an open type of stratification system in that it enables movement of people to different levels of the society.
To address this complexity, Marx’s conception of the state can be examined in the context of his overall approach to power relations in society, which are defined primarily on the basis of class. However, Giddens (1971) points out that there are three major forms of social conflict that are analysed poorly by Marxism, especially conflict between states and ethnic conflict. Marx never appreciated the modern expressions of ethnicity and nationalism (Conversi 1995; Giddens 1971; Sanderson 2004). But it would be a grave mistake to be dismissive of Marxian theory, its serious deficiencies notwithstanding. Marxism has achieved a number of extremely important insights. Marx posited that class domination is a reality in modern capitalism and that many pre-capitalist societies were controlled by capitalists (Easterling 2003; Giddens & Held 1982; Sowell 1985).

READ Swedish Code of Corporate Governance

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka
1.2 Statement of Problem.
1.5 The Rationale of the Study
1.6 Significance of the Study.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
1.8 Organisation of the Study
Chapter 2. Conflict Causation and Post Conflict Recovery: A Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Theoretical Perspectives on conflict Causation
2.3 Contemporary Theories of Post Conflict Development
2.4 Discussion and Conclusion.
Chapter 3. Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Questions
3.3 Research Methodology
3.4 Research Sample
3.5 Research Instruments
3.6 Data Analysis .
3.7 Safety, Confidentiality and Ethics
3.8 Time Frame
Chapter 4. Demographic and Development Policy Context of the Ethnic Conflict
4.1. Introduction
4.2 Sri Lanka: A Demographic and Conflict Overview
4.3 Inequality in Sri Lanka: The Post Independence Experience .
4.4 Development Policy Regimes in Sri Lanka: An Overview
4.5 Discussion and Conclusio
Chapter 5. Horizontal Inequalities and Emergence of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka
Chapter 6. Post War Development Policies in Sri Lanka: Do They Address Horizontal Inequalities?
Chapter 7. A Precarious Peace?
References