United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

“By more fully incorporating 

group dynamics into conflict 

management and peacebuilding strategies, we can more 

efficiently target the immediate 

drivers of conflict and defuse 

threatening situations.”

May 10, 2010 

Group Inequality and Conflict: Some 

Insights for Peacebuilding

Summary

•	 Political, socioeconomic or cultural inequalities among groups could potentially motivate 

political violence in societies. Research has shown that political inequalities between groups 

are most likely to motivate leaders, while socioeconomic inequalities motivate followers. 

•	 Political violence is most likely to occur when there is a confluence of exclusionary governance 

and economic and social marginalization imposed by one group on another.

•	 In order to minimize the likelihood of conflict, policies should first address the political inequalities that most often provide a catalyst for the leadership of a violent uprising. Reducing 

the immediacy of conflict allows for subsequent work to address the socioeconomic inequalities that could eventually mobilize the group members at large.

•	 Going forward, there should be more research into group dynamics and conflict-triggers, 

coordinated international assistance to ensure optimal policy sequencing, inclusion of 

equality as an aspect of humanitarian and development programs and increased training 

and sensitization to group inequalities.

Introduction

Political, socioeconomic or cultural1 inequalities among defined groups could potentially motivate 

political violence in societies when groups have strong identities, and grievances mobilize both 

the group leaders and followers. These differences have been termed ‘horizontal inequalities,’ 

which galvanize group action to address actual or perceived inequalities. 2 These dynamics should 

influence peacebuilding efforts as they reveal underlying motivations for grievance and mobilization, require specific policy action to address the differences among groups and finally inform 

sequencing of policy implementation.

Vertical inequality, which measures differences between individuals, often gets more attention, but it is the differences between groups that have been more concretely linked to conflict.3

The three broad areas of group differences include: political, demonstrated by participation in 

government and the security sector; socioeconomic, including access to land, private capital and 

government infrastructure, and levels of income and employment in the private and public sector; 

and cultural, nationally recognized languages, holidays and cultural or religious sites. Research has 

shown that political inequalities between groups are most likely to motivate leaders, while socioeconomic inequalities motivate followers. Empirical data suggests that when a strong combination 

of political and socioeconomic inequalities is present, leaders emerge and disaffected groups 

Michelle Swearingen

E-mail: mswearingen@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.4723

peaceBrieF28
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Group Inequality and Conflict: Some Insights for Peacebuilding

page 2 • PB 28 • May 10, 2010

choose political violence to address injustice. By more fully incorporating group dynamics into 

conflict management and peacebuilding strategies, we can more efficiently target the immediate 

drivers of conflict and defuse threatening situations.

This Peace Brief will outline ways that inequalities between groups can trigger conflicts, policy 

measures that reduce the destructive inequalities and steps for sequencing these policies. It will 

conclude with recommendations put forth at a public event at the United States Institute of Peace 

(USIP) held on February 22, 2010.

Group Dynamics and Conflict

Group Identities

A strong group identity is a vital component of mobilization. Whether group identities are based 

on ethnicity, religion, race, caste, class or region, they must have defined and relatively impermeable boundaries. If group’s identities are fluid, they will be less easily mobilized for violence, as 

group members will maximize their opportunities by switching to the better-off group. This is 

one explanation for the lack of race riots in Brazil where blacks have been severely disadvantaged 

compared to their white and ‘mixed’ or ‘brown’ peers. The ‘mixed’ or ‘brown’ category made up 43 

percent of the population in 1993, while only 5 percent of the population considered themselves 

black.4 The racial categories were fluid, diluting the threat of group mobilization. Black South 

Africans under apartheid, however, were evaluated and assigned a race by the Race Classification 

Board, leaving no opportunity for fluidity between groups.5 Their organized and widespread 

rebellion brought down the apartheid regime in the early 1990s.

Mobilizing Factors

The work of Frances Stewart, leading expert on horizontal inequalities, has shown that there are 

different mobilizing triggers for leaders and followers in rebellion movements. While it is often 

political inequalities that spur leaders to accentuate and rouse group identities to foster rebellion, 

it is more often the economic and social inequalities that lead group members to follow. For this 

reason, mobilization of violent groups is most likely to occur when there is a confluence of political 

exclusion and economic and social marginalization imposed by one group on another.6

Although inequalities in cultural recognition are important, they are not a critical part of the 

analytical framework for group inequalities and conflict. The conflict in Northern Ireland, which 

was fought between Catholics and Protestants along religious lines, was overlaid on serious and 

long-lasting political and socioeconomic inequalities between the two groups.7 The policies most 

effective in ending the conflict were those targeted at reducing political and socioeconomic 

inequalities between the disadvantaged Catholics and the Protestants, such as strengthening the 

Fair Employment Act of 1989 and improving equality in housing and education.8

Scenarios and Outcomes

Just as groups vary, the results of group dynamics vary and may produce either peaceful or 

violent outcomes. In some situations the violence manifests in a coup, while in other cases there is 

rebellion, political violence, riots or increased crime. Most often, group inequalities fit into one of 

two scenarios. Either one group is both politically and socioeconomically privileged over another 

group or one group is politically dominant while the other is socioeconomically advantaged. 

One-sided deprivation or simultaneous political and socioeconomic deprivation of one group 

has been found in Mexico’s Chiapas state, South Africa under apartheid, the United States, Brazil, 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Group Inequality and Conflict: Some Insights for Peacebuilding

page 3 • PB 28 • May 10, 2010

Northern Ireland and Sudan.9 Under apartheid, black South Africans were disadvantaged both 

politically and socioeconomically. They had one-tenth the per capita income of whites and even 

less representation in managerial civil service jobs. Their life expectancy and literacy rates were 

also considerably lower than those of white South Africans.10 After peaceful protests failed to 

bring about change, an armed rebellion began in 1976 that persisted until 1990 when changing 

international dynamics, economic sanctions and the black resistance contributed to the end of 

the apartheid regime. Although the blacks continue to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, the 

conflict ended with political compromise and the South African government continues to work to 

reduce the socioeconomic inequalities peacefully. 

Sudan presents another example of one-sided deprivation. The United Nations Development 

Program, the agency responsible for measuring the progress of the Millennium Development 

Goals (MDGs) reports that Southern Sudan is drastically worse off than the North. After nearly 

a decade of working towards attaining the MDGs, 90 percent of the Southern population is 

categorized as living in poverty, compared to 50 percent in the North. Only 20 percent of children 

in the South are enrolled in primary education compared with 62 percent in the North, and rates 

of maternal mortality in Southern Sudan are more than three times as high as in the North.11 Only 

after decades of civil war has the government in Khartoum made any steps towards including 

Southerners in the political institutions of the country. 

Shared deprivation with one group that is politically powerful yet socioeconomically deprived 

has been found in Malaysia, South Africa after apartheid, Uganda, Sri Lanka and Rwanda. In 

the case of Malaysia, despite drastic group inequalities at independence that left the majority 

Bumiputera population with a severely low level of education, economic assets and opportunities, 

relative to the minority ethnic Chinese population, the country was able to implement successful 

policies to reduce violence along with the pervasive inequalities. The position of the Bumiputera 

as the majority in a country with “broadly democratic institutions” enabled the implementation 

of policies such as “quotas, target and affirmative action with respect to land ownership, public 

service employment and ownership of quoted companies.”12 During this time, Malaysia experienced record growth, allowing the Chinese to succeed as well. The balance of inequalities between 

the two groups encouraged a cooperative approach to resolving the issue nonviolently. 

Strategic Approaches to Reduce Inequalities between Groups 

and Build Peace

Policy Categories

If addressed conscientiously, group inequalities, as well as the conflict they trigger can be mitigated. 

Stewart proposes three types of policy interventions to reduce group inequalities: direct, indirect 

and integrationist.13 Direct policies include affirmative action and quotas. These policies are attractive, as they immediately target the disadvantaged population. They are most effective in the short 

term but if incorporated into long-term strategy can serve to calcify group identities, leading to 

further conflict down the road. Indirect policies include progressive taxation and antidiscrimination 

legislation. They work well over the long term and ultimately are more likely to reduce a strong 

sense of identity differences. However, these policies are less precise. Finally, integrationist policies, 

which work to dissolve group boundaries are theoretically attractive, but often lead to suppression of information about groups and group identities without actually reducing inequalities. 

Integrationist policies include bans on political parties defined solely by ethnicity or religion and 

requirements for muliticulturalism in schools or other institutions.14 As each category of policies 

has different strengths, weaknesses and timelines, it is critical that approaches to peacebuilding 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Group Inequality and Conflict: Some Insights for Peacebuilding

page 4 • PB 28 • May 10, 2010

that seek to reduce group inequalities include a combination of direct, indirect and integrationist 

policies that address the specific political and socioeconomic inequalities that underlie the conflict 

and could trigger violence.

Strategic Sequencing

In order to minimize the likelihood of conflict, policies should first address the monopoly on 

political power and resulting political exclusion that most often mobilizes the leadership of a 

conflict. This could be done by addressing the monopoly on political power through reservations 

for under-represented groups in all levels of government and the security sector, citizenship 

expansion, enactment of human rights legislation and other measures.15 This would reduce the 

immediacy of conflict and allow for work on the next step, addressing socioeconomic inequalities 

between groups. Socioeconomic inequalities can be addressed through any of the approaches 

outlined above and include policy measures such as employment and education quotas, antidiscrimination legislation, progressive taxation, incentives for inter-group economic activities and 

other steps.16 

Potential Applications

Sudan and Rwanda, two previously conflict-affected states, are once again facing increasing tensions 

between groups. Sudan’s longstanding civil war between the politically and socioeconomically 

advantaged North and the poor, yet resource-rich South ended in a peace agreement in 2005. The 

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) addressed political inequalities and bought the country time 

to address the socioeconomic disparities. But many of the initial grievances have not been addressed 

and now that the CPA is expiring, the country is facing the threat of renewed conflict. 

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda, responsible for the death of more than 500,000 people in less 

than 100 days, arguably resulted from decades of group inequalities. Following the genocide, the 

regime of Paul Kagame instituted integrationist policies, forcing the suppression of group—in 

this case ethnic—identities. Sixteen years later, tensions run high in Rwanda as ethnic violence 

has increased, along with state suppression. It is not the group identities, or even religious identities (such as the greatly publicized Muslim North and Christian South in Sudan) alone that drive 

these conflicts. It is the combination of political and socioeconomic exclusion, and the failure to 

adequately address the group inequalities that led these two countries into conflict initially and 

threatens to do it again. In order to effectively diffuse these situations, our approaches to development and peacebuilding in countries like Sudan and Rwanda must reflect the power of group 

inequalities to cause conflict. 

Policy Recommendations

1. Increase research into group dynamics: There is a need for increased data and research 

regarding group dynamics and conflict to complement current work on individuals and 

conflict. 

2. Coordinate international assistance to ensure optimal policy sequencing: The many bilateral, 

multilateral and nongovernmental organization actors in a conflict-affected country should 

coordinate their policies to diffuse the conflict by first targeting the immediate problem of 

political exclusion and then implementing policies to attack socioeconomic inequality.

3. Integrate equality into foreign assistance programs: Equality should be a strong factor in development and humanitarian programs, promoting stronger, more stable and more just societies.
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

202.457.1700

www.usip.org

About This Brief

This Peace Brief reflects the discussion at the USIP public event, “Will 

Decreasing Horizontal Inequalities 

Reduce the Likelihood of Political 

Violence?,” held on February 22, 

2010, featuring leading expert on 

horizontal inequalities, Frances 

Stewart of Oxford University, S. 

Tjip Walker and Robert Aten of 

the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 

and Raymond Gilpin, associate 

vice president of USIP’s Center for 

Sustainable Economies. Details of 

this event, including the audio and 

Stewart’s PowerPoint presentation, 

are available online: http://www.

usip.org/events/will-addressinghorizontal-inequalities-reducethe-likelihood-political-violence. 

This brief was written by Michelle 

Swearingen, program assistant 

for USIP’s Center for Sustainable 

Economies.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

4. Conduct training and sensitization programs on reducing group inequalities: Increasing education and awareness about the value of correcting group inequalities will improve policies in 

and towards conflict-affected countries. 

Endnotes

1. For the purposes of this paper, we rely on the definition provided by the Centre for Research 

on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity in an article written by Arnim Langer, “Cultural Status 

Inequalities” in the August 2006 newsletter. Cultural inequalities can be defined as “differences in recognition and (de facto) hierarchical status of different groups’ cultural norms, customs and practices.”

2. F. Stewart. Presentation at the U.S. Institute of Peace, “Will Addressing Horizontal Inequalities 

Decrease the Likelihood of Political Violence?” February 22, 2010.

3. Stewart has documented that horizontal inequalities increase the likelihood of conflict, while 

Collier & Hoeffler and Fearon & Laitin have documented that grievance based on vertical inequality 

does not increase the likelihood of conflict. Ibid. P. Collier & A. Hoeffler. “Greed and Grievance in 

Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers, 56 (4): 563-595; J.D. Fearon & D.D. Laitin. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, 

and Civil War.” American Political Science Review, 97(1): 75-90.

4. F. Stewart. “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” CRISE Working 

Paper, p. 30. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE.

5. BBC World Service. “The Story of Africa: Apartheid Law.” Retrieved March 19, 2010, from BBC 

World Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/12chapter7.shtml

6. F. Stewart. Presentation at the U.S. Institute of Peace, “Will Addressing Horizontal Inequalities 

Decrease the Likelihood of Political Violence?” February 22, 2010.

7. Ibid.

8. F. Stewart. “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” CRISE Working 

Paper, p. 27. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE. 

9. Stewart’s research includes Chiapas, South Africa before and after apartheid, the United States, 

Brazil, Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Uganda and Sri Lanka. 

10. F. Stewart. “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” CRISE Working 

Paper, p. 24. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE. 

11. United Nations Development Progamme Sudan. “UNDP Sudan: Status of MDGs in Sudan.” 

Retrieved March 19, 2010, from UNDP Sudan: http://www.sd.undp.org/mdg_fact.htm

12. F. Stewart. “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” CRISE Working 

Paper, p. 19. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE. 

13. F. Stewart. Presentation at the U.S. Institute of Peace, “Will Addressing Horizontal Inequalities 

Decrease the Likelihood of Political Violence?” February 22, 2010.

14. F. Stewart, G. K. Brown and A. Langer. Policies towards Horizontal Inequalities, in “Horizontal 

Inequalities and Conflict: Understanding Group Violence in Multiethnic Societies.” Palgrave 

Macmillan, 2008. 

15. Ibid, p. 304.

16. Ibid, p. 304.

Group Inequality and Conflict: Some Insights for Peacebuilding

page 5 • PB 28 • May 10, 2010