How can economic and social policies help to sustain peace processes and promote stability and reconciliation in deeply divided post-conflict societies? This review of studies of Horizontal Inequalities (HIs) in post-conflict countries finds that while HIs are increasingly recognised as a cause of conflict, policies to address them have been very limited. Such policies may be direct (targeting particular groups), indirect (universally applicable) or integrationist (bringing groups together). Indirect and integrationist policies are particularly appropriate in post-conflict contexts. Policymakers should take HIs more seriously.
The studies examined inequalities between cultural groups (in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda; Guatemala and Peru; Afghanistan and Nepal; and Bosnia-Herzegovina), policies to address these HIs, and policy impacts. The review considers the findings and also draws on crosscutting studies of macro-adjustment policies, privatisation, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), and employment policies.
In many post-conflict situations, HIs are recognised as an important root cause of the conflict. However, policies to address HIs have usually been confined to the social sectors and to a few development projects in poorer regions. Often nothing has been done to improve the employment opportunities and economic activities of deprived groups more generally.
- In rare cases there has been significant progress in translating recognition of HIs into policy design. Nepal’s emergency employment schemes made a conscious effort to address HIs, for example, although they have not yet been evaluated.
- Success in tackling HIs is explained by: early recognition; sustained implementation; and enabling factors (state capacity, resource constraints and elite commitment).
- An important determinant of implementation is the nature of conflict termination. In Burundi and Nepal, negotiated conclusions to the conflicts led to explicit attempts to reverse ethnic and regional imbalances. In Peru and Rwanda, victory was won by one side and commitment to reducing HIs was weaker.
- Where only partial policies were introduced, with weak implementation and budgetary constraints, HIs have worsened.
- In a few cases, privatisation policies helped to broaden the ethnic base of entrepreneurship and business ownership – but the efficacy of such policies depends on strong, transparent and development-oriented institutions, rarely available in post-conflict situations.
- In many cases market forces have accentuated inequalities, favouring groups and regions already relatively rich.
Permitting HIs to escalate is dangerous in post-conflict societies. Nonetheless, policies to reduce HIs in such contexts need to be introduced cautiously, bearing in mind that: 1) aspects of HIs and their consequences are context-specific; 2) political tension surrounding redistributive policies and limited policy-making capacity are likely; and 3) policies to correct HIs should complement other development policies wherever possible. Further, policies should seek to reduce both regional and ethnic inequalities in market opportunities as well as in access to government servcies and employment:
- Macroeconomic policies should take into account the impact on HIs, and should be supplemented by policies and programmes which help deprived groups to participate fully in the economy.
- Particular attention should be paid to group distribution of employment and education.
- Privatisation offers the potential to spread entrepreneurship and assets. Ensuring that it does so in a way that reduces HIs is an important aspect of privatisation policy, but one that is rarely taken into account.
- The PRSP process should include the monitoring and reduction of HIs.
