Conference infos - inégalités ethniques et gouvernance du secteur public

Abstract

"There is increasing recognition by scholars and policy makers that inequalities between groups constitute a more potent source for violent conflict than inequalities among individuals. When inequalities in incomes, wealth, and access to social services or political power coincide with group differences, ethnicity may assume importance in shaping choices and mobilizing individuals for collective action. Yet little is known about ethnic inequalities especially as they affect the public sector, which plays a central role in resource allocation and identity formation. The stability, legitimacy and effectiveness of the public sector may be undermined if it fails to develop mechanisms to regulate difference, inequality and competition. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) initiated a project in 2002 to examine the complex ways ethnic diversity affects the constitution and management of the public sectors of multiethnic societies under formal democratic rule. Researchers analysed the structure of ethnic cleavages, including variations within each group; collected empirical data on four public institutions—civil service, cabinet, parliament and party system; examined the rules that determine selection to these institutions; analysed whether the distribution of offices is ethnically balanced Contents Introduction 1 Unipolar Ethnic Settings: Botswana and Lithuania 3 Bipolar Ethnic Settings: Fiji,Trinidad and Tobago, Latvia, and Belgium 5 Tripolar Ethnic Settings: Bosnia, Switzerland, Nigeria and Malaysia 9 Concentrated Multipolar Ethnic Settings: Ghana, Kenya and India 13 Ethnically Fragmented Settings: United Republic of Tanzania and Papua New Guinea 15 Group Inequality and Development 17 Ethnicity in the Central and Eastern European Context 18 Agenda 20 Panellists, Chairpersons and Organizers 23 Papers Presented 23 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development UNRISD or uneven; and studied voter preferences in constituting these institutions. They also looked at the effectiveness of institutions and policy reforms for managing diversity and inequality. The research employed a typology that classifies countries according to their levels of ethnic polarization: those in which one ethnicity is overwhelmingly dominant; those with two or three main groups; and those in which the ethnic structure is fragmented. The last classification is further divided into two categories: cases of high levels of fragmentation and cases in which fragmentation offers a few large groups the potential to organize selective coalitions to influence access to the public sector. Fifteen countries were studied: Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Ghana, Fiji, India, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Republic of Tanzania."(pg 1)