Justice, Horizontal Inequality and Policy in Multiethnic Societies

By Frances Stewart and Arnim Langer

1

Question to be considered

• What are underlying arguments of philosophers and economists for

– (1) individual/vertical (in)equality;

– (2) group/horizontal (in)equality.

• How far do people in practice support redistribution across groups, based on conclusions of some social psychologists and findings of four surveys in African countries

2

Philosophers three approaches

1. Arguments based on common humanity (Kant; Williams).

2. Arguments based on social contract (Rawls)

3. Arguments based on entitlements (Locke, Nozick).

3

Common humanity

• All humans are entitled to certain things because they are human. But what?– Respect: treat all humans (rational moral agents)

as ends, not means (Kant).

– Williams: equality unless difference has justification and relevance? How far does this take one?

– Human Rights approaches – quite extensive range of Human Rights, but room for inequality once these are realised.

4

Rawls social contract

• Everyone should have basic liberties.

• Maximin. Inequality only justified if would improve position of poorest. Hence a type of efficiency justification, but more progressive than economists.

5

Nozick entitlement

• All outcomes justified if result from legitimate acquisition or transfer – could be huge inequalities since bequests are legitimate transfers.

• But principle of rectification: resource acquisition not justified if not acquired legitimately but e.g. by theft, fraud or slavery.

6

Economists

• Intrinsic reasons: utilitarianism: Pigouinterpretation is egalitarian but Robbins argues cannot compare individuals utility. Hence cannot make judgement. New ‘happiness’ research does make such comparisons and would seem to justify more egalitarian distribution. Needs exploring

• Instrumental reasons: inequality needed to promote growth; but opposite possible.

• Equality of opportunity most efficient (Roemer).

7

How do arguments apply to groups?(philosophers)

• Humanity: similar, but may also wish to include group rights, e.g. to language/cultural freedom. Can be clash with individual rights. If respect group rights, must respect all groups (even small ones).

• Rawlsian: if relate maximin to groups, more difficult to justify inequality because inequality between groups less likely to be instrumentally productive, especially if groups are large. Opposite likely – handicapping groups likely to hold back progress,

8

How do arguments apply to groups?(philosophers)

• Nozick: principle of rectification becomes very important as most group inequality due to past injustices, colonialism, slavery, exploitation… therefore unjustified.

9

How do arguments apply to groups?(economists)

• Intrinsic: Robbins type argument can hardly apply to groups, without highly racists/sexist assumptions, that some groups experience less satisfaction than others from resources.

• Instrumental: same as maximin: equality of opportunity likely to mean group equality, since group inequality not so much due to differences in tastes and efforts as to historical and persistent disadvantage.

10

Conclusion on justice:

• Very difficult to justify inequality in important dimensions of well being across groups.

• Yet social psychologists have argued that people tend to view the ‘scope of justice’ as applying only across people they regard as of their moral domain (may mean as being of their own group). (Clayton and Opotow).

• Therefore while group equality is more desirable than individual, it may be have less support.

• Is this so?

11

Findings from surveys in Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria

• Each country multiethnic and multireligious.

• Each with quite large Horizontal Inequalities.

12

13

0102030405060708090

Ghana Kenya Nigeria Uganda

Ethnic composition of country: proportion of population in largest ethnic groups

0

50

100

150

Ghana Kenya Nigeria Uganda

Religious composition of country

Other

Muslims

Catholics

Protestants

Horizontal inequalities in four countries

14

0

1

2

3

4

5

Nyanza Rift Valley Western

Kenya: Under 5 mortality rate: ratio to Central Province, 2003

050

100150200250300

Nigeria: Under 5 mortality rate

0102030405060708090

100

Ghana: poverty rate, 2005-6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Central Eastern Northern Western

Uganda, poverty rate, 2002/03

Surveys

• Surveys in cities (Accra 324); Lagos (412); and Mombasa, Nairobi and Nakuru (912); Uganda (500) including Kampala, Hoima, Mbarara and Gulu (from the Central, Western and Northern Regions) .

• Asked people whether they agreed or strongly agreed that government should give economic assistance to poorer groups. Took strongly agree to mean support for redistribution.

• 76% of Ugandans strongly agree; 73% of Ghanaians; 42% of Kenyans; 22% of Nigerians.

15

16

Ghana Kenya NigeriaUganda

Strongly agree with redistribution

0.73 0.42 0.22 0.76

Poverty 0.77 0.69 0.80 0.80

Dissat with group position 0.33 0.21 0.16 0.37

polex1 0.29 0.30 0.22 0.49

Gov favours particulargroups

0.31 0.45 0.65 0.89

Respects other ethnic groups

0.60 0.63 0.64 0.64

Trust in other groups 0.54 0.42 0.55 0.61

Rel used in public policy 0.40 0.32 0.28 0.32

Eth used in public policy 0.67 0.79 0.59 0.78

National identity (only national)

0.14 0.26 0.11 0.09

Ethnic identity (more ethnic than national)

0.30 0.21 0.24 0.36

Cross ethnic contacts 0.68 0.64 0.46 0.75

Cross religious contacts 0.51 0.61 0.47 0.80

Satisfied with treatment of group by govt.

0.50na

0.69 0.47

Dissat with state functioning

0.52na

0.43Na

Average findings from four surveys

Major average findings

• High rates of perceived poverty across all countries.• Dissatisfaction with position of group highest in Uganda, then Ghana,

above that in other two countries, despite similar actual inequalities. • Perceptions of political exclusion markedly higher in Uganda, than the

other countries.• Perception of poor governance (DISSTATE) was over 50% in both Ghana

and over 40% Nigeria (not asked in Kenya or Uganda).

• Questions relevant to the scope of justice:– Perceptions of other ethnic groups positive or very positive (over 60% in

each). Pretty high rates of intergroup trust. – Feeling only a national identity is low. Greatest in Kenya (one quarter); only 9%

in Uganda. Feeling more national than ethnic accounted for higher proportion (36% in Ghana, 58% in Kenya and just 25% in Nigeria).

– Feeling more ethnic than national over a fifth in all countries, and over third in Uganda.

– Perceptions of the importance of ethnicity in public life high. In Kenya and Uganda, nearly 80%; in Ghana 67%; 59% of Nigerian respondents . Religion smaller role.

– High level of intergroup contacts, lowest in Nigeria.17

18

Approval of economic redistribution (logit analysis)

Ghana Kenya Nigeria Uganda

Personal characteristics

Male Neg*

Ethcon Neg* Pos*

Relcon Neg**

Views of others

Trust Pos***Positive views of other groups Pos*(*)

Position of own group

Polex Pos a *** Pos*** Pos*** Pos***Dissat with position of own group Pos* Pos**(*)

Views of governmentEth. Used in publiclife Pos***

Rel. used in public life Neg**

Dissat with state Neg** Na Neg** na

Conclusion

• Only systematic findings:– political exclusion of group associated with approval

for redistribution. – Dissatisfaction with state functioning, with negative

view.

• Country differences likely to be due to country history.

• Yet strong support for redistribution in Ghana shows that ‘scope of justice’ need not be confined to the ethnic (or religious) group in multiethnic societies.

19