Free Essay

2004 Un Article Multiculturalism

In: Social Issues

Submitted By stanstain
Words 113315
Pages 454
Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World
Accommodating people’s growing demands for their inclusion in society, for respect of their ethnicity, religion, and language, takes more than democracy and equitable growth. Also needed are multicultural policies that recognize differences, champion diversity and promote cultural freedoms, so that all people can choose to speak their language, practice their religion, and participate in shaping their culture— so that all people can choose to be who they are.

65 108 166 55 34 82 3 14 91 51 40 138 29 62 6 99 161 134 114 66 128 72 33 56 175 173 130 141 4 105 169 167 43 94 73 136 144 168 45 163 48 52 30 32

Albania Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic

17 154 95 98 100 120 103 109 156 36 170 81 13 16 122 155 97 19 131 24 93 121 160 172 104 153 115 23 38 7 127 111 101 10 22 21 79 9 90 78 148 28 44 110 135 50 80

Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong, China (SAR) Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Rep. of Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea, Rep. of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Dem. Rep. Latvia Lebanon

145 58 41 15 60 150 165 59 84 174 31 152 64 53 113 117 125 171 132 126 140 5 18 118 176 151 1 102 74 142 61 133 89 85 83 37 26 47 69 57 159 39 71 87 75

Lesotho Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia, TFYR Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova, Rep. of Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Occupied Palestinian Territories Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa (Western)

123 77 157 35 177 25 42 27 124 119 20 96 139 67 137 2 11 106 116 162 76 158 143 63 54 92 88 86 146 70 49 12 8 46 107 129 68 112 149 164 147

São Tomé and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania, U. Rep. of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

HDR 2004

In our diverse world more than two-thirds of countries have minority groups that make up more than 10% of their population, and nearly a billion people belong to groups subject to some form of exclusion. Human Development Report 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World argues that states must actively devise multicultural policies to prevent discrimination on cultural grounds—religious, ethnic and linguistic. The expansion of cultural freedoms, not suppression, is the only sustainable option to promote stability, democracy and human development within and across societies. Such policies are not always simple, but many countries are making headway. The Report debunks the myths that have been used to deny expansions of cultural freedoms, showing that diversity is not a threat to state unity, not the source of inevitable “clashes”, not an obstacle to development. Instead, it is at the core of human development—the ability of people to choose who they are. The Report presents a path-breaking framework to examine issues that leap from the headlines to the forefront of the international policy agenda: migration, predatory extremism, customary law and cultural diversity. In its 15th year, the annual Human Development Report continues to frame debates on the most pressing challenges—new and old—for enabling people to live full and creative lives. Human Development Report 2004… • Features an analysis of the vital links between human development and cultural liberty by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. • Identifies living mode exclusions as well as political, economic and social exclusions (participation exclusion) faced by culturally identified groups. • Presents cutting-edge multicultural approaches covering power-sharing, religious and secular states, language policy, legal pluralism and affirmative action. • Analyzes the rise of coercive movements for cultural domination and their challenges to democracies. • Examines key areas of policy for cultural diversity and globalization, including traditional knowledge, trade in cultural goods and migration. • Includes special contributions from Shirin Ebadi, John Hume, Hamid Karzai, Nelson Mandela and Ole Henrik Magga.

Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World OXFORD

HDR Website:

HDR Background Papers and National Human Development Reports Available on the HDR website at:

Journal of Human Development: Alternative Economics in Action Launched in January 2000, this journal provides a new perspective on human potential, growth, and markets. The editors believe that development cuts across economic, social and political issues and that this multidimensional nature is often overlooked. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original work that expands concepts and measurement tools for human development and that challenges traditional views of economics. It provides a forum for an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of policy makers, economists, and academics. It addresses issues at the global, national and local levels. Human development is becoming a “school of thought” for alternative economic approaches, and the journal acts as a conduit for members and critics of this school. Available through: Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Ltd. Customer Services Department, Rankine Road, Basingstoke, Hants RG24 8PR, UK Tel: +44(0)1256 813002, Fax: +44(0)1256 330245 Email: Website: Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Inc. Customer Services Department 325 Chestnut Street, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA Tel:+1 215-625-8900, Fax: +1215 625 8914 Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Ltd. PO Box 352, Cammeray NSW 2062, Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 99585329, Fax: +61 (0)2 9958 2376

Themes of the Human Development Reports 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World Making New Technologies Work for Human Development Human Rights and Human Development Globalization with a Human Face Consumption for Human Development Human Development to Eradicate Poverty Economic Growth and Human Development Gender and Human Development New Dimensions of Human Security People’s Participation Global Dimensions of Human Development Financing Human Development Concept and Measurement of Human Development

Handprints. Across time, cultures and continents they carry the message, “I am”. I am an artist of the Pleistocene. I left my handprint in caves from Gibraltar to Tasmania. I am a five-year-old child. I hope to start school in 2005 and learn in my own language. I am a worker in the city, but I am also an elder of my people, a caretaker and teacher of our beliefs and customs. Culture is the most enduring artifact of humanity, and humans have flourished on the Earth mainly through culture. Family, tribe, chiefdom, nation-state. I am my language, my symbols, my beliefs. I am. We are.

For more information visit:

Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world

Published for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Copyright ©2004 by the United Nations Development Programme 1 UN Plaza, New York, New York, 10017, USA All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission.

ISBN 0-19-522146-X 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed by Hoechstetter Printing Co. on chlorine-free paper with vegetable inks and produced by means of environmentally compatible technology. Cover and design: Gerald Quinn, Quinn Information Design, Cabin John, Maryland Information design: Grundy & Northedge, London Editing, desktop composition and production management: Communications Development Incorporated, Washington, DC For a listing of any errors or omissions in HDR2004 found subsequent to printing, please visit our website at


Human Development Report 2004
Director and Lead Author Sakiko Fukuda-Parr Core team Carla De Gregorio, Haishan Fu (Chief of Statistics), Ricardo Fuentes, Arunabha Ghosh, Claes Johansson, Christopher Kuonqui, Santosh Mehrotra, Tanni Mukhopadhyay, Stefano Pettinato, David Stewart and Emily White Statistical adviser: Tom Griffin Editors: Cait Murphy and Bruce Ross-Larson Cover and layout design: Gerald Quinn Information design: Grundy & Northedge HDRO colleagues The team expresses its sincere gratitude for the invaluable support and contributions from their colleagues in the Human Development Report Office (HDRO). Administrative support for the Report’s preparation was provided by Oscar Bernal, Renuka Corea-Lloyd and Mamaye Gebretsadik. Outreach and promotional work for the Report were provided by Nena Terrell with Maria Kristina Dominguez and Anne-Louise Winsløv. HDRO operations were managed by Yves Sassenrath with Marie Suzanne Ndaw. And the team collaborated with members of the National Human Development Report (NHDR) Unit including: Sarah Burd-Sharps (Deputy Director HDRO and Chief NHDR Unit), Marcia de Castro, Sharmila Kurukulasuriya, Juan Pablo Mejia and Mary Ann Mwangi. Principal consultants Amartya Sen (Chapter 1), Lourdes Arizpe, Robert Bach, Rajeev Bhargava, Elie Cohen, Emmanuel de Kadt, Nicholas Dirks, K.S. Jomo, Will Kymlicka, Valentine Moghadam, Joy Moncrieffe, Sam Moyo, Brendan O’Leary, Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Barnett R. Rubin, Daniel Sabbagh, D.L. Sheth, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Alfred Stepan, Deborah Yashar and Aristide Zolberg


At a time when the notion of a global “clash of cultures” is resonating so powerfully—and worryingly—around the world, finding answers to the old questions of how best to manage and mitigate conflict over language, religion, culture and ethnicity has taken on renewed importance. For development practitioners this is not an abstract question. If the world is to reach the Millennium Development Goals and ultimately eradicate poverty, it must first successfully confront the challenge of how to build inclusive, culturally diverse societies. Not just because doing so successfully is a precondition for countries to focus properly on other priorities of economic growth, health and education for all citizens. But because allowing people full cultural expression is an important development end in itself. Human development is first and foremost about allowing people to lead the kind of life they choose—and providing them with the tools and opportunities to make those choices. In recent years Human Development Report has argued strongly that this is as much a question of politics as economics—from protecting human rights to deepening democracy. Unless people who are poor and marginalized—who more often than not are members of religious or ethnic minorities or migrants—can influence political action at local and national levels, they are unlikely to get equitable access to jobs, schools, hospitals, justice, security and other basic services. This year’s Report builds on that analysis, by carefully examining—and rejecting—claims that cultural differences necessarily lead to social, economic and political conflict or that inherent cultural rights should supersede political and economic ones. Instead, it provides a powerful argument for finding ways to “delight in our differences”, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has put it. It also offers some concrete ideas on what it means in practice to build and manage

the politics of identity and culture in a manner consistent with the bedrock principles of human development. Sometimes, that is relatively easy—for example, a girl’s right to an education will always trump her father’s claim to a cultural right to forbid her schooling for religious or other reasons. But the question can get much more complicated. Take education in the mother tongue. There is persuasive evidence that young children are more successful learning in their own language. However, what is an advantage at one point in life—and indeed may remain an indispensable bedrock of identity throughout life—can turn into a disadvantage in other ways when lack of proficiency in more widely used national or international languages can severely handicap employment opportunities. As this Report makes clear, from affirmative action to the role of the media, there are no easy—or one size fits all—rules for how best to build working multicultural societies. Even so, one overarching lesson is clear: succeeding is not simply a question of legislative and policy changes, necessary though they be. Constitutions and legislation that provide protections and guarantees for minorities, indigenous people and other groups are a critical foundation for broader freedoms. But unless the political culture also changes—unless citizens come to think, feel and act in ways that genuinely accommodate the needs and aspirations of others—real change will not happen. When the political culture does not change, the consequences are disturbingly clear. From disaffected indigenous groups across Latin America, to unhappy minorities in Africa and Asia, to new immigrants across the developed world, failing to address the grievances of marginalized groups does not just create injustice. It builds real problems for the future: unemployed, disaffected


youth, angry with the status quo and demanding change, often violently. That is the challenge. But there are also real opportunities. The overarching message of this Report is to highlight the vast potential of building a more peaceful, prosperous world by bringing issues of culture to the mainstream of development thinking and practice. Not to substitute for more traditional priorities that will remain our bread and butter—but to complement and strengthen them. The flip side of the development divide is that developing countries are often able to draw on richer, more diverse cultural traditions—whether captured in language, art, music or other forms— than their wealthier counterparts in the North. The globalization of mass culture—from books to films to television—clearly poses some significant threats to these traditional cultures. But it also opens up opportunities, from the narrow sense of disadvantaged groups like Australian Aborigines or Arctic Inuit tapping

global art markets, to the broader one of creating more vibrant, creative, exciting societies. Like all Human Development Reports, this is an independent study intended to stimulate debate and discussion around an important issue, not a statement of United Nations or UNDP policy. However, by taking up an issue often neglected by development economists and putting it firmly within the spectrum of priorities in building better, more fulfilled lives, it presents important arguments for UNDP and its partners to consider and act on in their broader work. This year, I would also like to pay particular tribute to Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, who is stepping down after 10 successful years leading our Human Development Report Office. I would also like to extend special thanks to Amartya Sen, one of the godfathers of human development, who has not only contributed the first chapter but been an enormous influence in shaping our thinking on this important issue.

Mark Malloch Brown Administrator, UNDP

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its Member States. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. It is the fruit of a collaborative effort by a team of eminent consultants and advisers and the Human Development Report team. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director of the Human Development Report Office, led the effort.



This Report could not have been prepared without the generous contributions of many individuals and organizations. The team expresses its sincere gratitude to Professor Amartya Sen, who provided the conceptual framework for the Report. CONTRIBUTORS The team is particularly grateful for its collaboration with the Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, and his staff, especially Ann-Belinda Preis, Katarina Stenou and Rene Zapata. Many background studies, papers and notes were prepared on thematic issues related to identity, cultural diversity and cultural liberty. These were contributed by Lourdes Arizpe, Robert Bach, Rajeev Bhargava, Elie Cohen, Emanuel De Kadt, Carolyn Deere, Nicholas Dirks, K.S. Jomo, Will Kymlicka, Valentine Moghadam, Joy Moncrieffe, Sam Moyo, Brendan O’Leary, Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Barnett R. Rubin, Daniel Sabbagh, Amartya Sen, D.L. Sheth, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Alfred Stepan, Deborah Yashar and Aristide Zolberg. Chapter 2 benefited from the country maps and associated information on conflict provided by the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, especially from the work of Meegan Murray, Praveen Pardeshi and Pablo Ruiz. Several organizations generously shared their data and other research materials: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center; Caribbean Community Secretariat; Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania; Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; Food and Agriculture Organization; International

Institute for Strategic Studies; International Labour Organization; International Monetary Fund; International Organizations for Migration; International Telecommunication Union; Inter-Parliamentary Union; Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; Luxembourg Income Study; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; United Nations Children's Fund; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; United Nations Population Division; United Nations Statistics Division; World Bank; World Health Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization. The team also expresses its appreciation for the support received from the Rockefeller Foundation, especially Ram Manikkalingam, Janet Maughan, Joan Shigekawa, Lynn Szwaja, Tomas Ybarro-Frausto as well as Gianna Celli and Nadia Giladroni at the Bellagio Rockefeller Foundation Conference and Study Center. ADVISORY PANEL The Report benefited greatly from intellectual advice and guidance provided by an external advisory panel of eminent experts. The panel included Arjun Appadurai, Robert Bach, Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Birdsall, Jody Narandran Kollapen, Mahmood Mamdani, Sonia Picado, Surin Pitsuwan, Jorge F. Quiroga,


Paul Streeten, Victoria Tauli-Corpus, Ngaire Woods, Rene Zapata and Antonina Zhelyazkova. An advisory panel on statistics included Sudhir Anand, Paul Cheung, Willem DeVries, Lamine Diop, Carmen Feijo, Andrew Flatt, Paolo Garonna, Robert Johnston, Irena Krizman, Nora Lustig, Ian Macredie, Marion McEwin, Wolf Scott, Tim Smeeding and Michael Ward. CONSULTATIONS Many individuals consulted during the preparation of the Report provided invaluable advice, information and material. The Report team thanks Carla Abouzahr, Yasmin Ahmad, Patricia Alexander, Serge Allegrezza, Anna Alvazzi del Frate, Shaida Badiee, Yusuf Bangura, Nefise Bazoglu, Grace Bediako, Matt Benjamin, Yonas Biru, Ties Boerma, Eduard Bos, Thomas Buettner, Tony Burton, Rosario Garcia Calderon, Joe Chamie, Shaohua Chen, Paul Cheung, Martin Chungong, David Cieslikowski, Lee Cokorinos, Patrick R. Cornu, Kim Cragin, Trevor Croft, Gaurav Datt, Ian Dennis, Yuri Dikhanov, Dennis Drescher, Asghar Ali Engineer, Hubert Escaith, Kareen Fabre, Yousef Falah, Richard Fix, Karl Franklin, Nancy Fraser, Rodolfo Roque Fuentes, Enrique Ganuza, Peter Ghys, Erlinda Go, Rui Gomes, Ray Gordon, Marilyn Gregerson, Ted Robert Gurr, Brian Hammond, Philomen Harrison, Sabinne Henning, Alan Heston, Misako Hiraga, Frederick W.H. Ho, Joop van Holsteyn, Béla Hovy, Piero Ignazi, Chandika Indikadahena, Jens Johansen, Lawrence Jeff Johnson, Robert Johnston, Vasantha Kandiah, Alison Kennedy, Sio Suat Kheng, Elizabeth Kielman, Taro Komatsu, Karoly Kovacs, Olivier Labe, Frank Laczko, Henrik Larsen, Georges Lemaitre, Denise Lievesley, Rolf Luyendijk, Nyein Nyein Lwin, Doug Lynd, Esperanza C. Magpantay, Mary Mahy, Heikki S. Mattila, Clare Menozzi, Jorge Mernies, Michael Minges, Anjali Mody, Catherine Monagle, Bruno Moro, Ron Morren, Philip Mukungu, Angela Ferriol Muruaga, Jack Nagel, Keiko Osaki, Jude Padyachy, Sonia Palmieri, Rosario Pardo, Amy Pate, Sulekha Patel, François Pelletier, Bob Pember, Indira Persaud, Francesca

Perucci, Rudolphe Petras, Spyridon Pilos, Lionel Pintopontes, William Prince, Lakshmi Puri, Agnès Puymoyen, Hantamalala Rafalimanana, Markandey Rai, Vijayendra Rao, Luca Renda, Clinton Robinson, David Roodman, Ricardo Sibrián, Shaguni Singh, Armin Sirco, Carl Skau, Petter Stalenheim, Elsa Stamatopoulou, Mark Stoker, Diane Stukel, Ilpo Survo, Eric Swanson, Tony Taubman, Benedicte Terryn, Michel Thieren, Anne Thomas, Barbara Trudell, Elisa Tsakiri, Rafael Tuts, Erica Usher, Said Voffal, Rick Wacek, Neff Walker, Steve Walter, Tessa Wardlaw, Jayashree Watal, Glenys Waters, Catherine Watt, Wendy Wendland, Patrick Werquin, Siemon Wezeman, Anders Widfeldt, Boris Wijkström, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Diane Wroge, A. Sylvester Young, Elizabeth Zaniewski and Hania Zlotnik. An informal consultation with UN agencies provided the team with helpful comments and suggestions. The team thanks Food and Agriculture Organization; International Fund for Agricultural Development; International Labour Organization; International Monetary Fund; Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; United Nations Children’s Fund; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; United Nations Environment Programme; United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; United Nations Human Settlements Programme; United Nations Institute for Training and Research; United Nations Population Fund; World Health Organization; World Intellectual Property Organization and World Bank. The team would like to thank members of the UNDP human development reports network (HDR-Net) and civil society network who provided many insightful comments and suggestions during the network discussions. UNDP READERS A Readers Group, made up of colleagues in UNDP, provided extremely useful comments, suggestions and inputs during the writing of the


Report. The Report team is especially grateful to Randa Aboul-Hosn, Fernando Calderon, Moez Doraid, Gilbert Fossoun Houngbo, Andrey Ivanov, Selim Jahan, Bruce Jenks, Freddy Justiniano, Inge Kaul, Douglas Keh, Thierry Lemaresquier, Lamin Manneh, Saraswathi Menon, Kalman Mizsei, Balasubramaniam Murali, Shoji Nishimoto, Omar Noman, William Orme, Eugenio Ortega, Hilda Paqui, Ravi Rajan, Ramaswamy Sudarshan, Mark Suzman, Julia V. Taft, Gulden Turkoz-Cosslett, Louisa Vinton, Mourad Wahba and Gita Welch. EDITING, PRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION As in previous years, the Report benefited from the editors at Communications Development Incorporated: Meta de Coquereaumont, Elizabeth McCrocklin, Thomas Roncoli, Bruce Ross-Larson and Christopher Trott. The Report (including cover) was designed by Gerald Quinn and laid out by Elaine Wilson. Statistical information appearing in the Report was designed by Grundy & Northedge. The production, translation, distribution and promotion of the Report benefited from the help and support of the Communications Office of the Administrator: Djibril Diallo, Maureen Lynch, Trygve Olfarnes, Bill Orme, Hilda Paqui as well as Elizabeth Scott Andrews. Translations were reviewed by Helene Castel, Cielo Morales, Vladimir Scherbov, Andrey Ivanov, and Ali Al-Kasimi.

The Report also benefited from the dedicated work of interns: Valentina Azzarello, Alexandra Lopoukhine, Rachel Sorrentino and Rati Tripathi. Emmanuel Boudard and Jessica Lopatka made valuable contributions to the statistical team. Liliana Izquierdo and Gerardo Nunez of the UN Office of Project Services provided critical administrative support and management services. * * * The team expresses sincere appreciation to the Report’s peer reviewer, Will Kymlicka, who carefully reviewed drafts and shared his expertise and insights. The team is also grateful to Ian Macredie, Lene Mikkelsen and David Pearce, the statistical peer reviewers who scrutinized the data in the Report and lent their statistical expertise. Finally, the authors are especially grateful to Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP’s Administrator, for his leadership and vision. And although thankful for all the support they have received, the authors assume full responsibility for the opinions expressed in the Report.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr Director Human Development Report 2004



OVERVIEW Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world CHAPTER 1 Cultural liberty and human development Participation and recognition 14 Freedoms, human rights and the role of diversity 15 Identity, community and freedom 16 Globalization, asymmetry and democracy 19 Conclusions 22

1 13

CHAPTER 2 Challenges for cultural liberty 27 Cultural liberty—an uncharted dimension of human development 28 Promoting cultural liberty requires recognizing differences in identity 36 Three myths surrounding cultural liberty and development 38 Today’s challenges for cultural liberty 44 CHAPTER 3 Building multicultural democracies 47 Resolving state dilemmas in recognizing cultural difference 47 Policies for ensuring the political participation of diverse cultural groups Policies on religion and religious practice 54 Policies on customary law and legal pluralism 57 Policies on the use of multiple languages 60 Policies for redressing socio-economic exclusion 65 CHAPTER 4 Confronting movements for cultural domination 73 Movements for cultural domination—today’s challenges 74 Dilemmas for democracies—restrictive or accommodative measures? 77 CHAPTER 5 Globalization and cultural choice 85 Globalization and multiculturalism 88 Flows of investment and knowledge—including indigenous people in a globally integrated world Flows of cultural goods—widening choices through creativity and diversity 96 Flows of people—multiple identities for global citizens 99 Notes 107 Bibliographic note 110 Bibliography 112




SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Human rights embody the fundamental values of human civilizations Shirin Ebadi 23 Diversity—from divisive to inclusive Nelson Mandela 43 Recognition of linguistic diversity in Afghanistan’s Constitution Hamid Karzai 64 Difference is not a threat but a source of strength John Hume 82 Indigenous peoples and development Ole Henrik Magga 91 BOXES 2.1 Two aspects of cultural exclusion 27 2.2 Defining cultural rights lags behind defining civil, political, economic and social rights—why? 2.3 Measuring cultural liberty 31 2.4 The human development index: capturing inequalities across groups 36 2.5 Cultural policies—protecting cultural heritage and promoting cultural liberty 38 2.6 Inequalities between groups can fuel conflict and tension 41 2.7 Solomon Islands’ ethnic difference not the cause of conflict 42 3.1 A rough guide to federalism 50 3.2 The challenge of federalism: Nigeria’s troubled political trajectory and prospects 52 3.3 Proportional representation or winner takes all? New Zealand makes a switch 55 3.4 The many forms of secular and non-secular states and their effects on religious freedom 56 3.5 Hindu and Muslim personal law: the ongoing debate over a uniform civil code 57 3.6 Access to justice and cultural recognition in Guatemala 59 3.7 Multilingual education in Papua New Guinea 61 3.8 How many languages are there in Africa? 85% of Africans speak 15 core languages 63 3.9 Land rights in the Philippines 68 3.10 Experiences with affirmative action in Malaysia and South Africa 70 4.1 Leadership, ideological manipulation and recruiting supporters 77 4.2 Central Asia—the danger in restricting political and cultural liberties 78 4.3 Egypt—distinguishing between moderates and extremists 80 4.4 Algeria—discontent, democraticization and violence 81 4.5 United States—targeting intolerance and hatred 83 5.1 Culture—paradigm shift in anthropology 89 5.2 Sources of global ethics 90 5.3 Private companies and indigenous people can work together for development 94 5.4 Using intellectual property rights to protect traditional knowledge 95 5.5 The debate on cultural goods and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments fiasco 96 5.6 France’s successful support of domestic cultural industries 99 5.7 The headscarf dilemma in France 101 5.8 Temporary contracts—welcoming workers but not people does not work 103 5.9 How Berlin promotes respect for cultural difference 104 TABLES 2.1 Political representation of ethnic minorities in selected OECD parliaments 2.2 Integrating multicultural policies into human development strategies 37




3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3

Indicators of internal output and costs of conventional and bilingual schools in Burkina Faso 62 Casualties resulting from sectarian violence in Pakistan, 1989–2003 75 Indigenous population in Latin America 92 Policy choices for the promotion of the domestic film and audiovisual industry—market and industry size matter Top 10 cities by share of foreign born population, 2000/01 99


FIGURES 2.1 Most countries are culturally diverse 28 2.2 Indigenous people can expect a shorter life 29 2.3 Europe’s non-European migrant population has increased significantly . . . and migrants are coming from more places 30 2.4 Many lack access to primary education in their mother tongue 34 2.5 National holidays are important ways to recognize—or ignore—cultural identities 35 3.1 Indigenous people are more likely than non-indigenous people to be poor in Latin America 67 3.2 Non-whites benefit less than whites from public health spending in South Africa 67 3.3 Group inequalities have declined in Malaysia, but personal inequalities have not 71 3.4 The record of affirmative action in the United States is mixed 71 4.1 Movements for cultural domination—not the same as all fundamentalist or all violent movements 73 4.2 Some European extreme right parties have won steadily increasing vote shares 74 4.3 Democratic participation can expose the fringe appeal of extreme right parties 82 5.1 Top-grossing films of all time at the international (non-US) box office were US films, April 2004 97 5.2 Unprecedented growth in international migration to Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, but refugees remain a small proportion, 1990–2000 100 5.3 More and more governments (rich and poor) want to control immigration, 1976–2001 100 MAPS 2.1 Guatemala exhibits substantial overlap between linguistic communities and social exclusion 37 5.1 Much extractive and infrastructural activity in developing countries is in areas where indigenous people live


FEATURES 2.1 The Minorities at Risk data set—quantifying cultural exclusion 32 Figure 1 Discrimination and disadvantage of culturally identified groups can be cultural, political and economic— with considerable overlap 32 Figure 2 Political and economic exclusion have different causes 32 3.1 State unity or ethnocultural identity? Not an inevitable choice 48 Figure 1 Multiple and complementary identities 48 Figure 2 Trust, support and identification: poor and diverse countries can do well with multicultural policies 49 5.1 What’s new about globalization’s implications for identity politics? 86 Table 1 Top 10 countries by share of migrant population, 2000 87 Figure 1 Rapid increases in investments in extractive industries in developing countries, 1988–97 86 Figure 2 Fewer domestic films, more US films: evolving film attendance, 1984–2001 87 Statistical feature 1 The state of human development 127 Table 1 HDI, HPI-1, HPI-2, GDI—same components, different measurements Table 2 Eliminating poverty: massive deprivation remains, 2000 129 xii 127

Table 3 Progress and setbacks: child mortality 132 Table 4 Progress and setbacks: primary education 132 Table 5 Progress and setbacks: income poverty 132 Table 6 Countries experiencing a drop in the human development index, 1980s and 1990s 132 Figure 1 Same HDI, different income 128 Figure 2 Same income, different HDI 128 Figure 3 Not enough progress towards the Millennium Development Goals 130 Figure 4 Timeline: when will the Millennium Development Goals be achieved if progress does not accelerate? Figure 5 Global disparities in HDI 134 Figure 6 Top and high priority countries 134 Index to Millennium Development Goal indicators in the indicator tables 135 Statistical feature 2 Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index 137 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS MONITORING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: ENLARGING PEOPLE’S CHOICES. . . 1 Human development index 139 2 Human development index trends 143 3 Human and income poverty: developing countries 147 4 Human and income poverty: OECD, Central & Eastern Europe & CIS . . . TO LEAD A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE. . . 5 Demographic trends 152 6 Commitment to health: resources, access and services 7 Water, sanitation and nutritional status 160 8 Leading global health crises and risks 164 9 Survival: progress and setbacks 168 . . . TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE . . . 10 Commitment to education: public spending 11 Literacy and enrolment 176 12 Technology: diffusion and creation 180





. . . TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES NEEDED FOR A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING. . . 13 Economic performance 184 14 Inequality in income or consumption 188 15 Structure of trade 192 16 Rich country responsibilities: aid 196 17 Rich country responsibilities: debt relief and trade 197 18 Flows of aid, private capital and debt 198 19 Priorities in public spending 202 20 Unemployment in OECD countries 206 . . . WHILE PRESERVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS . . . 21 Energy and the environment 207


. . . PROTECTING PERSONAL SECURITY . . . 22 Refugees and armaments 211 23 Victims of crime 215 . . . AND ACHIEVING EQUALITY FOR ALL WOMEN AND MEN 24 Gender-related development index 217 25 Gender empowerment measure 221 26 Gender inequality in education 225 27 Gender inequality in economic activity 229 28 Gender, work burden and time allocation 233 29 Women’s political participation 234 HUMAN AND LABOUR RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS 30 Status of major international human rights instruments 31 Status of fundamental labour rights conventions 242 32 33


Human development indices: a regional perspective 246 Basic indicators for other UN member countries 250 251

Note on statistics in the Human Development Report

Technical notes 1 Calculating the human development indices 258 2 Identifying top priority and high priority countries for the Millennium Development Goals Definitions of statistical terms 268 Statistical references 277 Classification of countries 279 Index to indicators 283




Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world

How will the new constitution of Iraq satisfy demands for fair representation for Shiites and Kurds? Which—and how many—of the languages spoken in Afghanistan should the new constitution recognize as the official language of the state? How will the Nigerian federal court deal with a Sharia law ruling to punish adultery by death? Will the French legislature approve the proposal to ban headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools? Do Hispanics in the United States resist assimilation into the mainstream American culture? Will there be a peace accord to end fighting in Côte d’Ivoire? Will the President of Bolivia resign after mounting protests by indigenous people? Will the peace talks to end the Tamil-Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka ever conclude? These are just some headlines from the past few months. Managing cultural diversity is one of the central challenges of our time. Long thought to be divisive threats to social harmony, choices like these—about recognizing and accommodating diverse ethnicities, religions, languages and values—are an inescapable feature of the landscape of politics in the 21st century. Political leaders and political theorists of all persuasions have argued against explicit recognition of cultural identities—ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial. The result, more often than not, has been that cultural identities have been suppressed, sometimes brutally, as state policy—through religious persecutions and ethnic cleansings, but also through everyday exclusion and economic, social and political discrimination. New today is the rise of identity politics. In vastly different contexts and in different ways— from indigenous people in Latin America to religious minorities in South Asia to ethnic minorities in the Balkans and Africa to immigrants in Western Europe—people are mobilizing anew around old grievances along ethnic,

religious, racial and cultural lines, demanding that their identities be acknowledged, appreciated and accommodated by wider society. Suffering discrimination and marginalization from social, economic and political opportunities, they are also demanding social justice. Also new today is the rise of coercive movements that threaten cultural liberty. And, in this era of globalization, a new class of political claims and demands has emerged from individuals, communities and countries feeling that their local cultures are being swept away. They want to keep their diversity in a globalized world. Why these movements today? They are not isolated. They are part of a historic process of social change, of struggles for cultural freedom, of new frontiers in the advance of human freedoms and democracy. They are propelled and shaped by the spread of democracy, which is giving movements more political space for protest, and the advance of globalization, which is creating new networks of alliances and presenting new challenges. Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity—who one is—without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is important in leading a full life. People want the freedom to practice their religion openly, to speak their language, to celebrate their ethnic or religious heritage without fear of ridicule or punishment or diminished opportunity. People want the freedom to participate in society without having to slip off their chosen cultural moorings. It is a simple idea, but profoundly unsettling. States face an urgent challenge in responding to these demands. If handled well, greater recognition of identities will bring greater cultural diversity in society, enriching people’s lives. But there is also a great risk. These struggles over cultural identity, if left unmanaged or managed poorly, can quickly

Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development



This Report makes a case for respecting diversity and building more inclusive societies by adopting policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences— multicultural policies

become one of the greatest sources of instability within states and between them—and in so doing trigger conflict that takes development backwards. Identity politics that polarize people and groups are creating fault lines between “us” and “them”. Growing distrust and hatred threaten peace, development and human freedoms. Just in the last year ethnic violence destroyed hundreds of homes and mosques in Kosovo and Serbia. Terrorist train bombings in Spain killed nearly 200. Sectarian violence killed thousands of Muslims and drove thousands more from their homes in Gujarat and elsewhere in India, a champion of cultural accommodation. A spate of hate crimes against immigrants shattered Norwegians’ belief in their unshakable commitment to tolerance. Struggles over identity can also lead to regressive and xenophobic policies that retard human development. They can encourage a retreat to conservatism and a rejection of change, closing off the infusion of ideas and of people who bring cosmopolitan values and the knowledge and skills that advance development. Managing diversity and respecting cultural identities are not just challenges for a few “multiethnic states”. Almost no country is entirely homogeneous. The world’s nearly 200 countries contain some 5,000 ethnic groups. Twothirds have at least one substantial minority—an ethnic or religious group that makes up at least 10% of the population. At the same time the pace of international migration has quickened, with startling effects on some countries and cities. Nearly half the population of Toronto was born outside of Canada. And many more foreign-born people maintain close ties with their countries of origin than did immigrants of the last century. One way or another every country is a multicultural society today, containing ethnic, religious or linguistic groups that have common bonds to their own heritage, culture, values and way of life. Cultural diversity is here to stay—and to grow. States need to find ways of forging national unity amid this diversity. The world, ever more interdependent economically, cannot function unless people respect diversity and build unity through common bonds of humanity. In this age of globalization the demands for cultural

recognition can no longer be ignored by any state or by the international community. And confrontations over culture and identity are likely to grow—the ease of communications and travel have shrunk the world and changed the landscape of cultural diversity, and the spread of democracy, human rights and new global networks have given people greater means to mobilize around a cause, insist on a response and get it.

Five myths debunked. Policies recognizing cultural identities and encouraging diversity to flourish do not result in fragmentation, conflict, weak development or authoritarian rule. Such policies are both viable, and necessary, for it is often the suppression of culturally identified groups that leads to tensions. This Report makes a case for respecting diversity and building more inclusive societies by adopting policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences—multicultural policies. But why have many cultural identities been suppressed or ignored for so long? One reason is that many people believe that allowing diversity to flourish may be desirable in the abstract but in practice can weaken the state, lead to conflict and retard development. The best approach to diversity, in this view, is assimilation around a single national standard, which can lead to the suppression of cultural identities. However, this Report argues that these are not premises— they are myths. Indeed, it argues that a multicultural policy approach is not just desirable but also viable and necessary. Without such an approach the imagined problems of diversity can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Myth 1. People’s ethnic identities compete with their attachment to the state, so there is a trade-off between recognizing diversity and unifying the state. Not so. Individuals can and do have multiple identities that are complementary—ethnicity, language, religion and race as well as citizenship. Nor is identity a zero sum game. There is no inevitable need to choose between state unity and recognition of cultural differences.



A sense of identity and belonging to a group with shared values and other bonds of culture is important for individuals. But each individual can identify with many different groups. Individuals have identity of citizenship (for example, being French), gender (being a woman), race (being of West African origin), language (being fluent in Thai, Chinese and English), politics (having left-wing views) and religion (being Buddhist). Identity also has an element of choice: within these memberships individuals can choose what priority to give to one membership over another in different contexts. Mexican Americans may cheer for the Mexican soccer team but serve in the US Army. Many white South Africans chose to fight apartheid as South Africans. Sociologists tell us that people have boundaries of identity that separate “us” from “them”, but these boundaries shift and blur to incorporate broader groups of people. “Nation building” has been a dominant objective of the 20th century, and most states have aimed to build culturally homogeneous states with singular identities. Sometimes they succeeded but at the cost of repression and persecution. If the history of the 20th century showed anything, it is that the attempt either to exterminate cultural groups or to wish them away elicits a stubborn resilience. By contrast, recognizing cultural identities has resolved never-ending tensions. For both practical and moral reasons, then, it is far better to accommodate cultural groups than to try to eliminate them or to pretend that they do not exist. Countries do not have to choose between national unity and cultural diversity. Surveys show that the two can and often do coexist. In Belgium citizens overwhelmingly replied when asked that they felt both Belgian and Flemish or Walloon and in Spain, that they felt Spanish as well as Catalan or Basque. These countries and others have worked hard to accommodate diverse cultures. They have also worked hard to build unity by fostering respect for identities and trust in state institutions. The states have held together. Immigrants need not deny their commitment to their families in their countries of origin when they develop loyalties to their new countries. Fears that

if immigrants do not “assimilate”, they will fragment the country are unfounded. Assimilation without choice is no longer a viable—or a necessary—model of integration. There is no trade-off between diversity and state unity. Multicultural policies are a way to build diverse and unified states. Myth 2. Ethnic groups are prone to violent conflict with each other in clashes of values, so there is a trade-off between respecting diversity and sustaining peace. No. There is little empirical evidence that cultural differences and clashes over values are in themselves a cause of violent conflict. It is true, particularly since the end of the cold war, that violent conflicts have arisen not so much between states but within them between ethnic groups. But on their causes, there is wide agreement in recent research by scholars that cultural differences by themselves are not the relevant factor. Some even argue that cultural diversity reduces the risk of conflict by making group mobilization more difficult. Studies offer several explanations for these wars: economic inequalities between the groups as well as struggles over political power, land and other economic assets. In Fiji indigenous Fijians initiated a coup against the Indian-dominated government because they feared that land might be confiscated. In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese majority gained political power, but the Tamil minority had access to more economic resources, triggering decades of civil conflict. In Burundi and Rwanda, at different points in time, Tutsis and Hutus were each excluded from economic opportunities and political participation. Cultural identity does have a role in these conflicts—not as a cause but as a driver for political mobilization. Leaders invoke a single identity, its symbols and its history of grievances, to “rally the troops”. And a lack of cultural recognition can trigger violent mobilization. Underlying inequalities in South Africa were at the root of the Soweto riots in 1976, but they were triggered by attempts to impose Afrikaans on black schools. While the coexistence of culturally distinct groups is not, in itself, a cause of violent conflict,

A sense of identity and belonging to a group with shared values and other bonds of culture is important for all individuals. But each individual can identify with many different groups



it is dangerous to allow economic and political inequality to deepen between these groups or to suppress cultural differences, because cultural groups are easily mobilized to contest these disparities as injustice. There is no trade-off between peace and respect for diversity, but identity politics need to be managed so that they do not turn violent. Myth 3. Cultural liberty requires defending traditional practices, so there could be a trade-off between recognizing cultural diversity and other human development priorities such as progress in development, democracy and human rights. No. Cultural liberty is about expanding individual choices, not about preserving values and practices as an end in itself with blind allegiance to tradition. Culture is not a frozen set of values and practices. It is constantly recreated as people question, adapt and redefine their values and practices to changing realities and exchanges of ideas. Some argue that multiculturalism is a policy of conserving cultures, even practices that violate human rights, and that movements for cultural recognition are not governed democratically. But neither cultural freedom nor respect for diversity should be confused with the defence of tradition. Cultural liberty is the capability of people to live and be what they choose, with adequate opportunity to consider other options. “Culture”, “tradition” and “authenticity” are not the same as “cultural liberty”. They are not acceptable reasons for allowing practices that deny individuals equality of opportunity and violate their human rights—such as denying women equal rights to education. Interest groups led by self-appointed leaders may not reflect the views of the membership at large. It is not rare for groups to be dominated by people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo under the justification of “tradition” and who act as gatekeepers of traditionalism to freeze their cultures. Those making demands for cultural accommodation should also abide by democratic principles and the objectives of human freedom and human rights. One good model is the Sami people in Finland,

who enjoy autonomy in a parliament that has democratic structures and follows democratic procedures but is part of the Finnish state. There does not need to be any trade-off between respect for cultural difference and human rights and development. But the process of development involves active participation of people in fighting for human rights and shifts in values. Myth 4. Ethnically diverse countries are less able to develop, so there is a trade-off between respecting diversity and promoting development. No. There is no evidence of a clear relationship, good or bad, between cultural diversity and development. Some argue, however, that diversity has been an obstacle to development. But while it is undeniably true that many diverse societies have low levels of income and human development, there is no evidence that this is related to cultural diversity. One study argues that diversity has been a source of poor economic performance in Africa—but this is related to political decision-making that follows ethnic rather than national interests, not to diversity itself. Just as there are multi-ethnic countries that have stagnated, there are others that were spectacularly successful. Malaysia, with 62% of its people Malays and other indigenous groups, 30% Chinese and 8% Indian, was the world’s 10th fastest growing economy during 1970–90, years when it also implemented affirmative action policies. Mauritius ranks 64 in the human development index, the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. It has a diverse population of African, Indian, Chinese and European origin—with 50% Hindu, 30% Christian and 17% Muslim. Myth 5. Some cultures are more likely to make developmental progress than others, and some cultures have inherent democratic values while others do not, so there is a trade-off between accommodating certain cultures and promoting development and democracy. Again, no. There is no evidence from statistical analysis or historical studies of a causal

Cultural liberty is the capability of people to live and be what they choose



relationship between culture and economic progress or democracy. Cultural determinism—the idea that a group’s culture explains economic performance and the advance of democracy—as an obstacle or a facilitator, has enormous intuitive appeal. But these theories are not supported by econometric analysis or history. Many theories of cultural determinism have been advanced, starting with Max Weber’s explanation of the Protestant ethic as a key factor behind successful growth in capitalist economies. Persuasive in explaining the past, these theories have been repeatedly proven wrong in predicting the future. When Weber’s theory of the Protestant ethic was being touted, Catholic countries (France and Italy) were growing faster than Protestant Britain and Germany, so the theory was expanded to mean Christian or Western. When Japan, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and other East Asian countries achieved record growth rates, the notion that Confucian values retard growth had to be jettisoned. Understanding cultural traditions can offer insights to human behaviour and social dynamics that influence development outcomes. But these insights do not offer a grand theory of culture and development. In explaining economic growth rates, for example, economic policy, geography and the burden of disease are found to be highly relevant factors. But culture, such as whether a society is Hindu or Muslim, is found to be insignificant. The same is true with reference to democracy. A new wave of cultural determinism is starting to hold sway in some policy debates, attributing the failures of democratization in the non-Western world to inherent cultural traits of intolerance and “authoritarian values”. At the global level some theorists have argued that the 21st century will see a “clash of civilizations”, that the future of democratic and tolerant Western states is threatened by non-Western states with more authoritarian values. There are reasons to be sceptical. For one thing, the theory exaggerates the differences between “civilization” groups and ignores the similarities among them. Moreover, the West has no monopoly on democracy or tolerance, and there is no unique line of historical division between a tolerant

and democratic West and a despotic East. Plato and Augustine were no less authoritarian in their thinking than were Confucius and Kautilya. There were champions of democracy not just in Europe but elsewhere as well. Take Akbar, who preached religious tolerance in 16th century India, or Prince Shotoku who in 7th century Japan introduced the constitution (kempo) that insisted that “decisions on important matters should not be made by one person alone. They should be discussed by many”. Notions of participatory decision-making on important public issues have been a central part of many traditions in Africa and elsewhere. And more recent findings of the World Values survey show that people in Muslim countries have as much support for democratic values as do people in non-Muslim countries. A basic problem with these theories is the underlying assumption that culture is largely fixed and unchanging, allowing the world to be neatly divided into “civilizations” or “cultures”. This ignores the fact that while there can be great continuity in values and traditions in societies, cultures also change and are rarely homogeneous. Nearly all societies have undergone shifts in values—for example, shifts in values about the role of women and gender equality over the last century. And radical changes in social practices have occurred everywhere, from Catholics in Chile to Muslims in Bangladesh to Buddhists in Thailand. Such changes and tensions within societies drive politics and historical change, so that the way power relationships affect those dynamics now dominates research in anthropology. Paradoxically, just as anthropologists have discarded the concept of culture as a bounded and fixed social phenomenon, mainstream political interest in finding core values and traits of “a people and their culture” is growing. Theories of cultural determinism deserve critical assessment since they have dangerous policy implications. They can fuel support for nationalistic policies that denigrate or oppress “inferior” cultures argued to stand in the way of national unity, democracy and development. Such attacks on cultural values would then fuel violent reactions that could feed tensions both within and between nations.

A new wave of cultural determinism is starting to hold sway



Cultural liberty is a human right and an important aspect of human development— and thus worthy of state action and attention

Human development requires more than health, education, a decent standard of living and political freedom. People’s cultural identities must be recognized and accommodated by the state, and people must be free to express these identities without being discriminated against in other aspects of their lives. In short: cultural liberty is a human right and an important aspect of human development—and thus worthy of state action and attention. Human development is the process of widening choices for people to do and be what they value in life. Previous Human Development Reports have focused on expanding social, political and economic opportunities to expand these choices. They have explored ways that policies of equitable growth, expansion of social opportunities and deepening of democracy can enhance those choices for all people. A further dimension of human development, difficult to measure and even to define, is vitally important: cultural liberty is central to the capability of people to live as they would like. The advance of cultural liberty must be a central aspect of human development, and this requires going beyond social, political and economic opportunities since they do not guarantee cultural liberty. Cultural liberty is about allowing people the freedom to choose their identities—and to lead the lives they value—without being excluded from other choices important to them (such as those for education, health or job opportunities). In practice there are two forms of cultural exclusion. First is living mode exclusion, which denies recognition and accommodation of a lifestyle that a group would choose to have and that insists that individuals must live exactly like all others in society. Examples include religious oppression or the insistence that immigrants drop their cultural practices and language. Second is participation exclusion, when people are discriminated against or suffer disadvantage in social, political and economic opportunities because of their cultural identity. Both types of exclusion exist on an extensive scale, across every continent, at every level

of development, in democracies and authoritarian states. The Minorities at Risk data set, a research project including issues relating to cultural exclusion that has reviewed the situation of minority groups worldwide, estimates that about 900 million people belong to groups that are subject to some form of either living mode or participation exclusion not faced by other groups in the state—around one in every seven people around the world. Of course, suppressions of cultural liberty fill the spectrum. At one extreme is ethnic cleansing. Then there are formal restrictions on the practice of religion, language and citizenship. But more frequently cultural exclusion comes from a simple lack of recognition or respect for the culture and heritage of people—or from some cultures being considered inferior, primitive or uncivilized. This can be reflected in state policies, as in national calendars that do not observe a minority’s religious holiday, schoolbooks that leave out or belittle the achievements of minority leaders and support to literature and other arts that celebrate the achievements of the dominant culture. Living mode exclusion often overlaps with social, economic and political exclusion through discrimination and disadvantage in employment, housing, schooling and political representation. The occupational castes in Nepal have under-five mortality rates of more than 17%, compared with around 7% for the Newar and Brahmin. In Serbia and Montenegro 30% of Roma children have never attended primary school. Latin Americans of European descent often express pride that they are colour blind and insist that their states are too. But across the continent indigenous groups are poorer and less represented politically than the non-indigenous. In Mexico, for example, 81% of indigenous people are reckoned to have incomes below the poverty line, compared with 18% for the general population. Living mode and participation exclusion, however, do not always overlap. People of Chinese ancestry in South-East Asia, for example, are economically dominant yet have been culturally excluded, for example, with Chinese language schools restricted, publishing in Chinese prohibited and people of Chinese descent socially pressured to adopt local names. But more often



living mode exclusion reinforces exclusion from other opportunities. This is particularly so for language. Many groups, especially large minorities such as the Kurds in Turkey and the indigenous people of Guatemala, are excluded from political participation and economic opportunities because the state does not recognize their language in schools, law courts and other official arenas. This is why groups fight so hard for their languages to be recognized and used in instruction and in political and legal processes.

ignored or overridden by the majority or by dominant groups. And they need to do so in ways that do not contradict other goals and strategies of human development, such as consolidating democracy, building a capable state and ensuring equal opportunities to all citizens. This is not easy, but there are many examples of countries around the world adopting innovative approaches for managing cultural diversity. This Report focuses particularly on five central policy areas: political participation, religion, access to justice, language and access to socioeconomic opportunities. Policies for ensuring political participation Many historically marginalized groups are still excluded from real political power, and so they often feel alienated from the state. In some cases the exclusion is due to a lack of democracy or the denial of political rights. If so, democratization would be an essential first step. However, something more is required, because even when members of minorities have equal political rights in a democracy, they may be consistently underrepresented or outvoted, and so view the central government as alien and oppressive. Not surprisingly, many minorities resist alien or oppressive rule and seek more political power. That is why a “multicultural” conception of democracy is often required. Several emerging models of multicultural democracy provide effective mechanisms for power sharing between culturally diverse groups. These kinds of power-sharing arrangements are crucial for securing the rights of diverse cultural groups and minorities and for preventing violations—either by majoritarian imposition or by the dominance of the ruling political elite. Electoral reforms addressed the chronic underrepresentation of Maoris in New Zealand. With the introduction of proportional representation in place of the winner-takes-all formula, Maori representation rose from 3% in 1993 to 16% in the 2002 elections, in line with their share of the population. Reserved seats and quotas have been critical to ensuring that the scheduled tribes and castes had a voice in India and that ethnic minorities were represented in Croatia.

Several emerging models of multicultural democracy provide effective mechanisms for power sharing between culturally diverse groups

None of this is utopian. Incorporating multicultural policies is not always easy. Democracy, equitable development and state cohesion are essential, and many countries are successfully developing multicultural policies to address cultural exclusion. Cultural liberty will not just happen, any more than health, education and gender equity just happen. Fostering it should be a core concern of governments, even where there are no explicit policies of persecution or discrimination. Some argue that guaranteeing individuals civil and political rights—such as freedom of worship, speech and association—is enough to give them the ability to practice their religion, speak their language and be free of discrimination in employment, schooling and many other types of exclusion. They argue that cultural exclusion is a by-product of economic and political exclusions and that once these are resolved, the cultural exclusion will disappear of its own accord. This has not happened. Many rich and democratic countries, for example, profess to treat all citizens equally, but are nonetheless home to minorities who lack proper representation in politics, and for whom harassment and difficulty in accessing public services are their daily fare. To expand cultural freedoms requires explicit policies to address denials of cultural liberty— multicultural policies. To do this, states need to recognize cultural differences in their constitutions, their laws and their institutions. They also need to formulate policies to ensure that the interests of particular groups—whether minorities or historically marginalized majorities—are not



Power sharing arrangements have broadly proven to be critical in resolving tensions

Federal arrangements are an important approach to power sharing. Almost every one of the dozen ethnically diverse countries that are longstanding democracies has asymmetrical federal arrangements in which subunits of the federal state do not all have the same powers. This arrangement responds more flexibly to the needs of different groups. For example, Sabah and Sarawak have a special status in Malaysia, as do the Basques and 14 other comunidades autonomas in Spain, with autonomy in areas such as education, language and culture. Some indigenous people, such as the Inuits in Canada, have also negotiated self-governing territories. The lesson is that such power sharing arrangements have broadly proven to be critical in resolving tensions in countries historically confronted with secessionist movements, as in Spain. Introduced early enough, when tensions are mounting, they can forestall violent conflict. Policies for ensuring religious freedom Many religious minorities suffer various forms of exclusion, sometimes due to explicit suppression of religious freedom or discrimination against that group—a problem particularly common in non-secular countries where the state upholds an established religion. But in other cases the exclusion may be less direct and often unintended, as when the public calendar does not recognize a minority’s religious holidays. India officially celebrates 5 Hindu holidays but also 4 Muslim, 2 Christian, 1 Buddhist, 1 Jain and 1 Sikh in recognition of a diverse population. France celebrates 11 national holidays, 5 are non-denominational and of the 6 religious holidays all celebrate events in the Christian calendar, though 7% of the population is Muslim and 1% Jewish. Similarly, the dress codes in public institutions may conflict with a minority’s religious dress. Or state rules about marriage and inheritance may differ from those of religious codes. Or zoning regulations may be at odds with a minority’s burial practices. These sorts of conflicts can arise even in secular states with strong democratic institutions that protect civil and political rights. Given the profound importance of religion to people’s identities, it is not surprising that religious

minorities often mobilize to contest these exclusions. Some religious practices are not difficult to accommodate, but often they present difficult choices and trade-offs. France is grappling with whether headscarves in state schools violate state principles of secularism and democratic values of gender equality that state education aims to impart. Nigeria is struggling with whether to uphold the ruling of a Sharia court in a case of adultery. What is important from the human development perspective is to expand human freedoms and human rights—and to recognize equality. Secular and democratic states are most likely to achieve these goals where the state provides reasonable accommodation of religious practices, where all religions have the same relation to the state and where the state protects human rights. Policies for legal pluralism In many multicultural societies indigenous people and people from other cultural groups have pressed for recognition of their traditional legal systems to gain access to justice. For example, the Maya in Guatemala suffered centuries of oppression, and the state legal system became part of their oppression. The communities lost faith in the state system of rule of law, because it did not secure justice and because it was not embedded in the society and its values. Several countries such as Guatemala, India and South Africa are developing approaches to legal pluralism, recognizing the role of the judicial norms and institutions of the communities in different ways. Demands for legal pluralism meet opposition from those who fear that it undermines the principle of a unified legal system or that it would promote traditional practices contrary to democracy and human rights. For sure, conflicts do arise—South Africa, for example, is grappling with the conflict between the rights of women to inheritance under state constitution and the rights denied under customary law. There are real trade-offs societies must face, but legal pluralism does not require wholesale adoption of all traditional practices. Culture does evolve, and cultural liberty is not a kneejerk defence of tradition.



Language policies Language is often the most contested issue in multicultural states. Some countries have tried to suppress people’s languages, labelling their use subversive. But the more frequent source of widespread exclusion in even well-established democracies is monolingual policy. The choice of official language—the language of instruction in schools, the language of legislative debates and civic participation, the language of commerce— shapes the barriers and advantages individuals face in life—political, social, economic and cultural. In Malawi the Constitution requires all parliamentarians to speak and read English. English and Afrikaans are still the de facto languages used in the courts of South Africa, even though nine other languages are now officially recognized. Recognizing a language means more than just the use of that language. It symbolizes respect for the people who speak it, their culture and their full inclusion in society. The state can be blind to religion, but it cannot be mute to language. Citizens need to communicate to feel a sense of belonging, and the choice of official language symbolizes the national identity. That is why many states resist recognizing multiple languages even when they champion civil and political freedoms. Many countries are finding ways to accommodate the twin objectives of unity and diversity by adopting two or three languages, recognizing a unifying national language as well as local languages. In many colonized countries this has meant recognizing the language of administration (such as English or French), the most widely used local language and a mother tongue at local levels. Tanzania has promoted the use of Kiswahili along with English in schools and government. India has practised a three-language formula for decades; children are taught in the official language of their state (Bengali in West Bengal, for example) and are also taught the two official languages of the country, Hindi and English. Socio-economic policies Socio-economic injustices and inequalities in income, education and health outcomes have been the defining feature of many multi-ethnic societies

with marginal groups—blacks in South Africa and indigenous people in Guatemala and Canada. These exclusions reflect long historical roots of conquest and colonization—as well as entrenched structures of hierarchy, such as caste systems. Economic and social policies that promote equity are critical in addressing these inequalities. Redressing biases in public spending as well as targeting basic services to people with lower health and education outcomes would help—but would not be enough. Multicultural policies that recognize differences between groups are needed to address the injustices that are historically rooted and socially entrenched. For example, simply spending more on education for children of indigenous groups would not be enough, for they are disadvantaged if school instruction is in the official language only. Bilingual education would help. Claims over land—such as the claims of indigenous people over land with mineral resources or the land settled by white colonizers in Southern Africa—cannot be resolved with policies that expand socio-economic opportunities. Experience in India, Malaysia, South Africa and the United States shows that affirmative action can reduce inequalities between groups. In Malaysia the ratio of average income between Chinese and Malay populations declined from 2.3 in 1970 to 1.7 in 1990. In the United States the proportion of black lawyers rose from 1.2% to 5.1% of the total and the proportion of black physicians from 2% to 5.6%. In India the allocation of government jobs, admission to higher education and legislative seats to scheduled castes and tribes has helped members of these groups climb out of poverty and join the middle class. None of these policies is without its complexities, but the experience of many countries shows that solutions are possible. Bilingual education may be contested as ineffective, but that is because it receives too little support to ensure quality. Affirmative action programmes may be contested as creating permanent sources of inequality or becoming a source of patronage—but they can be better managed. These are ways of responding to demands for cultural inclusion. But we must also recognize that in the world today there are also more movements for cultural domination that seek to suppress diversity.

Multicultural policies that recognize differences between groups are needed to address injustices historically rooted and socially entrenched



Movements for cultural domination threaten cultural liberty. Fighting them with illegal and undemocratic measures violates human rights and does not make the problem go away. Democratic accommodation is more effective in exposing the intolerant agendas of such movements and undermining their appeal. People leading movements for cultural domination believe in their own cultural superiority and try to impose their ideologies on others, both within and outside their community. Not all such movements are violent. Some coerce others using political campaigns, threats and harassment. In the extreme they use violent means as well— hate attacks, expulsions, ethnic cleansing and genocide. As a political force intolerance is threatening to overwhelm political processes in countries around the world. Movements for cultural domination take different forms: political parties, militias, violent groups, international networks and even the state. It is naïve to assume that democratic societies are immune to intolerance and hatred. The underlying causes for the rise of movements for cultural domination often include manipulative leadership, poverty and inequality, weak or ineffectual states, outside political interventions and linkages with the diaspora. These factors can also inspire nationalist movements— say, for autonomy or secession. But movements for national autonomy are not the same as movements for cultural domination. For one thing, movements for cultural domination can often arise within the majority group that already dominates the state—such as extreme right parties in many European countries. Conversely, many movements for national autonomy can be quite liberal, recognizing the importance of accommodating diversity within an autonomous territory and seeking only the same respect and recognition as other nations. What distinguishes movements for cultural domination is their assertion of cultural superiority and their intolerance. Their targets are freedom and diversity. The question is how to deal with them? States have often tried to confront these movements with repressive and undemocratic methods— bans on parties, extrajudicial detentions and trials, legislation that violates fundamental rights and

The maintenance of a liberal society depends on respecting the rule of law, listening to political claims and protecting fundamental human rights—even those of vile people

even indiscriminate force and torture. These measures often suppress legitimate political demands and processes, resulting in much more extreme reactions. When the Islamist Salvation Front (FIS) won the first round of elections in 1991 in Algeria, the military intervened and banned the party. The result: a civil war that cost more than 100,000 lives and spurred the growth of intolerant and violent groups. Instead, democratic accommodation works. Allowing extreme right parties to contest in elections can force them to moderate their positions as well, for example, with the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Austria or the Justice and Development Party in Morocco. Electoral competition exposes the fringe appeal of other groups (the Progress Party in Denmark). Democratic accommodation also gives states the legitimacy to prosecute hate crimes, reform the curriculum of religious schools (in Indonesia and Malaysia) and experiment with community initiatives to improve relations (Mozambique and Rwanda). The maintenance of a liberal society depends on respecting the rule of law, listening to political claims and protecting fundamental human rights—even those of vile people. Intolerance is a real challenge for cultural liberty—that is why the means to deal with it must be legitimate.

Globalization can threaten national and local identities. The solution is not to retreat to conservatism and isolationist nationalism—it is to design multicultural policies to promote diversity and pluralism. So far the focus has been on how states should manage diversity within their borders. But in an era of globalization states also face challenges from outside their borders, in the form of international movements of ideas, capital, goods and people. Expanding cultural freedom in this age of globalization presents new challenges and dilemmas. Contacts between people, their values, ideas and ways of life have been growing and deepening in unprecedented ways. For many, this new diversity is exciting, even empowering. For others, it is disquieting and disempowering. Many fear that globalization means a loss of



their values and ways of life—a threat to local and national identity. An extreme reaction is to shut out foreign influences, an approach that is not only xenophobic and conservative but also regressive, shrinking rather than expanding freedoms and choice. This Report advocates an alternative approach that respects and promotes diversity while keeping countries open to global flows of capital, goods and people. That requires policies reflecting the goal of cultural liberty. Policies need to explicitly recognize and respect cultural difference. They also need to address imbalances in economic and political power that lead to loss of cultures and identities. Such alternatives are being developed and debated in three hotly contested areas: • Indigenous people are protesting investments in extractive sectors and misappropriations of traditional knowledge that threaten their livelihoods. • Countries are demanding that cultural goods (mainly cinema and audiovisual products) not be treated as any other goods in international trade since imports of cultural goods can weaken national cultural industries. • Migrants are demanding accommodation of their way of life and respect for the multiple identities they have in both the local community and their country of origin. But local communities are demanding that immigrants assimilate, or be turned away, for they fear that their societies are becoming divided and that national values and identity are being eroded. How can these demands be accommodated? How should diversity be respected, and the asymmetries addressed? Indigenous people, extractive industries and traditional knowledge Investments that disregard indigenous people’s rights to land and its cultural significance as well as its value as an economic resource will inevitably invite opposition. So will patenting traditional knowledge under the same conditions. Three principles are critical: recognizing indigenous people’s rights over knowledge and land, ensuring that indigenous groups have voice (seeking their prior informed consent)

and developing strategies for sharing benefits. Some initiatives, though still limited, are being taken by corporations and national governments to work with indigenous communities in developing new investments. In Peru government and corporations have learned the lessons of previous confrontations and have been involving indigenous communities in decision-making in the Antamina zinc and copper mine since 2001. In Papua New Guinea investments in community development projects accompany extraction activities. Collaborative ventures between mining companies and indigenous people in North America and Australia have brought monetary benefits while preserving traditional lifestyles. Many national governments are taking steps to recognize traditional knowledge. Bangladesh recognizes community-based rights to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Lao PDR documents knowledge in its Traditional Medicines Resource Centre. South Africa has promised to share with the San Bushmen the proceeds from drugs developed based on their knowledge. Countries have already found ways of using existing intellectual property rights systems to protect traditional knowledge. Industrial designs are used to protect carpets and headdresses in Kazakhstan. Geographical indications protect liquors and teas in Venezuela and Viet Nam. Copyrights and trademarks are used for traditional art in Australia and Canada. Recognizing diversity means that different notions of property rights and the cultural significance of knowledge and art forms be accommodated within global regimes. This requires international action. If current intellectual property standards cannot accommodate commonly known traditional knowledge or its attributes of group ownership, the rules will need to be revised. Loans to countries and companies for projects that wrongly acquire property or do not compensate communities should be withdrawn. Cultural goods Should cultural goods be protected in international trade to help protect cultural diversity in the world? Are films and audiovisual products cultural goods? Two principles are critical: recognize the role of cultural goods in nurturing

This Report advocates an approach that respects and promotes diversity while keeping countries open to global flows of capital, goods and people



Individuals have to shed rigid identities if they are to become part of diverse societies and uphold cosmopolitan values of tolerance and respect for universal human rights

creativity and diversity, and recognize the disadvantage of small film and audiovisual industries in global markets. Diversity in cultural goods has its own value because it increases consumer choice and enriches people’s cultural experience. But cultural goods also enjoy economies of scale. So the products of large producers tend to crowd out the products of smaller producers, particularly in poorer countries. How can diversity be promoted? Mounting barriers to trade is not the answer, since that reduces choice. Support to cultural industries rather than tariffs would do more for diversity. Argentina, Brazil and France have successfully experimented with production subsidies and tax breaks for cultural industries, without stopping the flows of cultural products from overseas to local markets. Hungary diverts 6% of television receipts to promote domestic films. Egypt uses public-private partnerships to finance the infrastructure for film making. Immigration Should immigrants have to assimilate or should their cultures be recognized? Three principles are critical: respect diversity, recognize multiple identities and build common bonds of belonging to the local community. No country has advanced by closing its borders. International migration brings skills, labour and ideas, enriching people’s lives. Just as traditionalism and religious practices that violate human rights cannot be defended, forced assimilation cannot be a viable solution. Identities are not a zero sum game. Consider this, from a Malaysian in Norway: “I am often asked how long I have lived here; ‘20 years’, I say. The next remark often is ‘Oh, you are almost Norwegian!’ The assumption here is that I have become less Malaysian because it is common to think about identity as a zero sum game; if you have more of one identity, you have less of another. Identity is somehow imagined like a square box with a fixed size.” Two approaches to immigration dominate most countries’ policies: differentialism (migrants keeping their identities but not integrating into the rest of society) and assimilation

(without the choice of keeping the old identity). But new approaches of multiculturalism are being introduced that recognize multiple identities. This involves promoting tolerance and cultural understanding, but also specifically accommodating religious practice, dress and other aspects of everyday life. It also involves acknowledging that immigrants are voiceless and insecure in the face of exploitation and providing support for integration such as language training and job search services. Countries are expanding the rights of civic participation to non-citizenship—“denizenship” (Belgium, Sweden). And more than 30 countries now accept dual citizenship. To reduce misconceptions and prejudices the Commissioner’s Office of the Berlin Senate for Integration and Migration funds immigrant organizations, uses public information campaigns and offers legal consultations in 12 languages to help with jobs and tackle discrimination. But these policies are contested. Bilingual education in the United States and the wearing of headscarf in France are divisive issues. Some fear that they challenge some of the most fundamental values of society—such as commitment to adopt the American culture, or the French principles of secularism and gender equality. * * * Expanding cultural freedoms is an important goal in human development—one that needs urgent attention in the 21st century. All people want to be free to be who they are. All people want to be free to express their identity as members of a group with shared commitments and values— whether it is nationality, ethnicity, language or religion, whether it is family, profession or avocation. Globalization is driving ever-increasing interactions among the world’s people. This world needs both greater respect for diversity and stronger commitment to unity. Individuals have to shed rigid identities if they are to become part of diverse societies and uphold cosmopolitan values of tolerance and respect for universal human rights. This Report provides a basis for discussing how countries can make that happen. If the short history of the 21st century has taught us nothing else, it is that ducking these questions is not an option.




Cultural liberty and human development

Human deprivation can occur in many ways, some more remediable than others. The human development approach has been extensively used in the development literature (including earlier Human Development Reports) to analyze several prominent sources of affliction, ranging from illiteracy and a lack of health care to unemployment and indigence. In this year’s Report there is a substantial expansion of coverage and reach focusing in particular on the importance of cultural liberty and on the personal and social loss that can result from its dearth. This refocusing does not abandon the basic commitments of the human development approach. The underlying motivation continues to be to search for ways of enhancing people’s lives and the freedoms they can enjoy. Denial of cultural liberty can generate significant deprivations, impoverishing human lives and excluding people from the cultural connections they have reason to seek. So the human development perspective can be extended to accommodate the importance of cultural liberty. The cultural dimensions of human development require careful attention for three reasons. First, cultural liberty is an important aspect of human freedom, central to the capability of people to live as they would like and to have the opportunity to choose from the options they have—or can have. The advance of cultural liberty must be a central aspect of human development, and it requires us to go beyond social, political and economic opportunities, since by themselves they do not guarantee cultural liberty. Second, even though there has been much discussion in recent years about culture and civilization, the focus has been less on cultural liberty and more on recognizing—even celebrating—cultural conservatism. The human development approach has something to offer in clarifying the importance of human freedom in cultural spheres. Rather than glorify unreasoned

endorsement of inherited traditions, or warn the world about the alleged inevitability of clashes of civilizations, the human development perspective demands that attention go to the importance of freedom in cultural spheres (as in others), and to the ways of defending and expanding the cultural freedoms that people can enjoy. The critical issue is not just the significance of traditional culture—it is the far-reaching importance of cultural choices and freedoms. Third, cultural liberty is important not only in the cultural sphere, but in the successes and failures in social, political and economic spheres. The different dimensions of human life have strong interrelations. Even poverty, a central economic idea, cannot be adequately understood without bringing in cultural considerations. Indeed, the close link between cultural deprivation and economic poverty was noted by no less an economist than Adam Smith, whose works have, as it happens, illuminated the relevance of human development. Smith argued not only that poverty takes the gross shape of hunger and physical deprivation, but that it can also arise in the difficulties that some groups experience in taking part in the social and cultural life of the community. In particular, the analysis of poverty and the diagnosis of what commodities count as “necessaries” cannot be independent (Smith argued) of the demands of local culture. As he wrote: “By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without....Custom has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them.”1 Indeed, culture establishes an important relation between relative incomes and absolute human capabilities. Relative deprivation in

The underlying motivation continues to be to search for ways of enhancing people’s lives and the freedoms they can enjoy



Even though cultural correlates are very often bogus, they clear the road to discrimination and exclusion

incomes in the local community can lead to absolute social deprivation. For example, being relatively poor in income in a rich society can generate absolute poverty because of one’s inability to afford the commodities that the established lifestyle in that society requires—even though the person may have a higher income than most people in poorer countries elsewhere. So, the very notion of economic poverty demands cultural investigation. In giving adequate recognition to cultural freedom and cultural influences in human development, we have to take note of the leverage of established cultures on our lives, and the significance of the interconnections between the cultural aspects of human life and the other aspects. PARTICIPATION AND RECOGNITION Deprivation of freedom, including cultural freedom, takes many forms. So does discrimination that can lead to a loss of freedom. As discussed in this Report, parts of the population can be subjected to discrimination in different spheres: political, socio-economic and cultural. The many dimensions of deprivation—and of discrimination—demand understanding the distinctions between different, if interrelated, processes through which people’s freedoms are curtailed. Deprivation often works through processes of exclusion. Cultural exclusion has recently received much attention. But two forms of cultural exclusion must be clearly distinguished. PARTICIPATION

Arguments used to justify such exclusion tend to invoke alleged cultural correlates of the groups involved. Particular ethnic groups are said to be lazy or rowdy or irresponsible, members of minority religions are suspected of having conflicting loyalties to religious authorities and to the state and so on. Even though these cultural correlates are very often bogus, they clear the road to discrimination and exclusion. In some cases the identifying characteristics used in discriminatory policy directly invoke cultural attributes. This is particularly so with discrimination against religious communities, but it can also apply to groups defined by language, social origin or other identifying characteristic. LIVING

First, the cultural exclusion of a person or group may sometimes take the form of not allowing this person or group to participate in society in the way that others are allowed and encouraged to do. This can be called “participation exclusion”. Excluding people from participation can be linked to various characteristics of the persons involved, such as gender, ethnicity or religion. The primary basis of discrimination in many cases of participation exclusion is the cultural affiliation of the people involved, resulting in their exclusion from participation in education or employment or political decision-making.

A second kind of cultural exclusion denies recognition of a lifestyle that a group would choose to have. And this intolerance can go with the insistence that members of the group must live exactly like others in the society. This “living mode exclusion” figures prominently in religious intolerance—an important challenge addressed by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay, “On Liberty” (1859). Living mode exclusions continue to be strong in many contexts today, with various manifestations. Religious intolerance, obviously, is still an important kind of exclusion. Intolerance of some behaviour patterns in purely personal lives is another example: discriminatory treatment of gays and lesbians is a common form of living mode exclusion. These exclusions involve direct violation of cultural liberty, and here the violation of liberty goes with a denial of diversity as well. This type of exclusion can also be a momentous issue in multicultural societies with ethnic diversity, particularly with recently arrived immigrant populations. The insistence that immigrants give up their traditional lifestyles and adopt the dominant lifestyle in the society to which they have immigrated illustrates a common type of lifestyle intolerance in the contemporary world. The demand can extend even to minute behavioural issues about the conduct of immigrants, made famous in Great Britain by Lord Tebbit’s far-reaching “cricket test” (a legitimate



immigrant must cheer for England in test matches against the country of the person’s origin). Tebbit’s test has the merit of definiteness, which can otherwise be a problem in a multicultural society in identifying what the dominant lifestyle actually happens to be. For example, now that curry has been described as “authentic British fare” by the British Tourist Board (in line with the prevailing consumption patterns of the natives of that island), a South Asian immigrant to Britain may have some difficulty, without Tebbit’s algorithmic help, in determining what is the behaviour pattern to which he or she is being asked to conform! Living mode exclusion can be a serious area of injustice.2 This has been the subject of much recent work, including what is called the “politics of recognition”, which includes “claims for the recognition of the distinctive perspectives of ethnic, ‘racial,’ and sexual minorities, as well as of gender difference”.3 These considerations are indeed important for an adequately broad view of justice, but in the context of human development they are most immediately seen as relevant to the exercise of cultural liberty, which—like other freedoms—must figure in the assessment of human development and in the appraisal of its lapses. FREEDOMS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ROLE

The importance of human freedoms can be the basis of linking them with the idea of human rights. The recognition of human rights need not await their legalization in the form of justiciable entitlements. Often enough, they provide the motivation behind such legislation. Indeed, even the naming of some laws as “human rights laws” indicates this connection. As Herbert Hart, the distinguished legal theorist, put it in a justly famous essay, people “speak of their moral rights mainly when advocating their incorporation in a legal system”.4 Indeed, going further, the ethical acknowledgement of human rights, sustained by public discussions and reasoning, can—and does—go beyond serving only as the basis for possible legislation.5 Through the activism of individuals and groups (including dedicated human rights

organizations), the freedoms reflected in the acknowledgement of human rights can provide the grounds for public demands, even widespread collective action and agitation (for example, for the right of minorities to have the freedom to choose their own lifestyles). The United Nations itself has been strongly engaged (particularly through the UN High Commissioners for Human Rights and for Refugees) in the pursuit of human rights even where national legislation has lagged behind ethical norms. As pronouncements in social ethics, sustained by open public reasoning, human rights call for diverse forms of implementation. The underlying freedoms can be advanced through a variety of public actions, including recognition, monitoring and agitation, in addition to legislation and the moral commitments of concerned people. Affirmation of human rights, founded on the importance of human freedom in diverse forms, goes with the need to appreciate the reasons for acknowledging corresponding duties. Sometimes the duties are exactly specifiable, and sometimes they are only broadly characterized (they include both “perfect obligations” and “imperfect obligations”, to make use of an old Kantian distinction). The nature and demands of human rights were extensively explored in Human Development Report 2000. To be emphasized here is the basic recognition that the idea of human rights links directly to the safeguarding and advance of human freedoms. This gives reason enough, depending on circumstances, to defend and promote particular institutions and social arrangements. But such programmes have only derivative and contingent value, which has to be assessed in terms of what they actually do to human freedoms. The ethical force of human rights ultimately depends on the importance of human freedoms and cannot be detached from that connection. This elementary recognition has an extensive reach.6 One of the subjects that has received considerable attention in the contemporary cultural literature is cultural diversity. Sometimes it is even seen as a human right that groups of people, taken together, have. Group rights have many ambiguities, but it is not hard to argue that if they are to be taken seriously, their role in enhancing the freedoms of human beings must be

Intolerance can go with the insistence that members of the group must live exactly like others in the society



To argue for cultural diversity on the ground that this is what the different groups of people have inherited is clearly not reasoning based on cultural liberty

demonstrated. Even without entering deeply into the complex debates surrounding the idea of groups rights, the basic need to link rights to freedoms can be readily recognized. This immediately raises questions about the value of cultural diversity, since it is not itself a characteristic of human freedoms. It is, however, easy to show that diversity can be important in the cultural sphere. If diversity is not allowed, many choices become unviable. Nevertheless, if our focus is on freedom (including cultural liberty), the significance of cultural diversity must vary along with its causal connections to human freedom. Quite often these connections are positive and strong. Indeed, diversity may be both a consequence of the exercise of human freedom (particularly cultural liberty) and a source of societal enrichment (particularly cultural enrichment). Cultural diversity may well result if individuals are allowed and encouraged to live as they would value living. This would tend to follow from the earlier discussion on living mode inclusion. For example, the persistence of ethnically diverse lifestyles and the recognition of, and respect for, sexual minorities can make a society more culturally diverse precisely as a result of the exercise of cultural liberty. In these cases the importance of cultural diversity will follow directly from the value of cultural liberty, since the first is a consequence of the second. Cultural diversity can also play a positive role of its own. For example, a culturally diverse society can bring benefits to others through the variety of experiences that they are, as a consequence, in a position to enjoy. To illustrate, it can be plausibly argued that the rich tradition of African American music—with its African lineage and American evolution—has not only helped to enhance the cultural freedom and self-respect of African Americans, but has also expanded the cultural options of all people (African American or not) and enriched the cultural landscape of America, and indeed the world. However, the relation between cultural liberty and cultural diversity requires further examination. The simplest way of having cultural diversity may well be a conservative continuation of the variety of cultures that happen to be present at this time. A similar point can be made for

cultural diversity within an individual country, if it happens to have a variety of cultures within its borders. Does the championing of cultural diversity then demand support for cultural conservatism, asking that people stick to their own cultural background and not try to move to other lifestyles? That would immediately deliver us to an anti-freedom position, which would look for ways of blocking the choice of a changed living mode that many people may wish to have. Indeed, we could then also be in the territory of a different kind of exclusion: participation exclusion as opposed to living mode exclusion, since people from minority cultures would be excluded from participating in the mainstream. The insistence on cultural conservatism can discourage—or prevent—people from adopting a different lifestyle, indeed even from joining the lifestyle that others, from a different cultural background, standardly follow in the society in question. Diversity will then be achieved at the cost of cultural liberty. If what is ultimately important is cultural liberty, then the valuing of cultural diversity must take a contingent and conditional form. Much will depend on how that diversity is brought about and sustained. Indeed, to argue for cultural diversity on the ground that this is what the different groups of people have inherited is clearly not reasoning based on cultural liberty (even though the argument is sometimes presented as if it were pro-freedom reasoning). Nothing can be justified in the name of freedom without actually giving an opportunity for the exercise of that freedom, or at least without assessing how an opportunity of choice would be exercised if it were available. Diversity may well be sought for reasons other than cultural liberty. But to justify the maintenance of pre-existing diversities on the supposed ground of cultural liberty must, in the absence of some further argument, be a straightforward non sequitur. IDENTITY, COMMUNITY AND FREEDOM The reasons for being sceptical of giving automatic priority to inherited culture can be seen in terms of who makes what choices. Being born in a particular cultural milieu is not an exercise of freedom—quite the contrary. It becomes aligned



to cultural liberty only if the person chooses to continue to live within the terms of that culture, and does so having had the opportunity of considering other alternatives. The central issue in cultural liberty is the capability of people to live as they would choose, with adequate opportunity to consider other options. The normative weight of freedom can hardly be invoked when no choice—real or potential—is actually considered. As it happens, some communitarian theories have glorified the absence of choice involved in the “discovery” of one’s real identity. Michael Sandel has helpfully explained this claim, which is part of the “constitutive conception” of community: “community describes not just what they have as fellow citizens but also what they are, not a relationship they choose (as in a voluntary association) but an attachment they discover, not merely an attribute but a constituent of their identity.”7 “The self came by its ends”, as Sandel further explains, “not by choice but by reflection, as knowing (or inquiring) subject to object of (self-) understanding.”8 In this perspective, social organization can be seen (as another communitarian author, Crowley, puts it) as attempts to “create opportunities for men to give voice to what they have discovered about themselves and the world and to persuade others of its worth”.9 The claim that identity is not a matter of choice but ultimately one of discovery needs further examination, and that larger issue will be taken up below. For the present argument it is relevant to note that the special importance and exceptional gravity that are connected, in this communitarian perspective, to inherited affiliations and attachments relate to its discoverybased foundation, in contradistinction to things that are “merely chosen”. Whatever may be the persuasive power of that claim (it certainly needs some justification), it is in real tension with attaching importance to choice and the freedom to choose. The communitarians are right, however, in emphasizing the importance of a sense of identity in leading one’s life. Less clear is how identity can be a matter of just discovering something about oneself, rather than, explicitly or by implication, exercising a choice. These choices are constantly being made—quite often implicitly

but sometimes explicitly, with clear awareness. For example, when Mohandas Gandhi decided, after considerable reflection, to give priority to his identification with Indians seeking independence from British rule over his identity as a trained barrister pursuing English legal justice, there can be no question that he was consciously and firmly making a choice. In other cases the choice may be implicit or obscure, and also far less grandly defended than Gandhi’s decision, but the choice may be no less authentic for that reason. Typically, each individual can identify with many different groups. A person may have an identity of citizenship (for example, being French), gender (being a woman), race (being of Chinese origin), regional ancestry (having come from Thailand), language (being fluent in Thai, Chinese and English, in addition to French), politics (having left-wing views), religion (being a Buddhist), profession (being a lawyer), location (being a resident of Paris), sports affiliation (being a badminton player and a golf fanatic), musical taste (loving jazz and hip-hop), literary preference (enjoying detective stories), food habit (being a vegetarian) and so on. The choices are not unlimited (you cannot choose the identity, for example, of an Inuit or a Sumo wrestler, if you are not one). But within the range of the memberships that you actually have, you can choose what priority to give to one membership or another, in a particular context. The fact that you have all these—and many other—memberships may be a matter of “discovery”, but you still have to think and decide on what relative priorities to give to your various affiliations. The fact that discoveries occur does not exempt you from the need to choose, even if the choice is made implicitly.10 The possibility of choice is important in preventing what Anthony Appiah has called “new tyrannies” in the form of newly asserted identities, which can tyrannize by eliminating the claims of other identities that we may also have reason to accept and respect. Appiah illustrates this with the identity of being an African American. That identity has certainly helped in the past—and continues to do so today—in seeking racial justice in America. But it can also be oppressive if it is taken to be the only identity

Within the range of the memberships that you actually have, you can choose what priority to give to one membership or another, in a particular context



a black person has, with no other claims being given a hearing. Appiah puts the issue thus:
In policing this imperialism of identity—an imperialism as visible in racial identities as anywhere else—it is crucial to remember always that we are not simply black or white or yellow or brown, gay or straight or bisexual, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist or Confucian, but we are also brothers and sisters; parents and children; liberals, conservatives and leftists; teachers and lawyers and auto-makers and gardeners; fans of the Padres and the Bruins; amateurs of grunge rock and lovers of Wagner; movie buffs; MTV-holics, mystery-readers; surfers and singers; poets and petlovers; students and teachers; friends and lovers. Racial identity can be the basis of resistance to racism—and though we have made great progress, we have further still to go—let us not let our racial identities subject us to new tyrannies.11

Cultural critiques of the victims can be used by the rulers to justify hugely inefficient—as well as deeply iniquitous— tyrannies

Consider a different—and more ominous— example. When Hutu instigators a decade ago tried (and to some extent succeeded) in persuading other members of the Hutu community in Rwanda that they could plainly see that they were indubitably Hutus (not to be confused with “those awful Tutsis”), the unreasoned killings that followed could have been resisted by invoking broader identities of Hutus, for example, as Rwandans, or as Africans, or more broadly still as human beings. To see identity merely as a matter of discovery can not only be a conceptual confusion. It can also lead to a dereliction of duty by thinking human beings—a moral duty to consider how they would like to see themselves and with whom they would like to identify (whether only with the community of Hutus or also with the nation of Rwandans, the category of Africans or the collectivity of human beings). Freedom to choose is important not only for the individuals who would make the choice, but it can also be important for others, when the responsibility that goes with choice is adequately seized. BIGOTRY

Complicated theory can sometimes bolster uncomplicated bigotry and make the world a more

combustible place than it would otherwise be.12 Rapid-fire cultural generalizations can displace a deeper understanding of culture and serve as a tool of sectarian prejudice, social discrimination and even political tyranny. Simple cultural generalizations, with great power in shaping ways of thinking, abound in popular beliefs and informal communication. A subject of many ethnic jokes and slurs, these underexamined beliefs can also surface as pernicious grand theories. An accidental correlation between cultural prejudice and social observation (no matter how casual) leads to the birth of a theory that may live on even after the chance correlation vanishes. For example, jokes about the Irish (such as “How many Irishmen do you need to change a light bulb?”) have had some currency in England for a long time. They appeared to fit well with the depressing predicament of the Irish economy, when it was in a long-term slump. But when the economy started growing with astonishing speed, the cultural stereotyping and its allegedly profound economic and social relevance were not discarded. Theories have lives of their own, often in defiance of the world that can actually be observed. The connections between cultural bigotry and political tyranny can also be very close. The asymmetry of power between ruler and ruled, when combined with cultural prejudices, can result in injurious failures of governance, as was devastatingly observed in the Irish famines of the 1840s. As Richard Lebow has argued, poverty in Ireland was widely viewed in England as caused by laziness, indifference and ineptitude, so that “Britain’s mission” was not seen to be to “alleviate Irish distress but to civilize her people and lead them to feel and act like human beings”.13 Similar uses of cultural prejudice for political purposes can be seen in the history of European empires in Africa and Asia. Winston Churchill’s famous remark that the Bengal famines of 1943 were caused by the tendency of people there to “breed like rabbits” belongs to this general tradition of blaming the colonial victim. And it had a profound effect on relief efforts during that disastrous famine. Cultural critiques of the victims can be used by the rulers to justify hugely inefficient—as well as deeply iniquitous—tyrannies.





While the marriage of cultural prejudice and political asymmetry can be lethal, the need to be cautious about jumping to cultural conclusions is more pervasive.14 Unexamined cultural assumptions can even influence the way experts view economic development. Theories are often derived from scanty evidence. Half-truths or quarter-truths can grossly mislead—sometimes even more than straightforward falsity, which is easier to expose. Consider this argument from the influential book jointly edited by Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington, Culture Matters. In the introductory essay, “Cultures count,” Huntington writes:
In the early 1990s, I happened to come across economic data on Ghana and South Korea in the early 1960s, and I was astonished to see how similar their economies were then. ....Thirty years later, South Korea had become an industrial giant with the fourteenth largest economy in the world, multinational corporations, major exports of automobiles, electronic equipment, and other sophisticated manufactures, and per capita income approximately that of Greece. Moreover it was on its way to the consolidation of democratic institutions. No such changes had occurred in Ghana, whose per capita income was now about one-fifteenth that of South Korea’s. How could this extraordinary difference in development be explained? Undoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed to me that culture had to be a large part of the explanation. South Koreans valued thrift, investment, hard work, education, organization, and discipline. Ghanians had different values. In short, cultures count.15

in the two countries were quite different, with a much larger role of business classes in Korea. The politics were very different too, with the government in Korea eager to play a primemoving role in initiating business-centred economic development in a way that did not apply to Ghana. The close relationship between the Korean economy and the Japanese and US economies also made a big difference, at least in the early stages of Korean development. Perhaps most important, by the 1960s Korea had a much higher literacy rate and a more extensive school system than Ghana had. The Korean changes had been brought about largely through resolute public policy since the Second World War, and were not simply a reflection of ageold Korean culture. There have, of course, been earlier attempts to use cultural determinism to explain economic development. A century ago Max Weber (1930) presented a major thesis on the decisive role of the Protestant ethic (in particular, Calvinism) in the successful development of a capitalist industrial economy. Weber’s analysis of the role of culture in the emergence of capitalism drew on the world as he observed it in the late 19th century. His analysis is of particular interest in the contemporary world, especially in the light of the recent success of market economies in non-Protestant societies. There may be much to learn from these theories, and the empirical connections they expose may be insightful. And yet it is also remarkable how often specific aspects of cultural explanations, based on observing the past, have been undermined by later experiences. Indeed, theories of cultural determinism have often been one step behind the real world. GLOBALIZATION, ASYMMETRY AND

Theories of cultural determinism have often been one step behind the real world

There may well be something of interest in this engaging comparison (perhaps even a quarter-truth torn out of context), and the contrast does call for probing examination. But the causal story is extremely deceptive. There were many important differences—other than cultural predispositions—between Ghana and the Republic of Korea in the 1960s, when the countries appeared to Huntington to be much the same, except for culture. The class structures


There is more to be said on the choice of identity, in particular about problems of equity— and of distributive justice—that have to be faced in examining the implications of cultural inclusion as well as cultural diversity. But before doing that, it is useful to examine two special phenomena—or alleged phenomena— of the contemporary world that have exerted



considerable influence on recent discussions of cultural identity. They can be jointly called—for want of a better expression—the future of cultural diversity in the globalized world. They deal with the impact of globalization and the asymmetric power that goes with it and with the thesis that there is a persistent tendency for civilizations to clash, which can make the world a very violent and disruptive place. GLOBALIZATION’S

An overarching value must be the need for participatory decisionmaking on the kind of society people want to live in
One of the worries that many people have in contemplating the safeguarding of cultural liberty today concerns the overwhelming influence of Western culture, especially its “consumerism”, in the globalized world in which we live. The point is often made, plausibly, that being free to choose one’s lifestyle is not, in the present world, just a matter of being allowed to choose freely. It is also an issue of whether people in more marginalized civilizations are able to resist the Western influence. This concern certainly deserves attention, given the evident precariousness of local cultures in a world so dominated by thunderous exposure to Western influences. At least two issues are of particular interest here. First, there is the power and force of market culture in general, which is part and parcel of the form that economic globalization has increasingly taken. Those who find the values and priorities of market-related cultures to be vulgar and impoverishing (even many in the West have this view) tend to find economic globalization itself to be quite objectionable. And yet often enough, they also see market-based globalization as hard to resist, given the reach and strength of the market economy and the sheer volume of resources it can bring to bear on reshaping the world. The second problem concerns the asymmetry of power between the West and other countries and the likelihood that this asymmetry will translate into destruction of local cultures (poetry, drama, music, dancing, food habits and so on). Such a loss, it is plausibly argued, would culturally impoverish non-Western societies. Given the constant cultural bombardment that tends to come from the Western metropolis (from fast

food to blast music), there are genuine fears that native traditions may be overwhelmed by the fusillade. These threats are undoubtedly real, and to a considerable extent they may also be difficult to escape. The solution can hardly lie in stopping the globalization of trade and exchange, both because international commerce can bring economic benefits that many countries value greatly and because the forces of economic exchange and division of labour are hard to resist in an interacting world. A plausible line of response to the problem of asymmetry can, however, take the form of strengthening the constructive opportunities that local cultures have—and can be helped to have— to protect their own and to resist being outgunned by the forces of cultural invasion. If foreign imports dominate because of greater control over the radio waves, television channels and so on, surely a counteracting policy must involve expanding the facilities available to local culture to present its own creations, both locally and beyond. The costs involved in following that constructive route may not be as forbidding as people might think, since communication has become so much cheaper in the contemporary world. This would also be a positive response, unlike the temptation, which rears its head with some frequency, to ban foreign influence through legislation or executive decree. The constructive possibility of providing much more support for local cultural activities would not only help to strengthen them—it would also allow them to face a more equal competition. In the pro-freedom perspective there is much merit in taking that route, rather than making local cultures prevail simply through proscribing the competition. It is important to make sure that the baby of cultural liberty is not thrown away with the bath water of unequal competition. The deciding issue, ultimately, has to be one of democracy. An overarching value must be the need for participatory decision-making on the kind of society people want to live in, based on open discussion, with adequate opportunity for the expression of minority positions. The issue of political inclusion (giving people the freedom to participate in political



choices, rather than being ignored by authoritarian potentates) is particularly relevant here in the safeguarding of cultural liberty (in the freedom of people to choose their own lifestyles). We cannot both want democracy and yet rule out certain choices, on traditionalist grounds, because of their “foreignness” (irrespective of what people would choose, in an informed and reflective way). The value of democracy has to resist the banishing of citizens’ freedom of choice through the fiat of political authorities (or orders of religious establishments or pronouncements of grand guardians of “national taste”), no matter how unbecoming those authorities (or establishments or guardians) find the new predilections to be. This is one field, among others, in which cultural liberty and political freedom can be fruitfully viewed together.16 CIVILIZATIONS

If fear of globalization is one general concern that many people express in dealing with cultural liberty, the dread of a “clash of civilizations” (as Huntington calls it) is another that has received considerable articulation in recent years. The thesis has many components, but a general concern seems to be that pluralist and tolerant Western civilization is now under constant threat from less lenient and more authoritarian cultures. Indeed, if we were to assume that people in non-Western civilizations are constantly tempted by authoritarian values (and perhaps even by the lure of violence), then the dread that the world’s cultural diversity must have grave consequences would not be hard to understand. But how sound is the cultural analysis that underlies that fear? And how reliable is the reading of history that sustains that cultural analysis? There are reasons to be sceptical of both. Civilizational categories are far from clear-cut, and the simulated history that goes with the thesis of clashing civilizations exaggerates these contrasts, partly by neglecting the heterogeneities within each culture, but also by ignoring historical interactions between the different cultures. The specific claim that tolerance is a special— and very nearly unique—feature of Western civilization, extending way back into history, is particularly hard to sustain. This is not to deny

that tolerance and liberty are among the important achievements of modern Europe (despite some aberrations, such as brutal imperialist rules over two centuries and the Nazi atrocities six decades ago). The world indeed has much to learn from the recent history of Europe and the Western world, particularly since the period of European Enlightenment. But to see a unique line of historical division there—going back through history—is remarkably fanciful. The history of the world does not suggest anything like a division between a long-run history of Western toleration and that of non-Western despotism. Political liberty and tolerance in their full contemporary form are not an old historical feature in any country or civilization. Plato and Augustine were no less authoritarian in thinking than were Confucius and Kautilya. There were, of course, champions of tolerance in classical European thought, but there are plenty of similar examples in other cultures as well. For example, Emperor Ashoka’s dedicated championing of religious and other kinds of tolerance in India in the third century BCE (arguing that “the sects of other people all deserve reverence for one reason or another”) is certainly among the earliest political defences of tolerance anywhere. Similarly, when a later Indian emperor, Akbar, the Great Moghal, was making comparable pronouncements on religious tolerance at the end of the 16th century (such as: “no one should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone is to be allowed to go over to a religion that pleases him”), the Inquisition was in full swing in Europe. To take another illustration, when the Jewish philosopher Maimonides was forced to emigrate from an intolerant Europe in the 12th century, he found a tolerant refuge in the Arab world and was given an honoured and influential position in the court of Emperor Saladin in Cairo. His tolerant host was the same Saladin who fought hard for Islam in the Crusades. Indeed, the very idea of democracy, in the form of participatory public reasoning, has appeared in different civilizations at different periods in world history.17 In early seventh century Japan, the Buddhist Prince Shotoku, regent to his mother Empress Suiko, introduced a relatively liberal constitution or kempo (known as

The specific claim that tolerance is a special feature of Western civilization, extending way back into history, is particularly hard to sustain



The building of humane and just societies demands adequate recognition of the importance of freedoms in general, which include cultural liberty

“the constitution of 17 articles”) in 604 CE. In the spirit of the Magna Carta (signed six centuries later, in 1215 CE), the kempo insisted: “Decisions on important matters should not be made by one person alone. They should be discussed with many.” On the subject of tolerance, it says: “Nor let us be resentful when others differ from us. For all men have hearts, and each heart has its own leanings. Their right is our wrong, and our right is their wrong.”18 Examples of championing public discussion and seeking different—and conflicting— points of view have figured in the history of other countries in the world, both in the West and outside it. They continue to be of contemporary relevance in thinking about the feasibility of a tolerant democracy in today’s world. When India became independent in 1947, the committee that drafted its constitution, led by B.R. Ambedkar, had to consider India’s own traditions (including those of political tolerance and local democracy), in addition to learning from the gradual emergence of Western democracies over the previous two centuries. Similarly, Nelson Mandela, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, describes how influenced he was, as a young boy, by the democratic nature of the local meetings that were held in the regent’s house in Mqhekezweni:
Everyone who wanted to speak did so. It was democracy in its purest form. There may have been a hierarchy of importance among the speakers, but everyone was heard, chief and subject, warrior and medicine man, shopkeeper and farmer, landowner and laborer.... The foundation of self-government was that all men were free to voice their opinions and equal in their value as citizens.19

There is a fundamental methodological problem in assuming that a partitioning civilization is the uniquely relevant distinction and must swamp other ways of identifying people. Other divisions (say, between rich and poor, between members of different classes and occupations, between people of different politics, between distinct nationalities and places of residence, between language groups and so on) are all submerged by this allegedly preeminent way of seeing the differences between people. It is not enough that those who would foment global confrontation or local sectarian violence try to impose a pre-chosen unitary and divisive identity on the people who are recruited as the footsoldiers of political brutality. They are indirectly aided in that task by the implicit support that the warriors get from theories of singular categorization of the people of the world. There is a remarkable neglect of the role of choice and reasoning in decisions about what importance to attach to membership in any particular group or any particular identity. By adopting a unique and allegedly predominant way of categorizing people, partitioning civilization can materially contribute to conflict in the world. To deny choice when it does exist is not only a misunderstanding of what the world is like. It is also ethical delinquency and a political dereliction of responsibility. CONCLUSIONS The building of humane and just societies demands adequate recognition of the importance of freedoms in general, which include cultural liberty. This calls for securing and constructively expanding the opportunities that people have to choose how they would live and to consider alternative lifestyles. Cultural considerations can figure prominently in these choices. Emphasizing cultural liberty is not exactly the same as going all out for cultural diversity. It is certainly true that allowing diversity in cultural practices can be extremely important, since the exercise of cultural liberty depends on it. This, however, is not the same as championing cultural diversity for its own sake. Much would depend on how cultural diversity comes about and the extent to which the people involved can exercise

The hard lines that have recently been drawn to give shape to the fear of a clash of civilizations are especially blind to world history. The classifications are often based in an extraordinarily crude and extreme historical innocence. The diversity of traditions within distinct civilizations is effectively ignored, and major global interventions in science, technology, mathematics and literature over millennia are made to disappear so as to give credence to a parochial view of the uniqueness of Western civilization.



Human rights embody the fundamental values of human civilizations
People are different, and so are their cultures. People live in different ways, and civilizations also differ. People speak in a variety of languages. People are guided by different religions. People are born different colours, and many traditions influence their lives with varying colours and shades. People dress differently and adapt to their environment in different ways. People express themselves differently. Music, literature and art reflect different styles as well. But despite these differences, all people have one single common attribute: they are all human beings—nothing more, nothing less. And however different they may be, all cultures embrace certain common principles: No culture tolerates the exploitation of human beings. No religion allows the killing of the innocent. No civilization accepts violence or terror. Torture is abhorrent to the human conscience. Brutality and cruelty are appalling in every tradition. In short, these common principles, which are shared by all civilizations, reflect our fundamental human rights. These rights are treasured and cherished by everyone, everywhere. So cultural relativity should never be used as a pretext to violate human rights, since these rights embody the most fundamental values of human civilizations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is needed universally, applicable to both East and West. It is compatible with every faith and religion. Failing to respect our human rights only undermines our humanity. Let us not destroy this fundamental truth; if we do, the weak will have nowhere to turn.

Shirin Ebadi 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner

their freedom. It would be a serious mistake to regard cultural diversity as valuable no matter how it is brought about. Indeed, cultural diversity, particularly in the perspective of human development, cannot be evaluated without taking note of the processes involved and the role of human freedom in the way things get decided. The analysis in this chapter leads to some clear conclusions, pursued in the chapters that follow. First, a greater extent of cultural diversity can be a consequence of the exercise of cultural liberty by all (including ethnic or sexual or social minorities). When that is the case, there is a strong argument for celebrating cultural diversity and for doing what can be done to safeguard it. The applause for diversity, in this reasoning, comes from the value of cultural liberty—a value that fits fully with the importance of freedoms in general. Second, cultural diversity in a society can also give all the people in that society—irrespective of their background—the opportunity to enjoy a wider range of cultural choice. This, too, links ultimately with cultural liberty, in this case as a facilitator, rather than (as in the last case) as a consequence of the exercise of cultural liberty. Here too cultural diversity should get cheers, in expanding the cultural range of social life and thereby enhancing the options that people actually enjoy to choose their ways of living. This is also a part of a freedom-based defence of cultural diversity.

Third, the exercise of cultural liberty may sometimes lead to a reduction of—rather than an increase in—cultural diversity, when people adapt to the lifestyles of others and choose, in a reasoned way, to go in that direction (unhindered by living mode exclusion). When that occurs, to oppose cultural liberty on the ground that it reduces cultural diversity would be a blunder, since liberty has constitutive—and intrinsic—importance of its own in a way that diversity does not. Related to that issue is the prizing of cultural conservatism, often championed on the ground that retaining one’s “own” culture is a move in favour of freedom. But to assume that a compulsion to retain one’s ancestral and inherited culture must somehow be an exercise of freedom is a conceptual confusion. That subject relates also to the role of choice in the determination of identity. Since all individuals belong to many groups, have many different ways of identifying themselves and have to decide how to deal with the correspondingly different—possibly conflicting—priorities, there is no way of avoiding choice (even if it is done implicitly and perhaps imperceptibly). This does not deny that “discoveries” are frequently made about whether one belongs to one group or another (and these could be important discoveries), but that does not eliminate the need for choice.



It is particularly important not to fall into the confusion of taking unexamined traditionalism to be part of the exercise of cultural liberty

To deny choice when a choice exists is not only a factual mistake, it can also have grave moral consequences in a world where identitybased conflicts—and brutalities—are common. The inclusiveness of a society will depend greatly on bringing clarity to the role of choice in identity and to the need to “reason before identity”. Indeed, understanding the responsibility of choice can help greatly in making sure that the relevant moral issues related to one’s social existence are adequately addressed. The importance of freedom links well with the need for equity in the pursuit of freedom. The freedoms of different people are involved, and focusing on freedom requires that attention be paid to the freedoms of all—and this connects with considerations of equity. It is important to keep the issue of equity constantly in view, because of its extensive reach. There is no basic tension—as is sometimes alleged—between freedom and equity. Indeed, equity can be seen in terms of equitable advancement of the freedoms of all people (rather than merely in terms of the distribution of income, or in terms of the even more limited perspective of “redistribution” from an ultimately arbitrary starting point). Seen in this way, it is possible to make consistent use of both the basic concepts of liberty and equity in assessing the demands of social inclusion and the contingent merits of cultural diversity. A difficult—or allegedly difficult—case may be considered briefly to illustrate the arguments that may be invoked. The question has been asked, with considerable perspicacity: “Is multiculturalism bad for women?”20 That issue relates to the well discussed fact that continuation of many of the practices in a traditional maledominated society may go against the interests and opportunities of women. To argue for retaining them on the ground of the importance of multiculturalism does not well serve the interests of women. Extreme cases of this kind of conflict can involve particular practices (such as bodily mutilations) that are sanctioned by the rules of some prevailing cultures but that may be especially harmful to women’s ability to lead their own lives and to exercise their own freedoms. In pursuing this question, it is important to see cultural liberty in a broad enough perspective. In defence of ongoing practices it is

sometimes pointed out that women themselves typically accept these cultural rules without protest. But many iniquities in the world continue to survive and prosper by making allies of the victims, by denying them the opportunity to consider alternatives and obstructing knowledge of other feasible arrangements in other communities. So it is particularly important not to fall into the confusion of taking unexamined traditionalism to be part of the exercise of cultural liberty. It is necessary to ask whether the underdogs in society—in this case the women whose lives may be badly affected by these practices—have had the opportunity to consider alternatives and have the freedom to know how people in the rest of the world live. The need for reasoning and for freedom is central to the perspective that is being used here. Putative defences of conservative traditionalism could be—and have been—proposed on other grounds. Can such practices be defended on the ground of the value of multiculturalism? Can they be championed in the cause of cultural diversity? The second question is fairly easy to answer. Cultural diversity is not, as has already been discussed, a value in itself, at least not in the human development approach (with its focus on human freedoms and their equitable advancement). The value of cultural diversity rests on its positive connection—as is often the case—with cultural liberty. Invoking the contingent value of cultural diversity in defence of practices that deny women their basic freedom to choose would be manifestly perverse, since the freedom of the women involved is violated, not promoted, through these arrangements. Nor can equity, in the sense of equity of freedoms, be promoted in this way. If, however, the expansion of cultural diversity, or any increase of “multiculturalism”, is taken to be an object of value in itself—no matter what it does to the lives of the people involved—then we are in a territory whose limitations have already been much discussed in the human development literature. Even economic opulence—important as it is—could not be taken to be valuable in itself and had to be seen as important only to the extent that it conforms to what people would value having. In the human development perspective multiculturalism must



be assessed for what it does to the lives and freedoms of the people involved. Indeed, seeing the expansion of multiculturalism as an end in itself can easily yield a situation in which the freedoms of individual members of a community—in this case female members—are severely violated. This goes deeply against the importance of human freedom, which applies to women as well as men, and to the underdogs of a traditional society as well as to its leading figures and thunderous spokesmen. The need for equity points to the fundamental difficulties involved in taking the enlargement of multiculturalism as an end in itself. As this chapter shows, deprivation of human freedom can arise from many causes and reflect

diverse forms of discrimination, involving cultural as well as political and socio-economic influences on human lives. In the chapters that follow the different forms of exclusion, and their implications for human deprivation, are extensively investigated and assessed. Attention is paid to institutional features as well as values that profoundly influence human lives. The practical importance of multiculturalism and cultural diversity figures in these analyses. Their merit, which can of course be very great, depends on their connections with the freedoms of the people involved, including equity and evenhandedness in the distribution of their freedoms. That basic principle is a central feature of the human development approach.




Challenges for cultural liberty

Some of the most socially divisive debates today are on cultural identity and diversity—in vastly different contexts, in many different ways. The debates can be about the choice of official language (Afghanistan’s new Constitution), political representation of ethnic or religious groups (Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq), relations between the state and religion (Muslims in France), claims of indigenous people against mining by multinational corporations (Amazon region of Brazil), immigration policies (United Kingdom) or naturalization procedures (Germany). Such tensions can also be at the heart of violent conflicts (Rwanda, Yugoslavia). Globalization adds yet another dimension, as ethnic groups, indigenous people and nation-states challenge international agreements on trade and investment on the grounds that they diminish cultural diversity. Around the world people are more assertive in demanding respect for their cultural identities. Often, their demands are for social justice, for greater political voice. But that is not all. Their demands are also for recognition and respect (box 2.1). People care about jobs and schools. But they also care about whether their history is acknowledged, their heroes are respected and their religious celebrations are recognized as official holidays. And they care about whether they and their children will live in a society that is diverse or one in which everyone is expected to conform to a single dominant culture. Many states face an urgent challenge in responding to these demands. But responding can threaten ruling elites who impose their language, religion and ways of life to consolidate power and control of the state. And many states fear that recognizing diverse identities gets in the way of other important objectives: state unity, economic growth, development, democracy, peace and stability. People have been persecuted for their identities for millennia. But suppressing identities is

becoming more difficult in today’s world. Political movements for cultural recognition are difficult to suppress without resorting to extreme repression or violence, strategies that are less feasible in today’s world of instant communication and strong international human rights networks. All countries, and the world as a whole, face the challenges of promoting diversity and expanding the cultural choices of all people. These are not just challenges for a few “multiethnic states”, for almost no country is homogeneous. The world’s nearly 200 countries include some 5,000 ethnic groups.1 Two-thirds of countries have more than one ethnic or religious group making up at least 10% of the population.2 Many countries have large indigenous populations that were marginalized by colonization and settlers.
BOX 2.1

Around the world people are more assertive in demanding respect for their cultural identities

Two aspects of cultural exclusion
Cultural liberty is the freedom people have to choose their identity—to be who they are and who they want to be—and to live without being excluded from other choices that are important to them. Cultural liberty is violated by the failure to respect or recognize the values, institutions and ways of life of cultural groups and by discrimination and disadvantage based on cultural identity. Living mode exclusion Living mode exclusion occurs when the state or social custom denigrates or suppresses a group’s culture, including its language, religion or traditional customs or lifestyles. Needed are policies that give some form of public recognition, accommodation and support to a group’s culture. Through such policies of cultural inclusion members of the group see their cultures in the symbols and institutions of the state and in the respect of society.
Source: Chapter 1 and Kymlicka 2004.

Participation exclusion Participation exclusion—social, economic and political exclusion along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines—refers to discrimination or disadvantage based on cultural identity. Such exclusions operate through discriminatory policies from the state (such as the denial of citizenship or of the right to vote or run for office), past discrimination that has not been remedied (lower performance in education) or social practice (such as less access in the media to a cultural group’s point of view, or discrimination in job interviews). Needed are approaches that integrate multicultural policies with human development strategies. Specific remedies required There is much reinforcement between living mode exclusion and social, economic and political exclusion, and some of their causes (viewing some cultures as “backward”). Each type of exclusion requires its own analysis and remedies.





Most countries are culturally diverse
Number of countries by share of ethnic or religious groups, 2003 110






The pace of international migration has quickened, with startling effects on some cities. In Toronto 44% of the population was born outside of Canada.3 One way or another every country is a multicultural society—containing ethnic, religious, linguistic and racial groups that have common bonds to a heritage, culture, values and way of life. In the agenda for human development in the 21st century, expanding cultural liberty is an important, and often neglected, challenge (box 2.2). This chapter explores the nature of that challenge. CULTURAL LIBERTY—AN UNCHARTED


Less than 10%


More than 25%

Share of world population, 2003 Less than 10% of population 10–25% of population More than 25% of population

30% 52% 17%

Note: Percentages refer to all ethnic or religious groups except the largest. Source: CIA 2003.

Human development is about people. It is about enlarging the choices people have to do and be what they value in life. Much work on human development—including the human development index and previous Human Development Reports—has focused on greater access to health and education, on pro-poor economic growth and on democratization as the main challenges. But as chapter 1 explains, people must also be free to be who they are and to

choose their cultural identity accordingly—as a Thai, a Quaker, a Wolof speaker, a South African of Indian descent—and to enjoy the respect of others and live in dignity. They must also be free to make cultural choices without penalty, without being excluded from other choices—for jobs, schooling, housing, healthcare, political voice and many other opportunities critical to human well-being. They must be allowed to choose multiple identities—as Thai and Muslim, for example, or as Wolof and Senegalese. The core argument of this Report is that societies should embrace, not suppress, such multiple and complementary identities. The challenge for policy-makers in the 21st century is to broaden choices—so that people need not renounce their identities to have access to the full range of social and economic opportunities. DIVERSE


Throughout history, in all regions of the world, cultural identities have been suppressed. Conquerors, colonizers, despots and democratically elected governments alike have tried to impose

BOX 2.2

Defining cultural rights lags behind defining civil, political, economic and social rights—why?
Of the five categories of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, social and political—cultural rights have received the least attention. The firstever resolution on cultural rights adopted by the Commission on Human Rights was in 2002, on “Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities”. This neglect has its roots in the heated debates that arose during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At issue was whether cultural rights should explicitly recognize minority rights. Canada, most Latin American countries and the United States argued against minority rights, while the Eastern bloc countries and India argued for them. In the end, minority rights were not recognized in the final wording. It was not until 1966 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognized that people belonging to ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities “shall not be denied the right, in community with other
Sources: Stamatopoulou 2002; Kymlicka 2004; and Arizpe 2004.

members of their group, to enjoy their culture, to profess and practice their religion, or to use their own language”. These reservations reflect the unease that surrounds the notion of cultural rights: • Cultural rights can provoke arguments about cultural relativism, arguments that use culture to defend violations of human rights. • Cultural rights are difficult to operationalize because they are tied up with the concept of culture, which is a moving target. • Cultural rights, according to some, are a “luxury”, to be addressed once the other rights have been achieved. • Cultural rights cannot be addressed without confronting the cultural “wrongs” that exist in societies. These are traditions and practices that violate human rights. States are cautious about recognizing such wrongs. • Cultural rights evoke the scary spectrum of group identities and group rights that some people fear threaten the nation-state.

Some human rights and political philosophy theorists argue that ensuring the civil and political rights of individuals—such as freedom of worship, speech and association—is sufficient to allow individuals to freely pursue their cultural beliefs and practices. Though slow to start, the work of human rights bodies has made important strides in clarifying the elements of human rights to participate in cultural life, including equality and non-discrimination, freedom from interference in the enjoyment of cultural life and the freedom to create and contribute to it, freedom to choose in which culture and which cultural life to participate, freedom to disseminate, freedom to cooperate internationally and freedom to participate in the definition and implementation of policies on culture. Overriding all these elements is the fundamental principle that cultural rights are an indivisible part of human rights, although not every custom or practice is a right.



a particular language, religion or way of life on the people under their rule. In some places nonfavoured cultures have been labelled “inferior” or “backward”. In others, such as apartheid South Africa, rulers sought to keep people separated, in part by denying some groups the same rights of citizenship and participation as others enjoyed. Worst of all are the places that have tried to obliterate groups through genocide, such as in Nazi Germany and Rwanda. The result is a legacy of widespread cultural exclusion, both living mode exclusion and exclusion in political, social and economic participation along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines (participation exclusion). This Report explores such exclusions in three categories: minorities in multi-ethnic states, indigenous people and migrants. Minorities in multi-ethnic states. More than 150 countries have significant minority ethnic or religious groups, and only 30 countries do not have a religious or ethnic minority that constitutes at least 10% of the population (figure 2.1). An example is the ethnic groups in former colonial states, especially in Africa, where boundaries did not coincide with ethnic identities, creating highly diverse states. In most of these groups members share a common history or at least perceive a shared experience. Not all these groups are discriminated against or disadvantaged, and the situations they face vary widely. African Americans have twice the unemployment rate of their white counterparts and nearly three times the infant mortality rate (see figure 3.4 in chapter 3). They are also underrepresented politically in upper and lower houses of legislatures. But civil rights struggles have led to greater respect for African American culture and affirmation of the African American identity as a source of pride. Other minorities may be economically privileged but culturally or politically sidelined. In Indonesia the ethnic Chinese constitute 3% of the population but control about 70% of the private economy.4 Despite their economic power they face restrictions on Chinese-language education and publishing. In many countries in SouthEast Asia residents of Chinese descent are considered “foreigners” even when they have lived there for generations.

For some groups discrimination is wider spread. The Roma of Eastern Europe have unemployment rates averaging 45% and rising above 60% in some areas. They also suffer from substandard health and living conditions.5 Only one in three Roma children in Serbia and Montenegro has ever attended primary school, and no more than 0.4% of Serbian Roma have a university education.6 Often perceived as lazy, unclean, uneducated and petty thieves, Roma disproportionately suffer violent attacks in countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.7 Indigenous people. Around 300 million people belong to the world’s indigenous groups,8 representing some 4,000 languages in more than 70 countries.9 Latin America’s 50 million indigenous people make up 11% of the region’s population. Indigenous people are not always in the minority.10 In Bolivia and Guatemala indigenous people make up more than half the population.11 These groups are heirs to unique cultures and unique ways of relating to other people and the environment. They maintain political, cultural and economic characteristics distinct from mainstream society. In Australasia, the Americas and elsewhere the sound of foreign feet on indigenous soil was too often a death knell. Military conquest, ecological destruction, forced labour and lethal diseases reduced indigenous populations in the Americas and Australia by as much as 95%.12 In Australia alone some 500 languages have been lost since the arrival of Europeans.13 For those who remain, the struggle continues. The world’s indigenous people share many challenges, such as poverty and poor health (figure 2.2) and education. While many culturally identifiable groups face inequalities in these areas, indigenous people share some distinct problems. Often the lands they use for productive purposes and to maintain historical and spiritual links are not secure and so are being taken over for logging, mining, tourism and infrastructure. From occupying most of the earth’s ecosystems two centuries ago indigenous people today have the legal right to use about 6% of the earth’s territory. And in many cases the rights are partial or qualified.14 In most SouthEast Asian countries, for example, there are no laws granting indigenous people the right to



Indigenous people can expect a shorter life

Gap in life expectancy in selected developing countries, 1997–2000
Indigenous population Non-indigenous population Gap in life expectancy
Years 80








Guatemala Panama


Source: During 1993 (share of indigenous peoples); WHO 2001 (Guatemala); UNDP 2002b (Panama); Mexico, Ministry of Health 2004 (Mexico).

Gap in life expectancy in selected industrial countries, 1997–2000
Indigenous population (males) National average (males) Gap in life expectancy
Years 80

11 20







New Zealand

Note: Data refer to the most recent year available during the period specified. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004 (Australia); Justiniano and Litchfield 2003 (Canada); WHO 2001 (New Zealand).





Europe’s non-European migrant population has increased significantly...

Foreign-born population from outside Europe
Thousands 1500





0 1981 2000

... and migrants are coming from more places
Migrant groups in Sweden with populations greater than 1,000
Number of groups 40





0 1980 2002 Source: Wanner 2002; Statistics Sweden 2004.

their land. And not only their land is being coveted and taken—so is their knowledge. Multinational corporations have discovered its commercial potential, and the race is on to patent, privatize and appropriate. Migrants. The number of international migrants—defined as people living outside their country of birth—more than doubled since the mid-1970s—to about 175 million.15 The numbers have increased most dramatically in the richest countries. The number of migrants to the European Union from outside Europe is up 75% since 1980.16 Migrants are coming from a wider range of countries, too, so that more people of different cultures are living together. In London children in state schools speak some 300 different languages.17 And in Sweden migrants come from twice as many countries as they did in 1980 (see figure 2.3 and feature 5.1 in chapter 5).18 While the inflow is fastest in the richest countries, migration is an issue in all regions. People have moved from poorer to more prosperous developing countries (such as the migration into the oil-rich countries in the 1970s and 1980s) and from countries experiencing political upheaval or persecution to neighbouring countries (see figure 5.2 in chapter 5). As a result developing countries make up 10 of the 15 countries with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents, including the top three (United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan).19 Saudi Arabia has the fifth largest foreign-born population, at more than 5 million.20 In both richer and poorer countries one of the greatest challenges for migrants is their legal status in the receiving country. For immigrants there is a sea of gray between full citizenship and illegal status. This uncertainty affects their civic participation, such as receiving health and education services, being able to drive legally and being able to enter the workforce without being subjected to discrimination. Often immigrants’ uncertain legal status culminates in their having no political voice and being vulnerable to human rights abuses. Their uncertain status also puts recognition of their cultural identity in jeopardy. Immigrants, particularly those deemed illegitimate, can face severe restrictions on building houses of worship, celebrating holidays and wearing their traditional or religious clothing or

symbols. In the United Kingdom, for example, 69% of Muslims surveyed felt that the rest of society did not regard them as an integral part of it.21 CULTURAL

In many areas of human development much work has been done to document performance and the nature and the size of the problems to be overcome. Measurement techniques, developed through decades of research and established traditions in data collection, provide numerical evidence: 1.2 billion people survive on less than $1 a day,22 828 million go to bed hungry,23 114 million children of primary school age are not in school,24 11 million children die each year of preventable causes,25 and 1.8 billion people live in countries lacking the key elements of formal democracy.26 Capturing living mode exclusion is intrinsically more difficult than capturing social, economic and political exclusion. Living mode exclusion happens when the culture of a group— whether ethnic, linguistic or religious—is denied recognition and respect. It is often reflected in a culture being considered “inferior” or in its practices not being recognized. The most extreme forms of exclusion result from state policies to suppress or prohibit the use of languages or religious or other important practices such as dress that are visible markers of identity—for example, turbans worn by Sikhs or the headscarf worn by some Muslim women. State policies of living mode exclusion include official language laws—where a national language must be used in the bureaucracy, courts, public services and education—and restrictions on religious freedoms. Policies of exclusion also include elevating state symbols celebrating the history and culture of dominant groups through national holidays and the naming of streets and buildings while ignoring the history and culture of other groups.27 Charting living mode exclusion is difficult (box 2.3). Few national or international statistical agencies track such exclusion. As with data on gender and the environment—also once novel to statistical offices—this must change. But the challenges are enormous, and not just the technical aspects. Language, religion, history, clothing,



customs, ceremonies and cuisine are just some of the areas that define cultural identity. Just as there are myriad ways to understand “culture”, there are myriad ways to curtail cultural liberty and to fail to recognize cultural identities. A comprehensive understanding of culture and cultural liberty will always be out of statistical reach. But attempts can be made to gain a rough idea of the scope of the problem based on some key cultural markers such as religion, language and ceremonial practices. The Minorities at Risk data set attempts to capture the exclusion of people and groups on the basis of cultural identity (see feature 2.1). It estimates that almost 900 million people—around one of seven— belong to groups that are discriminated against or disadvantaged as a result of their identity, facing cultural, economic or political exclusion.
BOX 2.3

Of course, these categories often overlap, and many people in these groups face some combination of these exclusions. About 518 million of them belong to groups that are estimated to face living mode exclusion, including restrictions on religion, language, ceremonies and appearance (see figure 1 in feature 2.1). Recognition of religion. History is full of examples of religious persecution. In the 14th century BCE Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten proclaimed that there was no god but Ra and ordered references to all other gods to be expunged, forbidding even the use of the plural form of the word god.28 The infamous Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century sought to discover and punish Jews and Moors who had publicly converted to Christianity under duress but continued practicing their true beliefs. In mid-19th

Measuring cultural liberty
To date, cultural statistics have dealt mainly with the production and consumption of “cultural goods”—film, books and theatre. But can cultural liberty—and its opposites, living mode exclusion and social, economic and political exclusion along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines—be measured? Measuring living mode exclusion Language, religion, history, clothing, customs, ceremonies, cuisine and values, among others, interact to define cultural identity. All of these ways to understand culture provide ways to exclude cultural identities such as language policies, treatment of different religions, school curricula and attitudes within society. Information can be collected on these issues, but rarely is. Beyond the simple data availability problems are the analytical challenges of converting information into statistically useful numbers. One possible approach is qualitative assessments—expert assessments of the severity of the situation—on issues that are important to many cultural identities, such as language and religion. This Report, for example, includes information from the Minorities at Risk data set of the University of Maryland (see feature 2.1), which does not capture the whole detail or scope of cultural exclusions but can provide useful evidence for understanding the problem. Measuring participation exclusion Measurement of social, economic and to a lesser extent political exclusions along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines is more advanced. Often lacking, however, is a breakdown by culturally identified groups. Some data collection does include questions on religious, ethnic and linguistic identity and some post-censal surveys focus specifically on these cultural groups, but they could be much more comprehensive and comparable. An important issue is allowing people to register multiple identities. Political exclusion is more difficult to capture. There are some hard data, such as representation in parliament and voter participation (although they could be more disaggregated), but other issues, such as freedom of expression, movement and organization, are more difficult to capture and require qualitative approaches. Next steps More work can be done at the country level, where understanding of the issues may be greater. This could involve improved data monitoring and collection—such as including questions on identities in survey questionnaires and post-censal surveys targeted at specific cultural groups—as well as qualitative assessments. At the international level leadership by an international statistical body could bring sharper focus to what is a formidable and urgent task. For example, the UNESCO Institute of Statistics has already done much work in measuring culture. The coordinating institution could advocate for the collection of information, such as the inclusion in national surveys of questions on cultural identity, and could be the lead depository for these data. In more qualitative areas of cultural and political exclusions enormous benefits could accrue from having an international institution take the lead on comprehensive approaches to these complex issues at the country level. No index of cultural liberty There are demands not only to produce statistics on issues of culture but to go farther and produce a cultural liberty index. A lesson of the human development index and other composite indicators is that such measures need to be grounded in a conceptual framework and must be policy relevant as well as measurable and comparable. As this Report acknowledges, data on issues of cultural liberty are extremely limited. And the conceptual and methodological challenges are enormous for capturing such issues as discriminatory policy and social practice and the extent of historical neglect that cultural groups face. And the problem is more than empirical. Unlike some other aspects of human development, such as health and education, where many countries face common challenges, the challenges in dealing with cultural exclusion are more diverse. It will never be fully possible to compare homogeneous Japan with diverse India, or how Europe is dealing with issues posed by immigration with how Latin America is meeting the demands of indigenous people for land and self-rule.

Sources: Goldstone 1998; Fukuda-Parr 2001; Kymlicka 2004; and Valdés 2002.



Feature 2.1 The Minorities at Risk data set—quantifying cultural exclusion
The Minorities at Risk data set, created by researchers at the University of Maryland’s Center for International Development and Conflict Management, collects data on groups that suffer discrimination and disadvantage and that organize politically on the basis of their group identity. Discrimination and disadvantage include exclusion through public policy and through social practice, both current and the lingering effects of historical patterns of discrimination. These data track a group’s status relative to that of the majority. If the minority groups are not worse off than others in the country, their situation is not reflected in the data. While this may miss many people living in countries where cultural freedom is restricted for all, focusing on discrimination is at the heart of this Report—capturing the different treatment of cultural groups in society and the suppression of cultural identities. What is a minority at risk? The project deals with “communal groups” whose members share a “distinctive and enduring collective identity” based on shared history, religion, language, ethnicity or other factors. Group identity is not seen as rigid, unchanging or inextricably linked to a particular feature of the group, but as a perception shared by the group or society. While the project tracks many variables for each group, of particular interest for this Report are the variables on cultural (living mode), political and socio-economic discrimination and disadvantage. Data used for this report are current through 2000 and are derived from the project’s most recent global survey, completed in 2002. • Cultural (living mode) discrimination and disadvantage were assessed according to discriminatory policy and practice in several fields: restrictions on religion (affecting groups with some 359 million members); on the use of language, including for instruction (334 million); on ceremonies (305 million), appearance and family life (144 million); and on cultural organizations. For each category the project assessed restrictions giving a value from zero (no restrictions) to three (activities sharply restricted). The scores were summed to give a broad overview of cultural restrictions. The project found that 129 groups with around 518 million people face at least some of these restrictions (figure 1). • Political discrimination and disadvantage were graded on a five-point scale. Zero means no discrimination, and one signifies a situation in which public policies are actively trying to remedy historical patterns of discrimination. Two refers to situations where there are historical patterns of discrimination, but no

Millions of people 1000 800

Discrimination and disadvantage of culturally identified groups can be cultural, political and economic—with considerable overlap
Millions of people 1000 800

832 750





Living mode exclusion Participation exclusion



200 0

200 0

Living mode exclusion

Economic exclusion

Political exclusion

There is considerable overlap in types of cultural exclusion

Participation exclusion

remedial public policy. Three refers to exclusion based on prevailing social practice without remedial public policy. And four refers to cases in which public policy actively discriminates against a group. There were also detailed assessments of discrimination in key political rights: freedom of expression, freedom of movement, rights in judicial proceedings, freedom to organize, right to vote and access to the police and military, civil service and higher office. For the last case, the absence of minorities in these fields is not enough to signal discrimination. There needs to be evidence of discriminatory policy or governmental practice. According to the project 191 groups, with around 832 million people, were considered to be discriminated against politically (figure 2). • Economic discrimination and disadvantage were also graded on a four-point scale. For the 189 groups with about 750 million people that faced economic discrimination, zero refers to the case where public policy aims to reduce

disadvantages, for example, through affirmative action. Four refers to the case where both policies and prevailing social practice actively discriminate against the group. The data from the Minorities at Risk data set can be used to reveal a good deal about the living mode and participation exclusions faced by members of culturally identified groups, showing not only how extensive these exclusions are but also how frequently they overlap (see figure 1). The data set can also reveal some specific aspects of the living mode exclusion that some minorities face, as well as the varying causes—from discrimination by the state to historic neglect of cultural groups that has not been remedied (see figure 2). Caveats The data set is a pioneering effort to measure the conditions that minority groups experience and the policies affecting them. Subjective data capture aspects of the traits and challenges of groups not available through other means. The Minorities at Risk Project consults multiple sources—including journalistic accounts, international organization reports, human rights reports, government accounts and expert opinion—when scoring groups on their various characteristics. Every effort is made to ensure consistent coding across cases and to minimize the dangers of ideological bias. Additional information on the project is available online at Data updated through 2003 will be available by the end of 2004. This Report uses the data carefully, to give a broad overview of the immense challenges of cultural discrimination, not as an attempt to rank or evaluate specific countries for their policies. Used in that way, the data set is a useful tool and a great step forward in measurement.
Sources: Gurr 1993, 2000; MAR 2003; Kymlicka 2004.

Millions of people 1000

Political and economic exclusion have different causes

832 million

750 million 406 Historic neglect





Discriminating social practice




Discriminating 68 public policy Political Economic exclusion exclusion



century Korea several hundred Christians were killed for their beliefs. And non-Catholic Christian denominations were not recognized in Italy until 1984 and in Spain until 1992.29 In some countries religious restrictions can affect everyone; in others they focus on people with certain beliefs. The Minorities at Risk data set found that some 359 million people (of the 518 million who belong to groups that face some form of cultural exclusion) are disadvantaged or discriminated against relative to others in the state in following their beliefs (see feature 2.1). In many cases the religious activities of groups discriminated against are closely controlled. For example, religious activities and organizations of the 80% Muslim population of Uzbekistan are banned unless the group is registered, allowing the state to exert close control over religion. In other instances discrimination against religion is more active.30 Since 1997 Turkmenistan has officially allowed religious activities for only two religious denominations—Sunni Islam and Orthodox Christianity. All other religions have been severely persecuted, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Baptists, Adventists and Hare Krishnas, and the Shiite community has been denied registration. However, registration requirements were formally lifted by the president in early 2004.31 In Iran the Baha’i community— the largest religious minority, with 300,000 members—is not recognized in the Constitution, which essentially considers them “non-persons”.32 These are just three examples. Not only is the issue widespread and a direct concern to cultural liberty and human development. It is contentious and emotive. Of the many unmet claims of current political movements, the claim for religious freedom is often central. Language recognition. Language is often a key element of an individual’s cultural identity. Limitations on people’s ability to use their mother tongue—and limited facility in speaking the dominant or official national language— can exclude people from education, political life and access to justice. There is no more powerful means of “encouraging” individuals to assimilate to a dominant culture than having the economic, social and political returns stacked against their mother tongue. Such assimilation is not freely chosen if the choice is between

one’s mother tongue and one’s future. In 19th century Belgium, for example, the Flemish who strived for upward mobility had little choice but to learn French—the sole official language— and in time many abandoned their ancestral language altogether.33 These pressures have not gone away in other countries: the indigenous people of Guatemala are much more likely to prosper speaking Spanish. An indication of the resulting assimilation is the death of the world’s languages. Of the estimated 10,000 languages that have existed over time, only about 6,000 are spoken today.34 And the number is projected to drop by 50–90% over the next 100 years.35 The challenges are greatest where linguistic diversity is greatest. Sub-Saharan Africa has more than 2,500 languages (although, as chapter 3 shows, many of these languages share commonalities), but the ability of many people to use their language in education and in dealings with the state is particularly limited. In more than 30 countries in the region—with 518 million people, 80% of the region’s total—the official language is different from the one most commonly used.36 Only 13% of the children who receive primary education do so in their mother tongue (figure 2.4). Does a lack of education in one’s mother tongue stall development? Research suggests that the answer might be yes. In the United States children educated in their mother tongue for the first six years of school perform much better than those immediately immersed in English. And there is every reason to believe that the process of learning would follow a similar pattern in developing countries (chapter 3).37 While the ability to use one’s mother tongue in public as well as private life is important, this does not make the use of multiple languages in government, the courts and education easy or practical. Chapter 3 looks in detail at the costs and benefits states face in their language policy. Other aspects of living mode exclusion. Language and religion are often important parts of an individual’s cultural identity, but there are many ways different cultures can be respected and recognized. According to the Minorities at Risk data set, 60% of people who face cultural discrimination are restricted in

There is no more powerful means of “encouraging” individuals to assimilate to a dominant culture than having the economic, social and political returns stacked against their mother tongue





Many lack access to primary education in their mother tongue
Number of spoken languages 2,632 2,815 811 625 1,299 1,086 Population with access to education in mother tongue in 2000 13% 62% 66% 74% 87% 91% Total population (millions) 641 1,918 1,480 409 912 530

Region or group Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS High-income OECD Latin America and the Caribbean
Source: SIL International 2004b.

performing ceremonies. A further 25% face restrictions in the clothes they wear and how they can appear in public, including many indigenous people in Latin America and the Roma in parts of Eastern Europe.38 Also important is the way the state recognizes and respects the history of different cultural groups within its borders. This is not an easy matter on which to collect data, particularly by region or city. One way of assessing how diverse groups are recognized and accepted is by the way national holidays celebrate key moments in the history or religion of cultural groups in a country or the way streets are named. In the United States most national holidays are non-denominational. In India central government employees have 17 holidays, 14 of which celebrate the diversity of its religions (figure 2.5). But in France 6 of 11 national holidays are of religious origin, all Christian, and 5 are non-denominational although almost 1 in 13 French citizens is Muslim. POLITICAL,


Facing restrictions in expressing one’s identity (living mode exclusion) is only part of the challenge for cultural liberty. Many groups, because of their cultural identities, face discrimination or disadvantage in other aspects of human development. More than 750 million people are estimated to belong to groups that are disadvantaged or discriminated against in economic or political life (see feature 2.1).

Political participation. The limits of political participation are obvious in dictatorships or one-party states. But inequalities in political participation can be widespread even in established democracies. Political processes can be rigged or restricted in many ways to create obstacles to members of certain ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. The Minorities at Risk data set estimates that more than 300 million people belong to groups that face restrictions on access to higher office relative to others in the state as a result of their identity. Just under 300 million belong to groups that have restricted access to the civil service. Some 250 million belong to groups that do not have equal rights to organize. About 280 million belong to groups that do not enjoy equal freedom of expression. And 83 million belong to groups that do not have equal voting rights.39 Denial of citizenship is one of the most direct ways of excluding groups of people from the political process. More than 300,000 people of the “hill tribe” minority in Thailand have been denied nationality and the rights and privileges afforded to full citizens, and Myanmar has denied citizenship to more than 250,000 Rohingya Muslims who had previously fled the country because of persecution. Despite a growing parliamentary lobby Kuwait continues to deny citizenship to more than 100,000 Bidun, many of whom have lived in the country for generations.40 Ensuring equality at all stages of the political process is vital for preventing discrimination against culturally identified groups, but it is difficult to assess. Looking at outcomes, which are easier to define and measure, can be more revealing. Of high-income OECD countries with data, only in the Netherlands is the proportion of ethnic minorities in parliament similar to their share in the population. The United States comes in second and Belgium third (table 2.1). The problem is more widespread, of course. In Brazil only 2 of the 33 cabinet members are Afro-Brazilian, even though they make up almost half the population.41 In Kenya the number of Kikuyu cabinet members dropped from 31% in 1979 to 3% in 1998, even though their share of the population remained steady at around 20%.42 The situation changed again in the 2003 elections. In Fiji ethnic Fijians occupied 19 of 21





National holidays are important ways to recognize—or ignore—cultural identities
Religions reflected in national holidays, 2003

Religious groups Christian Number of holidays 6 Population share Christian Religious groups Hindu Muslim Non-denom Buddhist Jain Sikh Christian

Number of holidays 5 4 3 3 2 Rest Non-denom Population share Hindu Religious groups Christian

United States
Number of holidays 1 Population share Christian


5 Rest

9 Rest

Source: National holidays: France 2004; India, Ministry of Personnel 2004; Office of Personnel Management 2003; religious populations: India, Office of the Registrar General 2004; France and United States, CIA 2003.

cabinet seats in 2001 although they make up just half the population.43 In Trinidad and Tobago citizens of Indian descent (especially Hindus) were essentially excluded from cabinet positions from 1961 to 1986 (the situation has improved since then).44 The Minorities at Risk data set estimates that more than 800 million people are part of more than 200 culturally identified groups that face political disadvantage or discrimination based on ethnic, linguistic or religious identities,45 with around 130 million of them facing directly discriminatory public policy. The rest are discriminated against because of social customs in the country or the lingering effects of historic discrimination (see feature 2.1). Remedying this is vital. Politics is power. Too often inequalities in political participation are at the heart of the unresolved claims of cultural groups, which are discussed in the rest of this Report. Health, education and income. Rarely are levels of human development—or its progress— spread evenly in a country. Certain religious, ethnic and linguistic groups are too often left behind (box 2.4). These pockets of poverty matter in their own right. But inequalities along cultural lines can be a key source of tension in society. Few states collect information on life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy and school enrolment by ethnic, linguistic and religious group, even though population censuses can be an effective means for collecting such information. Available data show consistent patterns of inequality. According to the Minorities at Risk


Political representation of ethnic minorities in selected OECD parliaments
Ethnic minorities in parliaments a Country (year of last election with data) Netherlands (2003) United States (2002) Belgium (1999) Canada (2000) United Kingdom (2001) New Zealand (1999) Denmark (2001) Australia (2001) Germany (2002) France (2002) Switzerland (1999) Number in lower house/ total 13/150 69/440 6/150 12/301 12/659 2/120 2/179 1/150 5/603 0/577 0/200 Share in lower house (%) 8.7 15.7 4.0 4.3 1.8 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 Share in population (%) 9.0 28.1 10.0 13.4 8.7 10.9 5.8 6.0 8.5 8.0 6.0 Ratio in house to ratio in population 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

a. Refers to visible ethnic minorities based on census or academic reports. Non-visible immigrants (of European descent) are not included. The share of ethnic minorities is likely to be lower than the reported figure because reports include citizens and non-citizens and ethnic minority groups tend to be disproportionately young compared to the majority population. Does not include aboriginals or members of dominant linguistic or national minority groups. Source: Bird 2003.

data set, around 750 million people in the world belong to groups that face socio-economic discrimination or disadvantage because of their cultural identities. Many groups face both kinds of discrimination (see feature 2.1). For some 68 million of them this is a result of direct government policies of discrimination. But the more common causes are discriminatory social practices or unremedied neglect. Around the globe people with different cultural identities live side by side, but often in different worlds. Black South Africans still earn about a fifth of the incomes of whites.46 Romas in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia believe that their ethnicity is the main reason they cannot find a job.47 Black men and women in São Paolo, Brazil, have half the salaries of whites.48 In Guatemala there are



clear overlaps between indigenous groups and social exclusion (map 2.1). The same patterns are found in health and education. Life expectancies are consistently lower for indigenous people than for nonindigenous people (see figure 2.2). The Dalit
BOX 2.4

population of Nepal has a life expectancy almost 20 years less than the national average.49 Of Roma children in Serbia and Montenegro 30% have never attended primary school, and one in five of those who do attend will drop out.50 In South Africa almost a quarter of the black population has had no schooling.51 PROMOTING CULTURAL LIBERTY REQUIRES

The human development index: capturing inequalities across groups
Large disparities exist between cultural groups within countries 2000
Life expectancy at birth (years) Adult literacy rate Income per capita Country average

Nepal Dalit population
Years 0 %0 US$ 0 20 40 60 80 100 250

Romania Roma
Years 0 %0 PPP US$ 0 20 40 60 80 100 2000 4000 6000 8000

HDI Romanian average Roma

.778 .570

German Afrikaans English Oshiwambo Rukavango San
Years 30 40 50 60 70

German English Afrikaans Oshiwambo Rukavango San
%0 100

German English Afrikaans Oshiwambo Rukavango San
N$ 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

HDI German English Afrikaans Oshiwambo Namibian average Rukavango San

.960 .895 .885 .641 .607 .585 .326

The human development index has become an invaluable tool for capturing human development and a country’s development performance—roughly—in one number. One of the index’s most effective uses is in comparing the performance of neighbouring or similar countries, creating a healthy sense of competition. While creating a similar index for cultural liberty (see box 2.3) or including cultural liberty in the human development index is not possible, disaggregating the human development index by ethnic, linguistic or religious groups can shed some light on exclusion in health, education and income. This is rarely done, however. In the rare cases when the human development index is calculated by cultural group, a revealing picture often emerges. The Roma in Romania, for example, have a human development index well below the Romanian average (see figure). Romania is ranked 72 in the human development index, but its Roma population would rank 128. Namibia is the only country to have calculated a human development index by linguistic group. Again, the differences are staggering. The German-speaking population would finish comfortably ahead of Norway at the top of the rankings, with the English and Afrikaans speakers not far behind. San speakers would come 174 places below, with speakers of Tswana, Otjiherero, Oshiwambo, Rukavango, Caprivi-Lozi and Nama-Damara falling in between. These examples show the huge challenges. Spotlighting these challenges is the first step in solving them. Governments are often reluctant to collect and disseminate this sort of information. Where data are available, they should be considered an important first step, not a damning revelation.

Living mode exclusion and participation exclusion require different policy solutions. Traditional policy approaches alone cannot address participation exclusion in social, economic and political life, and removing barriers to social, economic and political participation will not eliminate issues of living mode exclusion. New approaches are needed that integrate multicultural policies into human development strategies (table 2.2). CULTURAL


Source: Sen 2004b; UNDP 2000b.

There is no evidence that eliminating economic and political inequalities would erase living mode inequalities. Some groups are economically privileged but culturally (and politically) marginalized, such as the Chinese in South-East Asia.52 Nationalist minorities like the Catalans in Spain or the Québécois in Canada enjoy the same standard of living as the majority, and in some cases a higher than average income, and their right to participate in the political process is well protected. Yet they have suffered living mode exclusion as their language and traditions were marginalized by the central government.53 So while it is common for living mode exclusion and political or economic exclusion to go together, they are distinct (see chapter 1). Living mode exclusion requires its own analysis and remedies. Too often cultural policy-making has been more concerned with the promotion of arts and the protection of cultural heritage than with the promotion of cultural liberty. Even today, key debates on cultural policies focus largely on protecting cultural heritage. But while these issues are important, the fundamental question of promoting cultural liberty has largely been forgotten (box 2.5).54 To promote cultural



liberty, policies of cultural inclusion need to give public recognition, accommodation and support to suppressed cultural identities. When this happens, disadvantaged cultural groups can see their identities reflected in the symbols and institutions of the state, removing many of the sources of their discontent. INCORPORATING


Many traditional approaches to social, economic and political equality have been based on assimilation. Groups are expected to take on the language of the dominant culture at the expense of their own and must sometimes deny their religious and other traditions to succeed. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a dominant culture, but people should not be forced to make a stark choice between their identities and economic or political progress. Cultural liberty and human development require that individuals be as free to maintain their identities as they are to change them. For that, multicultural policies

need to be integrated into human development strategies (see table 2.2). For example, while democracy is the only form of government consistent with all freedoms (including cultural freedoms), majoritarian rule does not always protect claims for cultural recognition and respect. As chapter 3 argues, asymmetric federalism (different rights—such as language rights—for different regions based on cultural need) and power sharing through proportionality and representative electoral arrangements are options to consider when majoritarian democracy falls short. Nor can socio-economic exclusion be addressed simply through policies of pro-poor growth and redistribution. Special programmes may be appropriate, even essential, to overcome discrimination and redress past wrongs. Bilingual education can give non-dominant language groups equal opportunities. In essence, multicultural policies require looking at equity in a new way. Where groups have specific cultural needs or are disadvantaged as a result of past wrongs, identical policy approaches will not produce equal opportunities—differentiated policy approaches are required (see table 2.2).



Guatemala exhibits substantial overlap between linguistic communities and social exclusion
Indigenous linguistic communities Non-indigenous linguistic communities High social exclusion





Source: UNDP 2004.

Integrating multicultural policies into human development strategies
Potential contradictions between aims of multiculturalism and three pillars Claims for cultural recognition often made by non-democratic groups. Demands can be antithetical to building democracy, freezing traditional practices that are oppressive in the name of “authenticity”, and may not be supported by many members of the relevant group. Affirmative action is contrary to principles of equality. Are special programmes an alternative to affirmative action? Affirmative action is contrary to principles of equality. Are special programmes an alternative to affirmative action? May involve “unfair inclusion” and exclusion from many choices and opportunities open to all other citizens.

Three pillars of the human development strategy Democracy

Necessary for cultural liberty Democracy is the only form of government consistent with all human freedoms and human rights, including cultural freedoms and rights.

But not sufficient for cultural liberty Democracy does little to accommodate minority interests. Well developed democracies have neglected claims for cultural recognition from ethnic, linguistic and religious groups, including indigenous groups and immigrants. Democracy also permits the rise of violent extremist groups. Pro-poor growth is not enough to overcome discrimination and redress past wrongs.

Additional multicultural policies Incorporate accommodation of minority identities and adopt policies of multiculturalism. Consider asymmetric federalism and executive power sharing. Recognize multiple identities and multiple citizenship.

Pro-poor growth

Pro-poor growth is necessary to redress socio-economic exclusion (participation exclusion) of cultural groups.

Develop special support programmes for jobs, training and credit. Institute affirmative action programmes. Develop special support programmes for excluded groups. Institute affirmative action programmes. Offer separate publicly funded provisions, such as schools.

Equitable expansion of social opportunities

Equitable expansion of social opportunities is necessary to redress socio-economic exclusion of cultural groups.

Equitable expansion of social opportunities is not enough to overcome discrimination and redress past wrongs. Also, does not address demand for different opportunities, such as different kinds of education.

Source: Human Development Report Office.



BOX 2.5

Cultural policies—protecting cultural heritage and promoting cultural liberty
In 1969 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) introduced the notion of “cultural policies”, calling on governments to explicitly recognize cultural actions as an important end of public policy. The world community has step by step heeded this call: the 1982 World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico, the UN declaration of 1988 through 1997 as the Decade for Culture and Development, the 1998 Stockholm Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development and the increasing number of states establishing cultural ministries are all evidence of the realization that culture is development and vice versa.
Source: Arizpe 2004.

In the beginning, the notion of cultural policy-making was concerned with the promotion of arts and the protection of cultural heritage. It is now increasingly related to cultural liberty, as the World Commission on Culture and Development proposed in its 1995 report, Our Creative Diversity. Cultural liberty is inseparable from respect and recognition of cultural diversity and the safeguarding of cultural heritage, both physical and intangible. The cycle of cultural policy must end where it began a quarter of a century ago, with people, and their cultural freedom and fulfilment, the central end of cultural policy-making.


Few countries have attempted formal multicultural polices. Most countries have resisted them. Political scientists and philosophers have debated whether multiculturalism is consistent with democracy and human rights. Part of the reason lies in the realities of majority politics. The vulnerable are easy to ignore. Policy-makers have serious concerns about the effect of such policies on the country as a whole. Perceptions persist that ensuring cultural liberty is a luxury: it would be nice, but the costs are just too high. Many of these perceptions are based on misconceptions about the role that cultural liberty, cultural diversity and even cultures themselves play in a society’s development. Here, three such myths are examined in detail: • Some cultures are more likely to make development progress than others. • Cultural diversity inevitably leads to clashes over values. • Cultural diversity is an obstacle to development. MYTH 1: SOME CULTURES ARE MORE LIKELY TO

There is no clear relationship between culture and development.55 The idea that a group’s culture matters for its development has enormous intuitive

appeal, allowing cultural stereotypes to be turned into explanations for the state of the world. This idea is not new. It goes back at least as far as de Tocqueville’s view of American democracy in the early 19th century and Weber’s idealization of the Protestant work ethic. But a new wave of cultural determinism is emerging—attributing the failures of growth and democratization to inherent flaws in cultural traits. These are dangerous ideas—that can lead to extreme policy conclusions. If some cultures in a society are believed not to be attuned to economic growth or democracy, it is not a long step to argue that they must be suppressed or assimilated. To overgeneralize, if Africa’s failure to progress can be blamed on culture, why bother with political and economic policies or with foreign aid? Proponents of cultural determinism often label large parts of the world as simply “African” or “Islamic”.56 But culture is not a homogeneous attribute. There are huge variations in language, religion, literature, art and living styles within the same cultural “group”.57 Moreover, culture is not uniquely pivotal in determining our lives and identities. Class, gender, profession and politics also matter hugely. Without being able to identify these clear and common cultural traits, a meaningful theory of cultural determinism struggles to get off the ground.58 There can be great continuity in a culture, but even in cultures with very long traditions rapid changes can occur over one or two generations.59 For example, it is difficult to ascribe Japan’s development to “Japanese culture” when interaction with the industrializing West in the mid-19th century led to the Meiji restoration and the determination to change the face of Japanese education. Even aspects of culture than seem entrenched can be altered. Bangladesh, for example, has taken great strides in reducing practices of gender inequality. Because cultures evolve, a society’s culture today may determine very little of its future development. And these changes happen not as a result of targeted policies of cultural change, as cultural determinists might propose. They happen through economic and political interactions with other cultures and through better education—a policy conclusion that differs little from those in other areas of development theory.60



Even what is perceived as valuable for development in a culture is apt to change, and Western economies can no longer be assumed to be the model for the world.61 Consider Japan again, which drew from a different class of cultural values than did the West for economic operations, emphasizing company loyalty, responsibility, interpersonal trust and implicit contracts to drive tremendous economic progress in the 20th century—values now espoused in every management training course in the West. But it was not always this way. So, predicting the value—and future—of cultural traits is far from straightforward. It is not that culture offers no insights into the development process—cultural influences can make a difference. Some analysis has found, for example, that work ethic, thrift, honesty and openness to strangers can play a role in economic growth.62 And when those influences are understood to be varied and changeable and one source of influence among many, culture can offer constructive insights into human behaviour and development. But there is no grand cultural theory of development here. The econometric evidence underlines this. In explaining growth rates, for example, economic policy, geography and the burden of disease were all found to be highly relevant. Cultural factors—such as whether a society is Hindu or Muslim—were found to be insignificant.63 So, while statistical analysis can help in assessing the validity of a theory, history is perhaps its greatest judge: and so far the history of cultural determinism exposes a theory one step behind the real world. By the time Weber’s glowing assessment of the Protestant ethic was being recognized, many Catholic countries (France, Italy) were growing faster than Protestant Britain or Germany. The theory was then expanded to be more generally Christian and Western. But then Japan had to be included. And soon, East Asia was growing fastest, and old views that Confucian values do not promote conditions for growth had to be quickly jettisoned. Then Thailand, essentially a Buddhist country, became the fastest growing, so the theory had to be altered again.64 So far, then, cultural determinism has not been able to catch up. Are today’s views better founded and better able to predict a culture’s influence

on development—say, in Africa—or the compatibility of some religions with democracy—say, Islam? Growth and development in Africa. Some propose that culture is determining development in Sub-Saharan Africa. A problematic “African culture” the argument goes, is unsuited to economic, political and social development.65 It is a convenient tautology for the cultural determinist to combine the idea of an “African culture” with the fact that Africa is failing. But African countries have much more in common than their cultures, and many of these factors may be more relevant in their struggles to develop. Human Development Report 2003 identified 38 “priority” countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that have both low levels of development and weak progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (see Statistical feature 1, The state of human development). Of these, 21 are landlocked or have a large proportion of their populations living far from the coast. And most are small—only 4 have more than 40 million people. These countries are also highly dependent on primary commodities, which make up more than two-thirds of exports for 16 of the 23 countries with data. The disease burden in these countries is also extreme: in 22 of them more than 5% of the population has HIV/AIDS, and malaria remains prevalent. In the examples showcased to argue the decisive role of culture in development, realities such as these often lie just below the surface. An often cited example, discussed in detail in chapter 1, is that of the Republic of Korea and Ghana in the 1960s, whose rapid divergence in the following decades has frequently been attributed to cultural differences. But analysis, as chapter 1 points out, has shown more important differences, such as levels of investment in education.66 The example demonstrates that economic and social policy can have an enormous influence. Focusing internal and external resources on health and education is the first step out of the poverty trap. Even handicaps of geography—such as small internal markets and limited access to world trading routes—can be addressed through regional integration and cooperation. African success stories are emerging. In Cape Verde, Mauritius, Mozambique and Uganda

By the time Weber’s glowing assessment of the Protestant ethic was being recognized, many Catholic countries (France, Italy) were growing faster than Protestant Britain or Germany



All religions contain some ideas that can be helpful to development and some that can be harmful

GDP per capita grew at more than 3% in the 1990s.67 Benin, Mali and Senegal increased primary enrolment rates by more than 15 percentage points.68 Despite the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, Guinea and Niger reduced child mortality rates by more than 5 percentage points.69 The world has the knowledge and the resources to overcome such policy challenges, offering the possibility that Africa can take its place as a full partner in the global economy. It would not be the first time the cultural determinist thesis had to adjust—this time bringing “African culture” into the fold. Islam and democracy. All religions contain some ideas that can be helpful to development and some that can be harmful.70 Islam is sometimes alleged to be incompatible with democracy, another way that culture is said to determine development (see also chapter 1). Yet there are basic Islamic principles that lay a foundation for democracy including the shura (consultation), ijithad (independent reasoning), ijma (consensus) and the Qur’anic injunction that there be no compulsion in matters of religion.71 The idea that Islam is incompatible with democracy is counter not only to the word of Islam, but also to the practice of states with Muslim majorities. Driving this misunderstanding, perhaps, is the coincidence that many Arab countries are both Islamic and have non-democratic regimes. But the difference between Arab countries with Muslim majorities and non-Arab countries with Muslim majorities is stark. None of the Arab countries that is predominantly Muslim has had five consecutive years of moderate or strong political and electoral rights in the past quarter of a century. In the non-Arab Islamic world 8 of 29 countries have enjoyed such rights. With one set of Islamic countries performing poorly on democracy and another performing strongly, their common trait, Islam, cannot be the lone reason for a failure of democracy. The evidence shows that Islamic countries can perform as strongly as non-Islamic countries on measures of democracy. Among the world’s poorest countries (to control for income because richer countries are more likely to be democratic) non-Arab Islamic countries are as likely to be democracies as non-Islamic countries.72

The Arab Human Development Report 2003 identified a freedom deficit in the Arab region relative to other world regions. The reason for this deficit does not appear to lie with the people of the Arab states or with an antidemocratic culture: surveys have shown that as many if not more people in the Arab countries believe that democracy is the best form of government as in any other part of the world including the United States and Europe.73 Perhaps the answer lies in the history of power politics. And in a lack of openness to ideas and culture from outside the region—only 330 books were translated into Arabic in the whole Arab world in 1995. Greek, a language with one-twelfth the number of speakers, had five times the number of books translated.74 MYTH 2: CULTURAL


There is little evidence to justify this claim. Since the 1950s, 70 territorially concentrated ethnic groups have engaged in violent conflict.75 These types of conflict rose sharply with the end of the cold war, doubling between the 1970s and 1980s and reaching a peak of 48 in 1991. At the start of 2003, 22 such conflicts continued, and another 76 groups sought greater autonomy but used tactics short of full-fledged war (such as protests or isolated acts of violence).76 A popular explanation of such violence points to cultural or ethnic differences as fundamentally responsible—arguing for some innate propensity among people from different cultures to fight one another for domination and autonomy over differences in values that are incompatible. This view is captured by Samuel Huntington’s well known prediction of a “clash of civilizations”.77 These ideas have also been used to explain interethnic conflicts within nations, as in Liberia and the former Yugoslavia. It certainly is true that many conflicts have a cultural dimension. The opposing groups each see themselves as belonging to a common culture (ethnicity or religion) and fighting (at least partly) for cultural autonomy. For this reason conflicts have been attributed to primordial ethnic passions, making conflict appear unavoidable and intractable.78



Chapter 1 points out the serious flaws in this approach, based as it is on an incorrect view of the formation, role and malleability of identities. This argument also diverts attention from important economic and political factors. Extensive evidence on how identities form and change and why their salience varies over time indicates that while a culture is inherited, it is also constructed and chosen. Many people have multiple identities.79 Cultural differences are not the primary cause of conflict. And in some cases diversity might even reduce the risk of conflict by making group mobilization more difficult.80 So, what causes these tensions? Ethnic conflicts—or greed and inequality? Many conflicts do fall along cultural lines, because people engaged on each side of these wars see themselves as belonging to a common culture. But the root causes are rarely the cultures themselves or an incompatibility of values. Recent research offers two other explanations: greed and horizontal inequalities. The struggle
BOX 2.6

to control valuable natural resources, such as oil or diamonds, may be at the heart of ethnic warfare, as in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. What often appears to be ethnic conflict may simply be a resource grab by elite groups that have manipulated ethnic loyalties. Declining economic performance and high poverty levels are other important incitements to war, as in Sierra Leone and Somalia. Behind many other conflicts are inequalities among ethnic, religious or linguistic groups (horizontal inequalities). When the cultural, political or socio-economic claims of different groups remain unmet, tension builds and can boil over into violence. Recent research shows that many conflicts have erupted when groups have had unequal access to economic assets, income or employment opportunities, social services or political opportunities (box 2.6). Work by the UNDP Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Recovery shows that the likelihood of conflict increases with rising

Inequalities between groups can fuel conflict and tension
The root causes of violent conflict are rarely simple. But as the examples below show, a common theme is emerging from recent research into conflict: the role that socio-economic and political inequalities between groups can play in causing tensions and violence. Less research has been done on the role that cultural exclusions of groups may play (such as lack of recognition of languages or religious practices), but as this Report argues, these are also issues that can lead to mobilization and protests and so may also be important root causes or triggers of conflict. • Severe rioting against the Chinese in Malaysia in the late 1960s has been attributed largely to the animosity felt by the politically dominant but economically sidelined Bumiputera majority towards the economically dominant Chinese minority. • Civil war in Sri Lanka since the early 1980s has been linked to tensions resulting from inequalities between the Tamil minority and Sinhalese majority. Colonial administrators had favoured the Tamil minority economically, but this advantage was sharply reversed once the Sinhalese gained power and increasingly sidelined the Tamil minority in such areas as educational
Source: Stewart 2002; UNDP 2004; Fraenkel 2003.

opportunities, civil service recruitment and language policy. In Uganda the Bantu-speaking people (largely in the centre and south) have been economically dominant but politically sidelined compared with the non-Bantu-speaking people (largely in the north). These economic and political inequities have played a role in major conflicts, including the violence initiated by Idi Amin (1970s) and by the second Obote regime (1983–85). Indigenous people in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, have long suffered political and socio-economic deprivations. They have demanded greater political autonomy, improved socio-economic conditions and protection of their cultural heritage, culminating in uprisings against the Mexican state in four municipalities. In South Africa before 1994 the black majority was severely disadvantaged politically and socio-economically. That led to many uprisings between 1976 and the transfer of power in 1993. Catholics in Northern Ireland have suffered economic and political deprivations since the 16th century. The establishment of Northern Ireland as part of the United

Kingdom in the 1920s ensured that Protestants would enjoy permanent political and economic dominance—fuelling demands by northern Catholics to become part of the predominantly Catholic Republic of Ireland. Violent conflict started in the late 1960s and began to ease in the 1990s following systematic efforts to reduce these inequalities. Constitutional crises and coups have occurred in Fiji, notably in 1987 and 1999, as economically sidelined indigenous Fijians have feared losing political control to the economically dominant Indian-origin Fijians. Increasing tensions between Muslims and Christians in Poso, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, began surfacing in the mid-1990s as the Muslim community increasingly gained more than indigenous Christians from new economic policies. Since colonial times the indigenous people of Guatemala have suffered political and economic discrimination, contributing to the country’s ongoing conflicts. The Maoist insurgency launched in Nepal in 1996 may be attributed to deep grievances stemming from the systematic marginalization and exclusion of certain ethnic groups, castes and women.



Creating an environment in which multiple identities flourish begins with encouraging cultural liberty and equality between groups in cultural, political and socio-economic opportunities

group inequality, as in Indonesia and Nepal. The root of conflict in the Solomon Islands was the struggle for scarce and poorly managed resources (box 2.7). In Bolivia the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was forced to resign in October 2003 in large part because of the activism and uprisings of the indigenous majority and their supporters, aroused by their poverty and political marginalization. In Ecuador, too, indigenous groups mobilized around issues of poverty and inequality and joined other groups in protest against the government of Jamil Mahuad, who was forced to resign in January 2000.81 In some cases groups have been both economically and politically deprived (as in Mexico and South Africa), while in others a group may be politically dominant yet economically deprived (as in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Uganda). The industrialized world is not immune to this sort of violence. Race riots in US cities have been linked to severe racial disparities in income and public spending.82 In Northern Ireland the Catholic minority suffered both economic and political discrimination. Statistical evidence supports this in-depth research. A study of 233 groups in 93 countries strongly supports the hypothesis that such inequalities between groups are liable to lead to violence.83

BOX 2.7

Solomon Islands’ ethnic difference not the cause of conflict
In the conflict in the Solomon Islands, ethnicity issues diverted attention from the core issues of land tenure, economic development and more accountable governance that underpinned the protests. The peace agreement, for example, refers to the victims of “ethnic unrest” and the need to restore “ethnic harmony” in the Solomon Islands. But it is naïve and potentially dangerous for would-be peacemakers to view the conflict solely through the lens of interethnic hostility. Situated in a culturally diverse region with more than 1,000 languages, the Solomon Islands (where at least 70 distinct languages are spoken) is a weak and impoverished modern state, incapable of collecting taxes or delivering basic services. With hundreds of tribal groups and small clans known as wantoks, the concept of larger ethnic loyalties is almost as foreign and artificial as the notion of the state.
Source: Ponzio 2004 citing Reilly 2002; Schoorl and Friesen 2000.

Although an ethnic feud on the surface, the recent intense social unrest in the Solomon Islands stems more from the struggle for scarce and poorly managed resources, whose ownership was previously vested in the clan, tribe or line. With the arrival of increasing numbers of migrant workers in the 1990s on the resourcerich island of Guadalcanal, resentment grew among the island’s native settlers. Starting in 1998 armed groups of Guadalcanal youth (known as the Isatabu Freedom Movement, or IFM) engaged in belligerent actions that resulted in the internal displacement of more than 35,000 Solomon Islanders. Clashes ensued, predominantly with inhabitants from the neighbouring island of Malaita, and continued until late 2000 and the signing of an Australian-brokered peace agreement.

Most research on these conflicts has focused on economic and political inequalities, but a lack of cultural recognition can also be important. The introduction of the “Sinhala only” language policy was a strong impetus to the dramatic escalation of conflict in Sri Lanka. Language policy also played a role in the civil war in Moldova. And the Soweto riots in South Africa were triggered not by new economic or political deprivations but by attempts to impose Afrikaans on black schools. The peace agreement that ended more than 30 years of fighting in Guatemala included the Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous People (as part of the general peace accords), which gave official recognition to the country’s multi-ethnicity. The state’s typical response to cultural differences is suppression and assimilation—to build a homogeneous nation. But suppression of cultural liberty is an attack on human development. And attempts to suppress and assimilate can heighten the tensions in society—so much so that they spill over into violent conflict. Multiple identities can reduce conflict. Identities based on common cultural characteristics, such as religion, language or ethnicity, appear to promote stronger loyalty among group members than identities based on other characteristics. From that, leaders have learned that uniting groups based on a single cultural bond may be the best way to “rally the troops”. The idea that individuals have a single rigid identity is divisive and confrontational. There is no question that this has been important in many conflicts. Creating an environment in which multiple identities flourish is no easy task. It begins with encouraging cultural liberty and equality between groups in cultural, political and socioeconomic opportunities. People must be free to choose how to define themselves and must be afforded the same rights and opportunities that their neighbours enjoy. This Report asserts that a main hope for harmony lies in promoting our multiple identities. MYTH 3: CULTURAL


There is no clear relationship, good or bad, between diversity and development. An argument



Diversity—from divisive to inclusive
On 27 April 1994 the people of South Africa founded a nation on the pledge that we would undo the legacy of our divided past in order to build a better life for all. It was not a pledge that we made lightly. For generations, millions had been deliberately reduced to poverty. And to perpetuate itself, the apartheid system that claimed to be ordained from on high was sustained only by brute force, robbing us all of our humanity— oppressed and oppressor alike. For decades we had fought for a non-racial, non-sexist society, and even before we came into power in the historic elections of 1994, our vision of democracy was defined by the principle, among others, that no person or groups of persons shall be subjected to oppression, domination or discrimination by virtue of race, gender, ethnic origin, colour or creed. Once we won power, we chose to regard the diversity of colours and languages that had once been used to divide us as a source of strength. We ensured that the basic law of our land, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, promoted unity and gave unique attention to social and economic rights. Our path of inclusiveness was not new, nor had it been chosen in haste. For decades the African National Congress had promoted national unity, and even at the height of oppression, when racial interaction led to prison and death, we never gave up on our aim to build a society grounded on friendship and common humanity. Now, although laws no longer enforce the old divisions, they are still visible in social and economic life, in our residential areas, in our workplaces and in the growing inequality between rich and poor. When we took on the project to transform our society, one of our rallying cries was “freedom from want”. Our goal was to banish hunger, illiteracy and homelessness and ensure that everyone had access to food, education and housing. We saw freedom as inseparable from human dignity and equality. Now the foundation for a better life has been laid, and construction has begun. We are fully aware that our freedom and our rights will only gain their full meaning as we succeed together in overcoming the divisions and inequalities of our past and in improving the lives of all, especially the poor. Today, we are starting to reap some of the harvest we sowed at the end of a South African famine. Many in the international community, observing from a distance how our society defied the prophets of doom and their predictions of endless conflict, have spoken of a miracle. Yet those who have been closely involved in the transition will know that it has been the product of human decision.

Nelson Mandela 1993 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

for suppressing cultural groups and encouraging assimilation is that cultural diversity hampers development. Historically, one of the ideological backbones of the nation-state is that it functions much more effectively if it has a single cultural identity. Much fuel for that argument today comes from Sub-Saharan Africa. A region rich in diversity but struggling with economic growth and development leads to speculation that diversity itself might be the cause of the problem. But the literature reveals an important distinction: problems arise not simply when diverse groups live together but also when tensions between these groups lead to inefficient political decision-making and disproportionate access for one or more groups to material resources and patronage.84 In Kenya, for example, President Daniel arap Moi took over from Jomo Kenyatta in 1978. By 1988 the share of road building in the “home regions” of the Kenyatta coalition was a third of what it had been at the end of the Kenyatta years, while road building in the Moi home regions almost doubled. The picture was similar for health spending in 1988, which was

18% in the regions of the Kenyatta coalition and 49% in the regions of the Moi coalition.85 The way to overall economic growth, and to high levels of health and education, is to formulate policies for the country, not for interest groups. Interest group politics are a problem in all countries, not just the culturally diverse. Indeed, the purpose of democracies is to manage conflicting interests through a transparent political system and open dialogue. Many established and prosperous democracies are constantly balancing the interests of powerful groups and those of the country. In culturally diverse countries that are performing poorly, how much can diversity be blamed? Many of the poorest countries face enormous hurdles: high levels of HIV/AIDS and malaria, low levels of education, a location far from world markets. Resolving the tensions between groups is clearly not going to solve these problems. Consider Botswana, a homogeneous country with a stable political situation—and the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the world. Again, the idea that diversity is bad for development is demolished by the many success stories of societies that recognize diversity.



Attempts to suppress and assimilate diverse cultural groups are not only morally wrong—they are often ineffective, heightening tensions

Malaysia, with 62% of its people Malays and other indigenous groups, 30% ethnic Chinese and 8% Indian, was the world’s 10th fastest growing economy during 1970–90, years when it implemented a broad range of affirmative action policies.86 India has managed its diverse cultures with pluralist policies and 15 official languages—and made remarkable progress in economic growth and in health and education. These success stories of culturally diverse countries point to the importance of pluralist policies. To the extent that cultural diversity can lead to tensions between groups and to inefficient political decision-making, the solution lies in reducing these tensions. As this Report argues from beginning to end, attempts to suppress and assimilate diverse cultural groups are not only morally wrong—they are often ineffective, heightening tensions. Needed instead are accommodating pluralist policies for incorporating individuals with diverse cultural identities into society. Economic benefits of migration. A special case in the relationship between diversity and development is migration to the more developed countries. Unlike managing existing diversity, accepting economic migrants—or turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants looking for work—is a clear policy decision to increase diversity for economic gain. The positive impact of migration on the ageing demographic profile of the West lies behind softer approaches to economic migration. Large inflows of migrants are needed for countries to maintain the ratio of working to nonworking citizens—the European Union needs about 3 million immigrants a year, roughly twice the current number.87 Immigrants also bring entrepreneurial skills—30% of the new companies in Silicon Valley in California in 1995–98 were started by Chinese and Indian immigrants (these ideas are further developed in chapter 5).88 And while debate continues on the brain drain from developing countries, the economic benefits of migration are not just one way. Remittances have soared, adding up to $80 billion in 2002, outstripping foreign aid and providing one of the biggest sources of revenue for some poor countries.89

But there are losers as well as winners. People already residing in the country feel threatened by the new immigrants and unfairly treated, through perceptions about a depressing impact on wages and employment. Key issues arise for the immigrants too. Needed for their labour and not their culture, their cultural freedoms are often not protected. Chapter 5 looks at the delicate policy balances of ensuring the benefits of migration while avoiding growing tensions between groups within a country and the negative consequences that can follow. Diversity and dynamism through an exchange of ideas. Diverse societies can reap real benefits through the dynamism and creativity arising from the interactions of different cultural groups. Such effects are not easy to capture. They are most visible at the international level, where benefits can accrue from interactions between countries through trade and a sharing of experiences. A key element in Japan’s emergence as one of the world’s richest economies was a reversal of isolationist policies, with a firm commitment to “seek knowledge throughout the world”.90, 91 And Arab Human Development Report 2003 identifies the lack of openness to ideas as a major factor holding back progress in that region.92 Effects within countries can be similar. The United States is the leading example of a country founded on diversity and tolerance where enormous economic success has followed. Benefits can come directly from interactions between groups. And businesses and entrepreneurs can be drawn to cities and societies where cultural freedom and diversity flourish. A study by the Brookings Institution finds that 11 of the metropolitan areas in the United States with the highest overall diversity are among the top 15 high-technology areas.93 The implication is that diverse and tolerant environments foster the creation and innovation necessary for high-technology industries. TODAY’S CHALLENGES FOR CULTURAL LIBERTY This Report argues that multicultural approaches to managing diversity (see table 2.2) need not end in conflict, fragmentation and weak



development. Indeed, such approaches may help avoid problems by easing tensions before they become acute. In the big picture the arguments for these policies are clear. But for policy-makers the contradictions, trade-offs and clashes with other aspects of human development can monopolize their attention. For example, should London provide instruction in the 300 different languages that students in its state schools speak when there is so much demand for resources elsewhere? Does affirmative action violate principles of equity? How can a secular state balance the varying needs of religious groups? These are difficult questions. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

In some areas policies for cultural recognition will not interfere with human development. In others innovative policy solutions are needed to manage trade-offs. As the following chapters show, the tensions and policy trade-offs can be managed, despite what current discourse might suggest, especially where the costs have been exaggerated and the benefits ignored. In a world where about 900 million people belong to groups that experience cultural exclusion in some form, promoting cultural liberty is an enormous challenge. Almost twice as many people are discriminated against or disadvantaged socially, economically or politically. The rest of this Report focuses on the policy issues for addressing the challenges to cultural liberty.




Building multicultural democracies

Chapter 2 chronicles the widespread suppression of cultural liberty and the discrimination based on cultural identity—ethnic, religious and linguistic. How can states be more inclusive? Democracy, equitable development and state cohesion are essential. But also needed are multicultural policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences. But such policies are resisted because ruling elites want to keep their power, and so they play on the flawed assumptions of the “myths” detailed in chapter 2. And these policies are challenged for being undemocratic and inequitable. This chapter argues that multicultural policies are not only desirable but also feasible and necessary. That individuals can have multiple and complementary identities. That cultures, far from fixed, are constantly evolving. And that equitable outcomes can be achieved by recognizing cultural differences. This chapter also argues that states can formulate policies of cultural recognition in ways that do not contradict other goals and strategies of human development, such as consolidating democracy, building a capable state and fostering more equal socio-economic opportunities. To do this, states need to recognize cultural differences in their constitutions, their laws and their institutions.1 They also need to formulate policies to ensure that the interests of particular groups—whether minorities or historically marginalized majorities—are not ignored or overriden by the majority or by other dominant groups.2 RESOLVING STATE DILEMMAS IN

Pursuing multicultural policies is not easy—given the complexities and controversial trade-offs— and opponents of such policies criticize multicultural interventions on several grounds. Some believe that such policies undermine the building of a cohesive nation state with a homogeneous

cultural identity, the dominant political project of the 20th century. Most states influenced by this thinking were deeply committed to fostering a single, homogeneous national identity with a shared sense of history, values and beliefs. Recognition of ethno-cultural diversity, especially of organized, politically active and culturally differentiated groups and minorities, was viewed as a serious threat to state unity, destabilizing to the political and social unity achieved after historic struggles3 (feature 3.1). Other critics, often classical liberals, argue that group distinctions—such as reserved seats in parliaments for ethnic groups, special advantages in access to jobs, or the wearing of religious symbols—contradict principles of individual equality. The issues at stake are further complicated by demands for cultural recognition by groups that are not internally democratic or representative of all their members, or by demands that restrict rather than expand freedoms. Demands to continue traditional practices—such as the hierarchies of caste in Hindu society—may reflect the interests of the dominant group in communities intent on preserving traditional sources of power and authority, rather than the interests of all members of the group.4 Legitimizing such claims could risk solidifying undemocratic practices in the name of “tradition” and “authenticity”.5 It is an ongoing challenge to respond to these kinds of political claims. Everywhere around the world these demands for cultural recognition and the critical responses to them also reflect historical injustices and inequities. In much of the developing world contemporary complications of cultural identity are intertwined with long histories of colonial rule and its societal consequences. Colonial views of cultural groups as fixed categories, formalized through colonial policies of divide and rule (racial and ethnic categories in the Caribbean6 or religious categories in

How can states be more inclusive? Democracy, equitable development and state cohesion are essential. But also needed are multicultural policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences



Feature 3.1 State unity or ethnocultural identity? Not an inevitable choice
Historically, states have tried to establish and enhance their political legitimacy through nationbuilding strategies. They sought to secure their territories and borders, expand the administrative reach of their institutions and acquire the loyalty and obedience of their citizens through policies of assimilation or integration. Attaining these objectives was not easy, especially in a context of cultural diversity where citizens, in addition to their identification with their country, might also feel a strong sense of identity with their community—ethnic, religious, linguistic and so on. Most states feared that the recognition of such difference would lead to social fragmentation and prevent the creation of a harmonious society. In short, such identity politics was considered a threat to state unity. In addition, accommodating these differences is politically challenging, so many states have resorted to either suppressing these diverse identities or ignoring them in the political domain. Policies of assimilation—often involving outright suppression of the identities of ethnic, religious or linguistic groups—try to erode the cultural differences between groups. Policies of integration seek to assert a single national identity by attempting to eliminate ethno-national and cultural differences from the public and political arena, while allowing them in the private domain.1 Both sets of policies assume a singular national identity. Nation building strategies privileging singular identities Assimilationist and integrationist strategies try to establish singular national identities through various interventions:2 • Centralization of political power, eliminating forms of local sovereignty or autonomy historically enjoyed by minority groups, so that all important decisions are made in forums where the dominant group constitutes a majority. • Construction of a unified legal and judicial system, operating in the dominant group’s language and using its legal traditions, and the abolition of any pre-existing legal systems used by minority groups. • Adoption of official-language laws, which define the dominant group’s language as the only official national language to be used in the bureaucracy, courts, public services, the army, higher education and other official institutions. • Construction of a nationalized system of compulsory education promoting standardized curricula and teaching the dominant group’s language, literature and history and defining them as the “national” language, literature and history. • Diffusion of the dominant group’s language and culture through national cultural institutions, including state-run media and public museums. • Adoption of state symbols celebrating the dominant group’s history, heroes and culture, reflected in such things as the choice of national holidays or the naming of streets, buildings and geographic characteristics. • Seizure of lands, forests and fisheries from minority groups and indigenous people and declaring them “national” resources. • Adoption of settlement policies encouraging members of the dominant national group to settle in areas where minority groups historically resided. • Adoption of immigration policies that give preference to immigrants who share the same language, religion or ethnicity as the dominant group. These strategies of assimilation and integration sometimes worked to ensure political stability, but at risk of terrific human cost and denial of human choice. At worst, coercive assimilation involved genocidal assaults and explusions of some groups. In less extreme cases these strategies involved many forms of cultural exclusion, as documented in chapter 2, that made it difficult for people to maintain their ways of life, language and religion or to hand down their values to their children. People feel strongly about such matters, and so resentment often festered. In today’s world of increasing democratization and global networks policies that deny cultural freedoms are less and less acceptable. People are increasingly assertive about protesting assimilation without choice. Assimilation policies were easier to pursue with illiterate peasant populations, as with Turkey’s language reform in 1928 propagating a single language and script. But with the rapid spread of a culture of universal human rights these conditions are fast disappearing. Efforts to impose such a strategy would be greatly challenged today. In any case the historical evidence suggests that there need be no contradiction between a commitment to one national identity and recognition of diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic identities.3 Bolstering multiple and complementary identities If a country’s constitution insists on the notion of a single people, as in Israel and Slovakia, it



Multiple and complementary national identities
Multiple and complementary identities

Percent 0






Spain Catalonia Basque Country Galicia Only Cat/ Basque/Gal More Cat/Basque/ Galthan Spanish As Spanish as Cat/Basque/Gal More Spanish than Cat/Basque/Gal Only Spanish

Percent 0 20

Multiple and complementary identities





Belgium Wallonia Flanders Brussels More Flemish/ Only Flemish/ Walloon Walloon than Belgian As Belgian as Flemish/Walloon More Belgian than Flemish/Walloon Only Belgian



becomes difficult to find the political space to articulate the demands of other ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous people. Constitutions that recognize multiple and complementary identities, as in South Africa,4 enable political, cultural and socio-economic recognition of distinct groups. A cursory look around the globe shows that national identity need not imply a single homogeneous cultural identity. Efforts to impose one can lead to social tensions and conflicts. A state can be multi-ethnic, multilingual and multireligious.5 It can be explicitly binational (Belgium) or multi-ethnic (India). Citizens can have a solid commitment both to their state identity and to their own cultural (or distinct national) identity.6 Belgium and Spain show how appropriate policies can foster multiple and complementary identities (figure 1). Appropriate policies— undertaken by Belgium since the 1830s and in Spain since its 1978 Constitution—can diminish polarization between groups within society, with the majority of citizens now asserting multiple and complementary identities. Obviously, if people felt loyalty and affection only for their own group, the larger state could fall apart—consider the former Yugoslavia.

Countries such as Iceland, the Republic of Korea and Portugal are close to the ideal of a culturally homogeneous nation-state. But over time even states known for their homogeneity can be challenged by waves of immigration, as has happened in the Netherlands and Sweden. Fostering trust, support and identification among all groups to build a democratic “state nation’’ The solution could be to create institutions and polices that allow for both self-rule that creates a sense of belonging and a pride in one’s ethnic group and for shared rule that creates attachment to a set of common institutions and symbols. An alternative to the nation state, then, is the “state nation”, where various “nations”—be they ethnic, religious, linguistic or indigenous identities— can coexist peacefully and cooperatively in a single state polity.7 Case studies and analyses demonstrate that enduring democracies can be established in polities that are multicultural. Explicit efforts are required to end the cultural exclusion of diverse groups (as highlighted in the Spanish and Belgian cases) and to build multiple and complementary identities. Such responsive policies provide incentives to build a feeling of unity in diversity—



Trust, support and identification: poor and diverse countries can do well with multicultural policies
Support for democracy
Democracy is preferable to any other form of government (%) 1996–98a

Trust in institutions
Great deal, quite (%) 1995–97a

National identification
How proud are you to be a national of… Great deal, quite (%) 1995–97a United States Canadac Australia Austria India Argentina Belgium








India Chile Brazil Korea, Rep. of Canadac Austriab Brazil Germany Spain Switzerland Belgiumb United States Australia



30 20


a “we” feeling. Citizens can find the institutional and political space to identify with both their country and their other cultural identities, to build their trust in common institutions and to participate in and support democratic politics. All of these are key factors in consolidating and deepening democracies and building enduring “state-nations”. India’s constitution incorporates this notion. Although India is culturally diverse, comparative surveys of long-standing democracies including India show that it has been very cohesive, despite its diversity. But modern India is facing a grave challenge to its constitutional commitment to multiple and complementary identities with the rise of groups that seek to impose a singular Hindu identity on the country. These threats undermine the sense of inclusion and violate the rights of minorities in India today.8 Recent communal violence raises serious concerns for the prospects for social harmony and threatens to undermine the country’s earlier achievements. And these achievements have been considerable. Historically, India’s constitutional design recognized and responded to distinct group claims and enabled the polity to hold together despite enormous regional, linguistic and cultural diversity.9 As evident from India’s performance on indicators of identification, trust and support (figure 2), its citizens are deeply committed to the country and to democracy, despite the country’s diverse and highly stratified society. This performance is particularly impressive when compared with that of other long-standing—and wealthier—democracies. The challenge is in reinvigorating India’s commitment to practices of pluralism, institutional accommodation and conflict resolution through democratic means. Critical for building a multicultural democracy is a recognition of the shortcomings of historical nation-building exercises and of the benefits of multiple and complementary identities. Also important are efforts to build the loyalties of all groups in society through identification, trust and support. National cohesion does not require the imposition of a single identity and the denunciation of diversity. Successful strategies to build ”state-nations” can and do accommodate diversity constructively by crafting responsive policies of cultural recognition. They are effective solutions for ensuring the longer terms objectives of political stability and social harmony.
Source: Bhargava 2004; Kymlicka 2004; Stepan, Linz and Yadav 2004.


Note: Percentages exclude ‘don’t know/no answer’ replies. a. The most recent year available during the period specified. b. Data refer to 1992. c. The most recent year during the period 1990–93.



Redressing the cultural exclusion of minorities and other marginalized groups requires explicit multicultural policies to ensure cultural recognition

South Asia, for example), continue to have profound consequences.7 Contemporary states thus cannot hope to address these problems without some appreciation of the historical legacies of racism, slavery and colonial conquest. But while multicultural policies thus must confront complexity and challenges in balancing cultural recognition and state unity, successful resolution is possible (see feature 3.1). Many states have accommodated diverse groups and extended their cultural freedoms without compromising their unity or territorial integrity. Policy interventions to minimize exclusive and conflictual political identities have often prevented or helped to end violent conflict. Policies of multicultural accommodation have also enhanced state capacity and promoted social harmony by bolstering multiple and complementary identities. Redressing the cultural exclusion of minorities and other marginalized groups requires more than providing for their civil and political freedoms through instruments of majoritarian democracy and equitable socio-economic policies.8 It requires explicit multicultural policies to ensure cultural recognition.9 This chapter

explores how states are integrating cultural recognition into their human development strategies in five areas: • Policies for ensuring the political participation of diverse cultural groups. • Policies on religion and religious practice • Policies on customary law and legal pluralism. • Policies on the use of multiple languages. • Policies for redressing socio-economic exclusion. POLICIES FOR ENSURING THE POLITICAL

BOX 3.1

A rough guide to federalism
Federalism is a system of political organization based on a constitutionally guaranteed balance between shared rule and self-rule. It involves at least two levels of government— a central authority and its constituent regional units. The constituent units enjoy autonomy and power over constitutionally defined subjects—they can also play a role in shaping the policies of the central government. The degree and scope of autonomy varies widely. Some countries, such as Brazil, grant considerable powers to their regions. Others, such as Argentina, retain overriding control at the centre. Some other important distinctions: Coming together or holding together. In “coming together” federal arrangements, as in Australia or Switzerland, the regions chose to form a single federal polity. In “holding together” arrangements, such as in Belgium, Canada and Spain, the central government devolved political authority to the regions to maintain a single unified state.
Source: Stepan 2001.

One identity or many. “Mono-national” or “national” federations assert a single national identity, as in Australia, Austria and Germany. “Multi-national” federations, such as Malaysia and Switzerland, constitutionally recognize multiple identities. Other states combine the two. India and Spain assert a single national identity but recognize plural aspects of their heterogeneous polity—say, by accommodating diverse linguistic groups. Symmetric or asymmetric. In symmetric federalism the constituent units have identical—that is symmetric—powers, relations and obligations relative to the central authority and each other, as in Australia. In asymmetric federalism some provinces enjoy different powers. In Canada, for example, asymmetric federal powers provided a way of reconciling Quebec to the federal system by awarding it specific powers connected to the protection and promotion of French-Canadian language and culture.

Many minorities and other historically marginalized groups are excluded from real political power and so feel alienated from the state (chapter 2). In some cases the exclusion is due to a lack of democracy or a denial of political rights. If so, moving to democracy will help. But something more is required, because even when members of such groups have equal political rights in a democracy, they may be consistently underrepresented or outvoted, and so view the central government as alien and oppressive. Not surprisingly, many minorities resist alien or oppressive rule and seek more political power. That is why a multicultural conception of democracy is often required. Several models of multicultural democracies have developed in recent years that provide effective mechanisms of power sharing between culturally diverse groups. Such arrangements are crucial for securing the rights of diverse cultural groups and for preventing violations of these rights by majoritarian imposition or by the political dominance of the ruling elite. Considered here are two broad categories of democratic arrangements in which culturally diverse groups and minorities can share power within political processes and state institutions. The first involves sharing power territorially through federalism and its various forms. Federal arrangements involve establishing territorial subunits within a state for minorities to exercise considerable autonomy (box 3.1). This form of power-sharing arrangement is relevant where minorities are territorially concentrated and where they have a tradition of self-government that they are unwilling to surrender.



The second category of arrangements involves power sharing through consociations, using a series of instruments to ensure the participation of culturally diverse groups dispersed throughout the country. These arrangements address claims made by groups that are not territorially concentrated or do not demand autonomy or self-rule. Consociations are based on the principle of proportionality: the ethnic or cultural composition of society is proportionally mirrored in the institutions of the state. Achieving proportionality requires specific mechanisms and policies. Electoral arrangements such as proportional representation can better reflect group composition, as can the use of reserved seats and quotas in the executive and legislature. Both federal and consociational types of power-sharing arrangements are common around the world. Neither is a panacea, but there are many successful examples of both. This chapter looks at a particular kind of federal arrangement and some specific mechanisms of consociation that are particularly suited to enabling the political participation of diverse cultural groups. POWER


Federalism provides practical ways of managing conflict in multicultural societies10 through democratic and representative institutions—and of enabling people to live together even as they maintain their diversity.11 Sometimes the political demands of culturally diverse groups can be accommodated by explicitly recognizing group diversity and treating particular regions differently from others on specific issues. In such “asymmetric” federal systems the powers granted to subunits are not identical. Some regions have different areas of autonomy from others. Federal states can thus accommodate some subunits by recognizing specific distinctions in their political, administrative and economic structures, as Malaysia did when the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak joined the federation in 1963. This allows greater flexibility to respond to distinct demands and to accommodate diversity. These special measures enable territorially concentrated group distinctions to politically coexist with the central

authority, thereby reducing violent clashes and demands for secession. There are several flourishing examples of such entities. Almost every peaceful, longstanding democracy that is ethnically diverse is not only federal but asymmetrically so. For instance, Belgium is divided into three regions (the Walloon, Flemish, and Brussels-Capital regions), two established according to linguistic criteria (the Walloon region for French- and German-speaking people and the Flemish region for Dutch-speaking people). The Swiss federation also encompasses different linguistic and cultural identities. In Spain the status of “comunidades autónomas” has been accorded to the Basque country, Catalonia, Galicia and 14 other entities. These communities have been granted a broad, and widely varying, range of autonomous powers in such areas as culture, education, language and economy. The three historic regions were given distinct areas of autonomy and self-rule. The Basque communities and Navarra have been granted explicit tax and expenditure powers beyond those of other autonomous communities. Spain’s willingness to accommodate the distinct demands of its regions has helped to mitigate conflicts and separatist movements. Such proactive interventions have helped to foster acceptance of multiple identities and to marginalize the exclusive ones—identities solely as Basque, Galician, Catalan or Spanish (see feature 3.1). Many federations have failed, however.12 Federal arrangements that attempted to create ethnically “pure” mono-national subterritories have broken down in many parts of the world. Yugoslavia is a prominent example. The federal arrangements were not democratic. The units in the federation had been “put together” and were ruled with highly unequal shares of political and economic power among the key groups, an arrangement that fostered ethnic conflict that eventually became territorial conflict, and the federation fell apart. This collapse is sometimes attributed to a flawed federal design that failed to establish free and democratic processes and institutions through which ethnic groups could articulate multiple identities and build complementarity. Instead it reinforced demands for separation, thus ending in political disintegration.

Several models of multicultural democracies provide effective mechanisms of power sharing between culturally diverse groups



The success of federal arrangements depends on careful design and the political will to enhance the system’s democratic functioning

The success of federal arrangements depends on careful design and the political will to enhance the system’s democratic functioning. What matters is whether the arrangements accommodate important differences, yet buttress national loyalties. For example, federal structures that merely respond to demands for the designation of “exclusive” or “mono-national” homerepublics for ethnic groups may go against the idea of multiple and complementary identities. Such political deals, and communal concessions that do not foster loyalty to common institutions, can introduce divisive tendencies in the polity, which present ongoing challenges, as in the case of Nigeria (box 3.2). In addition, history shows that asymmetric federalism, introduced early enough, can help reduce the likelihood of violent secessionist movements. The avoidance of violent conflict through various federal arrangements introduced in the early stages of emerging secessionist movements

is often worth much more than the administrative costs that such arrangements incur.13 Many states fear that self-rule or “home rule” could undermine their unity and integrity. Yet many states have granted territorial autonomy without negative consequences. These efforts to enhance group representation and participation have sometimes staved off political violence and secessionist movements. For example, after decades-long struggle, the First Nations people of northern Canada negotiated a political agreement14 with the federal government to create the self-governing territory of Nunavut in 1999.15 In Panama several indigenous people—the Bri Bri, Bugle, Embera, Kuna, Naso, Ngobe and Wounaan—have constituted semiautonomous regions governed by local councils. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expresses the world’s agreement that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they

BOX 3.2

The challenge of federalism: Nigeria’s troubled political trajectory and prospects
Nigeria is home to more than 350 ethnic groups, but more than half the country’s 121 million people belong to three main groups: the HausaFulani, Muslims in the north; the Yoruba, followers of both Christian and Islamic faiths, in the South-West; and the Igbo, most of whom are Christians, in the South-East. Smaller groups have tended to cluster around these three groups, creating unstable and ethnically divisive politics. Africa’s largest country has had a troubled political history marked by military coups and failed civilian governments. The country has had military governments for 28 of its 44 years of independence. Nigeria is attempting to ensure that its return to civilian rule after 16 years of dictatorship under the Abacha regime will be a genuine process of democratic consolidation. The 1999 Constitution addresses the two concerns of an excessively powerful centre and parochial concerns at the state levels, as well as the unhealthy dynamic of patronage, rent-seeking and competition between these levels. It has instituted several reforms, including: • Gradually dissolving the three federal regimes inherited from the colonial era and replacing them with a decentralized system of 36 states and 775 local governments. The three regions were transformed into four in 1963. The 4 regions became 12 states in 1967, 19 in
Source: Bangura 2004; Lewis 2003; Rotimi 2001.

1976, 21 in 1987, 30 in 1991 and 36 in 1999. The hope was that this would encourage more flexible ethnic loyalties and alliances. More immediately, this expanding federal structure has helped contain local ethnic disputes, diffusing the power of the three major ethnic groups and preventing the absolute domination of the more than 350 smaller minority groups. Devising electoral rules to produce governments that would enjoy broadly national and majority support. In the elections for the Second Republic of 1979–83, a presidential candidate with a plurality of the votes could be declared winner only after obtaining at least 25% of the votes in two-thirds of the states. The 1999 Constitution updated the threshold rule: to compete for the elections a party must secure at least 5% of the votes cast in at least 25 of the 36 states in local government elections. While the threshold rule relating to party formation was rescinded in 2003, the threshold rule for declaring a party the winner, and thus for forming a government, still holds, encouraging the formation of multi-ethnic parties. Many other issues of federal relations introduced by the 1999 Constitution continue to be hotly contested, including those on revenues, property rights, legal codes and states’ prerogatives.

Instituting affirmative action policies in education and the civil service. This has come to include rotation of the presidency among six geopolitical zones: north-west, northeast, north-central, south-west, south-east and south-central and appointment of at least one federal minister from each of the 36 states according to the zoning principle. These measures provide a functional framework for economic distribution that tries to avoid unitary and centralizing excesses and domination by the centre. The return of democracy has reanimated regional, ethnic, religious and local identities and intensified communal mobilization. This has led to the social violence that has engulfed the country since the return to civilian rule, whereas previously such conflicts were coercively suppressed by the military regimes. Political stability in Nigeria is still threatened by massive structural socio-economic inequalities between the North and South, the high level of state dependence on federally collected oil revenues and the intense competition and corruption of public life linked to its distribution—and the unresolved question of rotating the presidency between the six ethno-political zones, which has incited violence and ethnic cleavages. The challenges are tremendous—and ongoing.



freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. The application of this principle to people within independent states and to indigenous people remains controversial. The constitutions of such countries as Mexico and the Philippines have taken some steps to recognize the rights of indigenous people to selfdetermination, but others avoid it. One of the legal instruments indigenous people have used to mobilize around these issues is the International Labour Organization’s Convention (169) Concerning Indigeonous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, passed in 1989 and open for ratification since 1990.16 As of 2003 it had only 17 signatories—Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.17 Chile’s Congress has voted against several initiatives in this direction. The Organization of Africa Unity approved the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, but nowhere is the term “people” defined. Another sign that these struggles for cultural recognition have entered the global debate is the recent meetings of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations. Political developments seem to be concentrated in regions of the world that have explicitly recognized claims of indigenous people, who have mobilized to contest their exclusion. Some see such mobilizations as politically disruptive—as their violent and reactionary versions can be—but these movements also reflect greater awareness of cultural liberty. States can no longer afford to ignore or suppress these claims. There have been some imaginative initiatives to grant autonomy and self-rule, especially when groups extend across national boundaries. An example is the Council for Cooperation on Sami issues set up jointly by Finland, Norway and Sweden. POWER


Consociation applies the principle of proportionality in four key areas: through executive

power sharing, proportional representation in electoral systems, provisions for cultural autonomy, and safeguards in the form of mutual vetoes. These instruments can help to prevent one segment of society from imposing its views on another. In their most effective form they can help to reflect the diverse cultural composition of a society in its state institutions. Consociation arrangements are sometimes criticized as undemocratic because they are seen as an instrument of elite dominance, through the co-option of opposition or vulnerable groups.18 But they need not involve a “grand coalition” of parties: they require only cross-community representation in the executive and legislature. The challenge is to ensure that neither self-rule (for minorities) nor shared rule (of the state as a whole) outweighs the other. These arrangements also have to be addressed through prudent and responsible politics. This section focuses on two mechanisms of consociations—executive power sharing and proportional representation—that prevent the dominance of a majority community.19 From a constitutional point of view measures that privilege minorities in election procedures raise questions of equal treatment. But small and scattered minorities do not stand a chance of being represented in majoritarian democracies without assistance. Executive power sharing can protect their interests. Proportionality in such political and executive arrangements mirrors the diverse composition of society in its state institutions. Belize, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago have long used power-sharing mechanisms to address racial and ethnic divisions, with varying success.20 The mechanisms involve elements of autonomy (self-government for each community) and integration (joint government of all the communities). Political power is shared in executives, in legislatures and (in principle) in judiciaries.21 Care has to be taken to ensure that a minority’s potential for winning the appropriate number of seats is not sabotaged—as in Northern Ireland. During the era of “home rule” from 1920 to 1972 constituencies were repeatedly gerrymandered to the disadvantage of the Catholic nationalist parties and others and in favour of the

Another sign that these struggles for cultural recognition have entered the global debate is the recent meetings of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations



Exclusion may be less direct and perhaps even unintended, as when the public calendar does not recognize a minority’s religious holidays

dominant Ulster Unionist Party, which governed uninterrupted, often without taking the interests of the nationalist minority into account. This eventually provoked a long-lasting reaction of conflict and violence. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 sought to avoid repeating this history. The agreement calls for key decisions at the Assembly of Northern Ireland to be decided on a “cross-community basis”. This requires either parallel consent of both blocs independently or in a weighted majority of 60% of votes, with 40% of voting members of each bloc.22 The idea is that no important decision can be taken without some support from both sides, providing a framework for negotiation. In Belgium the Assembly and Senate are divided into language groups—one Dutch- and one French-speaking group, with the Germanspeaking group defined as a part of the French group. Certain key questions have to be decided by a majority in each group and by an overall majority of two-thirds of votes. In majoritarian democracy the majority rules; in consociational democracies power-sharing majorities from all groups rule. Proportional representation, another instrument of consociation, allows each significant community to be represented politically in rough accord with its share of the population, particularly when parties are ethnically based. Even when they are not, proportional representation provides greater incentives for political parties to seek votes from dispersed groups who do not form majorities in any particular geographical constituency—and this also boosts minority representation. Proportional representation does not guarantee successful accommodation, and a winner-takes-all system can sometimes be compatible with multinational and multilingual federations, as Canada and India have demonstrated. But both countries also use other measures to ensure political representation for various groups, and winner-takes-all systems can also lead to tyrannies of the majority. None of the many electoral rules of proportional representation provide perfect proportionality. But they can address the problem of winner-takes-all systems and enable greater representation of minorities and other groups, as shown in the impact of recent reforms in

New Zealand (box 3.3).23 Proportional representation is most effective in stable democracies and can remedy some of the major deficiencies of majoritarian electoral systems by strengthening the electoral voice of minorities. Proportional representation is not the sole solution in all circumstances. Innovations in winner-takes-all systems can also bolster the voice of minorities, though such arrangements are considerably more difficult to engineer. Other approaches to ensuring representation of cultural minorities include reserving seats for certain groups, as New Zealand does for the Maoris,24 India for scheduled tribes and castes and Croatia for Hungarians, Italians, Germans and others. Reserved seats and quotas are sometimes criticized because they “fix” peoples’ identities and preferences in the electoral mechanism. And negotiating quotas and reservations can lead to conflict and grievances. In Lebanon Muslim grievances over a quota of 6:5 seats in the parliament between Christians and Muslims, fixed on the basis of the 1932 census, became an important source of tension and led to civil war when the demographic weight of the two communities changed.25 These approaches can be more problematic than proportional electoral systems, which leave people free to choose their identifications. POLICIES ON RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS

As chapter 2 shows, many religious minorities around the world suffer various forms of exclusion. In some cases this is due to explicit discrimination against a religious minority—a problem particularly common in non-secular countries where the state has the task of upholding and promoting an established religion. But in other cases the exclusion may be less direct and perhaps even unintended, as when the public calendar does not recognize a minority’s religious holidays, or the dress codes in public institutions conflict with a minority’s religious dress, or state rules on marriage and inheritance differ from those of a minority religion, or zoning regulations conflict with a minority’s burial practices. These sorts of conflicts can arise even in secular states. Given the profound importance of religion to people’s identities, it is not surprising that



BOX 3.3

Proportional representation or winner takes all? New Zealand makes a switch
Majoritarian democracies have a dismal record on political participation by minorities, underrepresenting them and marginalizing their electoral voice. How can multicultural societies be more inclusive and ensure adequate participation of minorities and other marginalized cultural groups? One way is through proportional representation rather than winner-takes-all systems. In winner-takes-all (also called first-past-thepost) systems, the political party with the most votes gets a majority of the legislative seats. In the United Kingdom, for example, a party can (and often does) win less than 50% of the vote but gets a much bigger share of seats in the House of Commons. In the 2001 election the Labour party won 41% of the vote and walked away with 61% of the seats. In the same election Liberal Democrats received 19.4% of the vote but only 7.5% of the seats. In proportional representation systems legislatures are elected from multiseat districts in proportion to the number of votes received: 20% of the popular vote wins 20% of the seats. Because winner-takes-all systems exclude those who do not support the views of the party in power, they do not lend themselves to culturally inclusive environments. But in proportional representation systems parties that get a significant number of votes are likely to get a share of power. As a rule, then, proportional representation voting systems provide a more accurate reflection of public opinion and are likely to foster the inclusion of minorities (as long as minorities organize themselves in political form).
Source: O’Leary 2004; Boothroyd 2004; Nagel 2004.

Several multicultural states rely on proportional representation systems, including Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Guyana and Latvia. In Western Europe 21 of 28 countries use some form of proportional representation. Critics of proportional representation argue that the incorporation of fragmented groups could lead to unstable, inefficient governments, with shifting coalitions; Italy is often cited. But such problems are neither endemic nor insurmountable. Indeed, several mechanisms can prevent stalemates and deadlocks. For example, instituting minimum vote requirements, as in Germany, or changing the number of districts to reflect the geographic dispersion of public opinion can alleviate these problems while maintaining inclusive legislative systems. And stalemate and deadlock may be preferable to a minority imposing its will on the majority—as often happens with governments elected under winner-takes-all systems. Others resist these policies on grounds that such changes would entail tremendous upheavals and political instability—as feared by the political elite in many Latin American countries where indigenous populations are increasingly demanding greater political voice and representation. However, this argument cannot be used to defend policies that result in the continued exclusion of certain groups and sections. Transitions to prudent politics that encourage greater participation and enable more effective representation are possible, as the experiences of other democratic countries show.

Largely to address the underrepresentation of the indigenous Maori population, New Zealand in 1993 voted to undertake a major electoral reform, from winner takes all to proportional representation. Colonial legislation dating to 1867 assigned 4 of the 99 seats in government to the Maori, far short of their 15% share in the population. Voters chose a mixedmember proportional system, a hybrid in which half the legislative seats come from single-seat, winner-takes-all districts and half are allocated according to the percentage of votes won by each party. New Zealand also incorporated a “dual constituency” system in which individuals of Maori descent were given the option of voting either for an individual from the Maori roll or for an individual on the general electoral roll. Maori seats are allocated based on the Maori census and by the proportion of Maori individuals who choose to register on the Maori roll. New Zealand’s first election under proportional representation (in 1996) was difficult. A majority coalition did not form for nine months, and public opinion swayed back in favour of the winner-takes-all system. But the 1999 and 2002 elections ran smoothly, restoring public support for proportional representation. Maori political representation increased from around 3% in 1993 to almost 16% in 2002. Despite problems along the way it is clear that electoral transition went a long way towards improving the representation of the Maori population in New Zealand.

religious minorities often mobilize to contest these exclusions. If not managed properly, these mobilizations can become violent. So it is vital for states to learn how to manage these claims. The state is responsible for ensuring policies and mechanisms that protect individual choice. This is best achieved when public institutions do not discriminate between believers and non-believers, not just among followers of different religions. Secular principles have been proven to work best towards these goals, but no one single model of secularism is demonstrably better than others in all circumstances. Various links between state and religious authorities have evolved over time. Similarly, states that profess to be secular do so differently both in principle and in practice. And these differences have implications

for the state’s ability to protect individual choice and religious freedoms (box 3.4). Sometimes problems arise because of too many formal links between regions and the state or too much influence by religious authorities in matters of state. This can happen when, say, a small clerical elite controls the institutions of the state in accord with what it considers divinely commissioned laws, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban. These politically dominant religious elites are unlikely to tolerate internal differences, let alone dissent, and unlikely to extend freedoms even to their own members outside the small ruling elite, much less to members of other religious groups. Such states do not accommodate other religious groups or dissenters or treat them equally.



BOX 3.4

The many forms of secular and non-secular states and their effects on religious freedom
States have treated religion in different ways. Non-secular states A non-secular state extends official recognition to specific religions and can assume different forms depending on its formal and substantive links with religious authority. • A state governed by divine law—that is, a theocracy, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran run by ayatollahs or Afghanistan under the Taliban. • A state where one religion benefits from a formal alliance with the government— that is, having an “established” religion. Examples include Islam in Bangladesh, Libya and Malaysia; Hinduism in Nepal; Catholicism in Argentina, Bolivia and Costa Rica; and Buddhism in Bhutan, Burma and Thailand. • A state that has an established church or religion, but that nonetheless respects more than one religion, that recognizes and perhaps attempts to nurture all religions without any preference of one over the other. Such states may levy a religious tax on all citizens and yet grant them the freedom to remit the tax money to religious organizations of their choice. They may financially assist schools run by religious institutions but in a non-discriminatory way. Examples of such states include Sweden and the United Kingdom. Both are virtually secular and have established religions only in name. Other examples of this pattern of non-secular states are Denmark, Iceland and Norway.
Source: Bhargava 2004.

Anti-religious, secular states The state excludes religion from its own affairs without excluding itself from the affairs of religion. In such a state the right to religious freedom is very limited, and often the state intervenes to restrict religious freedoms and practice. Communist regimes in China and former communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are examples. Neutral or disengaged states There are two ways of expressing this kind of neutrality. The state may profess a policy of “mutual exclusion”, or the “strict separation of religion and state”. This means that not only does the state prevent religious authorities from intervening in the affairs of state, but the state also avoids interfering in the internal affairs of religious groups. One consequence of this mutual exclusion is that the state may be unable or unwilling to interfere in practices designated as “religious” even when they threaten individual rights and democratic values. Or the state may have a policy of neutrality towards all religions. The clearest examples are the state of Virginia (after the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1786), the United States (particularly after the First Amendment to its Constitution in 1791) and France, especially after the Separation Law of 1905. Secular states asserting equal respect and principled distance The state is secular, in the sense that it does not have an established church and does not promote one religion over others, but rather accords equal respect to all religions (and to non-believers).

However, it is willing to defend universal principles of human rights and equal citizenship and is able to intervene in the internal affairs of religious groups in what can be called “principled distance”. This engagement may take the form of even-handed support for religions (such as public funding of religious schools or state recognition of religious personal law) or even of intervention to monitor and reform religious practices that contradict human rights (such as regulating religious schools or reforming personal laws to ensure gender equality). With principled distance, whether the state intervenes or refrains from interfering depends on what measures really strengthen religious liberty and equality of citizenship. The state may not relate to every religion in exactly the same way or intervene to the same degree or in the same manner. But it ensures that the relations between religious and political institutions are guided by consistent, non-sectarian principles of liberty and human rights. An example is the secular design in the Indian Constitution. While the growth of communal violence makes observers skeptical of the secular credentials of Indian politicians these days, the Constitution established India as a secular state. It was this policy of secularism with principled distance that enabled the Indian state in the early years after independence to recognize the customary laws, codes and practices of minority religious communities and enable their cultural integration. It enabled positive interventions upholding principles of equality and liberty by reforming a range of customary practices, such as prohibiting erstwhile “untouchables” from entering temples.

In other instances the state may profess neutrality and purportedly exclude itself from matters of religion and exclude religion from matters of state—a policy of “mutual exclusion”. But in reality this stance may become distorted through policies that are blind to actual violations of religious freedoms or through ad hoc interventions motivated by political expedience. Whatever the historical links with religion, states have a responsibility to protect rights and secure freedoms for all their members and not discriminate (for or against) on grounds of religion. It is difficult to propose an optimal design for the relations between state institutions and religious authority. But non-discriminatory

states should protect three dimensions of religious freedom and individual choice: • Every individual or sect within a religious group should have the right to criticize, revise or challenge the dominance of a particular interpretation of core beliefs. All religions have numerous interpretations and practices—they are multivocal—and no single interpretation should be sponsored by the state. Clergy or other religious hierarchies should have the same status as other citizens and should not claim greater political or societal privilege. • States must give space to all religions for interfaith discussion and, within limits, for



critiques. People of one religion must be allowed to be responsibly critical of the practices and beliefs of other religions. • Individuals must be free not only to criticize the religion into which they are born, but to reject it for another or to remain without one. Some challenges to secularism arise from a country’s historical links with religion or from the legacy of colonialism. The British divideand-rule policies in South Asia, which attempted to categorize religious and cultural identities, fixing their relative positions in the polity and in society, have been a source of continuing political conflict even after the territorial partitions in the region.26 These historically entrenched divisions remain as serious barriers to secular policies in a region that has witnessed so much communal trauma. The Spanish colonial rulers, with their historical links with the Catholic Church, left a legacy of similar links between state and church in their former colonies, especially in Latin America, with implications for concerns of gender equality, among others.
BOX 3.5

Sometimes this historical baggage appears in contemporary dilemmas—of whether to recognize different religious laws in a democratic environment where all citizens have equality before the law. As the ongoing discussions on the uniform civil code in India demonstrates, the arguments for women’s rights and principles of equality get entangled with concerns for minority rights and cultural recognition (box 3.5). Building consensus on these issues to advance universal principles of human rights, gender equality and human development has to be the guiding principle for resolving them.27 POLICIES ON CUSTOMARY LAW AND LEGAL

The arguments for women’s rights and principles of equality get entangled with concerns for minority rights and cultural recognition

Certain religious and ethnic minorities and indigenous groups feel alienated from the larger legal system, for a number of reasons. In some countries judges and other court officials have historically been prejudiced against them, or ignorant of their conditions, resulting in the unfair and biased application of the law. In

Hindu and Muslim personal law: the ongoing debate over a uniform civil code
Legal pluralism and legal universalism are hotly debated in India today. Should a single legal system apply to members of all communities? The differences highlight the apparent contradiction of the constitutional recognition of Hindu and Muslim personal laws and the parallel constitutional commitment to a uniform civil code. The debate is thus embedded in larger concerns about India as a multicultural secular state. Personal laws, specific to different religious communities, govern marriage, divorce, guardianship, adoption, inheritance and succession. They vary widely between and even within the same community. Court cases involving personal law also raise their own more particular issues, sometimes pitting minority religious groups’ rights against women’s rights. The debate over personal laws often comes down to the following: • Gender equality—how patriarchal customs and laws, be they Hindu or Muslim, treat men and women differently in terms of their legal entitlements. • Cultural freedoms and minority rights— whether the state should reserve the right to
Source: Engineer 2003; Mody 2003; Rudolph 2001.

intervene in matters of religious practice to assert liberty and equality while protecting the right of groups to practice their religion. It is important to understand the debate in historical context. India’s leadership at independence was committed to a secular India, not just a state for its Hindu majority. This was politically imperative given the fears of the Muslim minority immediately after the brutal partition of the subcontinent. The Indian Constitution recognized and accommodated its colonially inherited system of legal pluralism as its multicultural reality. The ultimate goal of a unified civil code was included in the Constitution, and the Special Marriages Act of 1954 offered couples a non-religious alternative to personal laws. A brief scan of legal developments over the 1980s and 1990s highlights how the argument for uniformity has overlooked concerns for equality—and how the secular agenda has been depicted as being antithetical to the principle of special recognition of the cultural rights of minorities. The ongoing debate is important because of the contemporary political context. Supporters of the code assert principles of

equality before the law, but fail to appreciate the difficult position of minorities. This is particularly relevant in the light of growing communal tensions. The Muslim minority often views the code as an underhand abrogation of their cultural freedom. Personal laws of all communities have been criticized for disadvantaging women, and there are strong arguments for reforming almost all traditional (and usually patriarchal) laws and customs in the country, bringing Hindu and Muslim personal or customary laws in line with gender equality and universal human rights. But implementing equality—an objective that is central to concerns of human development—is not the same as implementing uniformity. What is needed is internal reform of all customary laws, upholding gender equality rather than imposing identical gender-biased, prejudicial laws across all communities. Crucial in this is a genuine effort to establish consensus on the code. Legislation imposing uniformity will only widen the majority-minority divide— detrimental both for communal harmony and for gender equality.



All legal systems must conform to international standards of human rights, including gender equality

many countries indigenous people are almost entirely unrepresented in the judiciary. This reality of bias and exclusion is exacerbated by the inaccessibility of the legal system to these groups for additional reasons, including geographical distance, financial cost and language or other cultural barriers. Plural legal systems can counter this exclusion. But some critics argue that plural legal systems can legitimize traditional practices that are inconsistent with expansion of freedoms. Many traditional practices reject the equality of women, for example, in property rights, inheritance, family law and other realms.28 But legal pluralism does not require the wholesale adoption of all practices claimed to be “traditional”. The accommodation of customary law cannot be seen as an entitlement to maintain practices that violate human rights, no matter how “traditional” or “authentic” they may claim to be.29 From a human development perspective all legal systems—whether unitary or plural—must conform to international standards of human rights, including gender equality. Other critics therefore argue that if the legal system of the larger society respects human rights norms, and if indigenous people accept these norms, there is no need to maintain legal pluralism. But even where there is a consensus on human rights norms, there may still be a valuable role for legal pluralism. Plural legal systems exist in almost all societies, evolving as local traditions were historically accommodated along with other formal systems of jurisprudence.30 Customary practices, which acquired the force of law over time, coexisted alongside introduced systems of jurisprudence. Such legal pluralism often had roots in the colonial logic of protection of minority rights, which allowed certain customary systems to continue while imposing the colonizer’s own laws. COLONIAL

manipulation and control. An added complication in separating authentic from imposed practices is that colonial rule and its “civilizing mission” unilaterally claimed responsibility for introducing modern values, beliefs and institutions to the colonies.31 In Africa European colonialists introduced their own metropolitan law and system of courts. But they retained much customary law and many elements of the African judicial process that they deemed consistent with their sense of justice and morality. Western-type courts were presided over by expatriate magistrates and judges whose jurisdiction extended over all persons, African and non-African, in criminal and civil matters. Often referred to as “general courts”, they applied European law and local statutes based on European practices. A second group of “native-authority courts” or “African courts” or “people’s courts” comprised either traditional chiefs or local elders. These courts had jurisdiction over only Africans and for the most part applied the prevailing customary law. Throughout Malawi’s colonial history, for example, jurisdiction over Africans was left to the traditional courts for cases involving customary law and for simple criminal cases.32 Towards the end of the colonial period, officials began to integrate the dual courts system, with the general courts supervising the workings of the customary courts. The Anglophone colonies retained much of the dual legal structure created during colonial rule while attempting to reform and adapt customary law to notions of English law. Francophone and Lusophone colonies tried to absorb customary law into the general law. Ethiopia and Tunisia abolished some aspects of customary law. But in no African country, either during or after the colonial era, has customary law been totally disregarded or proscribed. CUSTOMARY



The colonial imprint can be marked. Indeed, it often is difficult to determine which legal processes are genuinely traditional and which can be seen as a hybrid by-product of colonial

Accommodating customary law can help protect the rights of indigenous people and ensure a fairer application of the rule of law. Efforts to accord public recognition to customary law can help create a sense of inclusion



in the wider society. Often the most pragmatic case for customary law, especially in parts of failed states, is that the choice is between customary law and no law. Recognizing the ability of indigenous people to adopt and administer their own laws is also a repudiation of historic prejudice—and can be an important part of self-government for indigenous people.33 Countries from Australia to Canada to Guatemala to South Africa have recognized legal pluralism. In Australia there has been a renewed focus on recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary law, which has opened the way to indigenous community mechanisms of justice, aboriginal courts, greater regional autonomy and indigenous governance. In Canada most local criminal matters are dealt with by the indigenous community so that the accused can be judged by jurors of peers who share cultural norms. In Guataemala the 1996 peace accords acknowledged the need to recognize Mayan law as an important part of genuine reform (box 3.6). In post-apartheid South Africa a groundswell of innovation is instilling new authority, resources and dignity into customary law. The aim is to rebuild trust in the criminal justice system and respect for the rule of law and to recognize customary laws. The challenge lies in integrating common and customary law in line with the new constitution, enshrining such principles as gender equality. This harmonization process marks a major step in South Africa’s enormous task of legal reform. The first step was repealing apartheid laws. Next was reconstituting the Law Commission, dominated by conservative judges of the old regime. Now South Africa must shape new laws to govern a new social order. Customary law is often the only form of justice known to many South Africans. About half the population lives in the countryside, where traditional courts administer customary law in more than 80% of villages.34 These courts, also found in some urban townships, deal with petty theft, property disagreements and domestic affairs—from marriage to divorce to inheritance. Justice is swift and cheap as the courts are run with minimal formalities in venues close to the disputants’ homes and charge less than

a dollar for a hearing. The judges use everyday language, and the rules of evidence allow the community to interject and question testimony. The system has its critics—particularly women, who are barred from serving as judges and are often discriminated against as litigants. Even so, women’s groups, under the umbrella of the Rural Women’s Movement, are on the vanguard of efforts to recognize customary law and adapt it to post-apartheid society. They are leading discussions about how to elevate customary law and make it fairer to women. Still a concern, therefore, is how customary law compromises or ensures human rights standards.35 Any legal system—conventional or customary—is open to criticism over its formulation. A legal tradition is a set of deeply rooted, historically conditioned attitudes about the nature of law, about the role of law in society, about the proper organization and operation of a legal system and about the way law should be made, applied, studied, perfected and taught.
BOX 3.6

Accommodating customary law can help protect the rights of indigenous people and ensure a fairer application of the rule of law

Access to justice and cultural recognition in Guatemala
For the more than 500 years since the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors Guatemala’s indigenous people have suffered violent subordination and exclusion. The armed internal conflict that lasted from 1960 until the signing of the peace accords in 1996 was particularly devastating. Indigenous people, constituting more than half the population, endured massacres and gross violations of human rights. The military dictatorship of 1970–85 undermined the independence of local community authorities. Little surprise, then, that rural communities lost faith in the judicial system and the rule of law. Public lynchings became the alternative to the formal justice system, notorious for its inability to sentence the perpetrators of crimes and its tendency to release criminals through a corrupt bail tradition. The political establishment cynically misrepresents the lynchings as the traditional practices of indigenous people. The 1996 accords acknowledged the need for genuine reform with commitments to acknowledge traditional Mayan law and authority. The Accord on Indigenous Identity and Rights, for example, states that “the lack of knowledge by the national legislative
Source: Buvollen 2002.

body of the customary norms that regulate indigenous community life as well as the lack of access that the indigenous population has to the resources of the national justice system, have caused negation of rights, discrimination and marginalization”. The government and the opposition have agreed to: • Recognize the management of internal issues of the indigenous communities according to their own judicial norms. • Include cultural considerations in the practice of law. • Develop a permanent programme for judges and members of the Public Ministry on the culture and identity of indigenous people. • Ensure free judicial advisory services for people with limited resources. • Offer free services for interpretation of judicial proceedings into indigenous languages. These developments are first steps in acknowledging the distinct cultures of indigenous people in Guatemala. The challenge now is to develop the customary systems in a way consistent with human rights and gender equality.



POLICIES ON THE USE OF MULTIPLE LANGUAGES By choosing one or a few languages over others, a state often signals the dominance of those for whom the official language is their mother tongue. This choice can limit the freedom of many non-dominant groups—feeding intergroup tensions (see chapter 2). It becomes a way of excluding people from politics, education, access to justice and many other aspects of civic life. It can entrench socio-economic inequalities between groups. It can become a divisive political issue, as in Sri Lanka where, in place of English, Sinhala (spoken by the majority) was made the only official language in 1956 despite the opposition of the Tamil minority, who wanted both Sinhala and Tamil recognized. While it is possible and even desirable for a state to remain “neutral” on ethnicity and religion, this is impractical for language. The citizenry needs a common language to promote mutual understanding and effective communication. And no state can afford to provide services and official documents in every language spoken on its territory. The difficulty, however, is that most states, especially in the developing world and Eastern Europe, are multilingual—and they are the focus of much of the discussion here. Once again, multicultural policies are needed. In multilingual societies plural language policies provide recognition to distinct linguistic groups. Plural language policies safeguard the parallel use of two or more languages by saying, in essence, “Let us each retain our own language in certain spheres, such as schools and universities, but let us also have a common language for joint activities, especially in civic life.” Language conflicts can be managed by providing some spheres in which minority languages are used freely and by giving incentives to learn other languages, especially a national or official language. This can be promoted by an appropriate social reward structure, such as by making facility in a national language a criterion for professional qualification and promotion. There is no universal “right to language”.36 But there are human rights with an implicit linguistic content that multilingual states must acknowledge in order to comply with their international obligations under such instruments as

Language conflicts can be managed by providing some spheres in which minority languages are used freely and by giving incentives to learn other languages, especially a national or official language

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Especially important are the rights to freedom of expression and equality. Freedom of expression and the use of a language are inseparable. This is the most obvious example of the importance of language in matters of law. For example, until 1994 members of the Kurd minority in Turkey were prohibited by law from using their language in public. Reform of this law was an important element in the government’s response to the demands of the Kurdish minority. In 2002 the Turkish Parliament passed legislation allowing private institutions to teach the language of the sizeable Kurdish minority, and the first Kurdish language teaching centre opened in March 2004 in Batman, in the southeast. Experience around the world shows that plural language policies can expand opportunities for people in many ways, if there is a deliberate effort to teach all citizens some of the country’s major languages (box 3.7). Very often what multilingual countries need is a threelanguage formula (as UNESCO recommends) that gives public recognition to the use of three languages: • One international language—in former colonial countries this is often the official language of administration. In this era of globalization all countries need to be proficient in an international language to participate in the global economy and networks. • One lingua franca—a local link language facilitates communication between different linguistic groups such as Swahili in East African countries, where many other languages are also spoken. • Mother tongue—people want and need to be able to use their mother tongue when it is neither the lingua franca nor the international language. Countries need to recognize all three as official languages or at least recognize their use and relevance in different circumstances, such as in courts or schools. There are many versions of such three-language formulas, depending on the country. The main questions that states face on language policy relate to the language of instruction in schools and the language used in government institutions.



BOX 3.7

Multilingual education in Papua New Guinea
Nestled between the South Pacific Ocean and the Coral Sea, Papua New Guinea is the most linguistically and culturally diverse nation in the world, accounting for approximately a sixth of the world’s 6,000 languages. A century of colonial occupation created a lingua franca, a neoMelanesian pidgin, tok pisin, derived from English, German, Spanish, Malay and Papua New Guinea’s own languages and spoken by half of the population of 5 million. To meet the needs of indigenous people for relevant basic education, the Department of Education implemented a major education reform in 1993, introducing mother tongue instruction in the first three years of schooling. After that, the medium of instruction is English. By 2001, 369 indigenous languages had been introduced in 3,600 elementary schools. A third of children now start elementary school in their mother tongue.
Source: Klaus 2003; SIL International 2004a; CRIP 2004.

No statistical study has been done, but there is abundant anecdotal evidence that children become literate and learn English faster and more easily when they start their schooling in their mother tongue. Access is improving, and the dropout rate, particularly of girls, has come down. More than 70% of grade 6 students go on to grade 7, compared with less than 40% in 1992. Lower-secondary enrolments have doubled since 1992, and upper-secondary numbers have quadrupled. Teachers report that children appear more self-confident and inquisitive. The education reform came after 20 years of widespread public consultation, and implementation was gradual. Non-governmental organizations got grants to develop a writing system for some languages that had never been written before. Communities wanting to convert

their schools to the local language had to agree to build new facilities, assist in the life of the school or share their culture with the children. The learning material is deliberately simple: copies of a prototype textbook are printed with blank lines to be filled in with the local language. Costs were kept in check by using black and white text and soft covers. Communities choose local people with at least a grade 10 education as teachers. They are paid less than nationally recruited certified teachers, but many are pleased to be doing worthwhile work for a steady income. Papua New Guinea sought and received large donor support from Australia to introduce the reform, but it is expected that the system will be cost-efficient and sustainable over the longer term. Studies are under way to assess its results.


Low educational attainment continues to be a major source of exclusion for immigrants, ethnic groups and indigenous people. In such cases offering bilingual education not only recognizes their cultural traditions but it can also enhance learning and reduce educational disparities— widening people’s choices (see box 3.7). Children learn best when they are taught in their mother tongue, particularly in the earliest years. Experience in many countries shows that bilingual education, which combines instruction in the mother tongue with teaching in the dominant national language, can open educational and other opportunities. In the Philippines students proficient in the two languages of the bilingual education policy (Tagalog and English) outperformed students who did not speak Tagalog at home. In Canada students from the English-speaking majority in bilingual immersion programmes outperform peers in traditional programmes of learning in the second language (French). In the United States Navajo students instructed throughout their primary school years in their first language (Navajo) as well as their second language (English) outperformed their Navajo-speaking peers educated only in English.37

In Latin America bilingualism is an established strategy for reducing the educational exclusion of indigenous children, who have the worst education indicators. Studies in Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru show that providing instruction to minority groups in their own language and using teachers from the same group is highly effective. Bilingual education leads to much less repetition, lower drop-out rates and higher educational attainment among indigenous children. In Guatemala the Q’eqchi’ communities, which had fewer bilingual education opportunities than three other indigenous groups surveyed, had much higher drop-out and repetition rates.38 Studies in Africa find the same results, with bilingual schools more effective than conventional monolingual schools, as in Burkina Faso (table 3.1). Studies of bilingual education in Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Zambia find that it ensures continuity among families, communities and schools, strengthening interactions among them. It stimulates the production of school and cultural materials in the second language, broadening the body of knowledge and facilitating learners’ integration into social and cultural life. And it encourages a blending of cultures, since it enhances the standing of both languages and the cultures they convey. Monolingual schools,




Indicators of internal output and costs of conventional and bilingual schools in Burkina Faso
Indicator Bilingual school Conventional monolingual school 14% 37 pupil years 16% 104,962 CFA francs

Chance of success in obtaining a primary education certificate 72% Average duration to gain a diploma 6 pupil years Internal output rate (allowing for repetition and drop-out) 68% Annual recurrent costs (teachers, supplies, maintenance) per student (total recurrent costs divided by number of students) 77,447 CFA francs
Source: Ndoye 2003.

whether in a Western or an African language, perform much less well.39 India, too, has extensive experience with multilingual education. For four decades it has had a three-language formula in which each child is taught in the official language of the state (Bengali in West Bengal, for example), with the two official national languages (English and Hindi) as second and third languages. Indian state boundaries have been drawn along linguistic lines since 1956, so each state has one dominant state language, each with its own script, rich vocabulary and literature going back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Often, bilingual education is stigmatized as being lower in quality, especially in the country’s economic and political activities. Bilingual education can then be thought to restrict opportunities. Surveys among Hispanics in the American Southeast show that most prefer English-only classes and view their children’s “restricted” early access to English as a deprivation. Bilingualism should be introduced only where there is demand for it. However, evidence suggests that there is no trade-off between the two goals of bilingual education and high quality education, especially in teaching the dominant language. Nor is cost a real issue. An examination of the costs and benefits of bilingual education for indigenous people in Guatemala estimated that there would be a $5 million cost savings thanks to reduced repetitions, savings equal to the cost of providing primary education to about 100,000 students a year.40 It is true that the unit costs of producing local language materials are often higher than those of producing majority language materials because of the smaller quantities. But sharing by

countries with the same local language can help hold unit costs down. Costs include those for modernizing and standardizing the orthography of the local language and for developing materials, training teachers in their use and distributing them. These financial costs have to be weighed against the social and political costs of inequality and unfairness. And since local language materials are produced in small quantities, they have little effect on the average unit cost of producing materials in all languages. In Senegal the production of materials in Wolof and other local languages barely pushes up the average unit cost of production of materials in all languages since the number of French books produced is much higher than the number of Wolof or Pulaar language books. Bilingual education is a long-term investment, but nowhere do the costs appear prohibitive. In Guatemala bilingual education accounted for 0.13% of the primary education recurrent budget, increasing the unit cost of primary education by 9% annually (over the traditional Spanish-only instruction system).41 In India producing materials in local languages adds 5–10% to total recurrent cost.42 But as noted earlier, the gains can be massive, because of fewer dropouts and repetitions. Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have local language education in schools in the first three grades, but after that almost all countries use French, English or Portuguese. These countries may find introducing local language education particularly difficult because of the many languages spoken. But most languages are related, and there are only 15 core language groups for the 45 Sub-Saharan countries (box 3.8). Developing local language education would require greater investment and regional cooperation to standardize and develop these languages. Standardization would require translating texts into these languages and introducing the texts to education at higher grades. These costs could be met through some additional donor support. Standardization of texts and translation into the 15 core languages shared by communities spread across several national boundaries would help to keep costs down through economies of scale. Cooperation among countries in the region would be required to make this work. In



the medium run such standardization would help to bolster the role of these 15 core languages as lingua franca and as the languages of the education and state administrative (legislative and judicial) systems. Bilingual schooling can run up against unfavourable perceptions, problems of transition from the first language to the second and poor follow-up, evaluation and support systems. But most of these problems are linked to poor planning and a failure to make adjustments in curricula, teaching, training and promotion of the use of the language in official and public spheres.43 Once these conditions are met, bilingual strategies improve learning, contribute to a multicultural identity and have a transforming effect on society. Since knowledge of Western languages is often a means of upward mobility, the goal is not to remove Western languages, which would narrow choices and access to international knowledge. The goal is to give local languages equal or superior status. This reduces the heavy burden of repetitions and drop-outs and thus builds human skills. LANGUAGE


less likely to be literate or fluent in English. Tanzania has extended political participation in the legislature to the majority through the deliberate use of its national lingua franca, Kiswahili. Language policies for the judiciary should not deny justice. The use of English as the primary language of legal discourse is common in Anglophone Africa, where judicial systems are based on the British legal system. This often alienates the people from the law since most of them have little or no facility in English. South Africa has attempted to widen choices for non-English and non-Afrikaans speakers by calling for 11 constitutionally recognized official languages (since 1994)—9 indigenous, plus English and Afrikaans. Despite an ambitious court interpreter programme that puts most other countries to shame, there is still a bias towards English. One study of the courts in Qwaqwa in the Free State, a mainly Sesothospeaking area, found that even when the magistrate, the prosecutor and the defendant were all Africans who spoke Southern Sotho as their mother tongue, the cases were conducted “in mediocre English with the assistance of a court interpreter from and into Sesotho for the benefit of the defendant”.45
BOX 3.8

In multilingual societies a multiple language policy is the only way to ensure full democratic participation

In multilingual societies a multiple language policy is the only way to ensure full democratic participation. Otherwise, much of a country’s population can be excluded by an inability to speak the official language of the state. The Malawi Parliament uses English exclusively, and the Constitution (1994) requires all candidates standing for Parliament “to speak and to read the English language well enough to take an active part in the proceedings of Parliament” (see chapter 5).44 The record of parliamentary proceedings is also published in English. The only way that people who do not know English are informed about parliamentary proceedings is through the national radio, which provides highly abridged versions in Chichewa. The exclusive use of English creates a barrier between the political elite and the masses and reduces the pool of possible legislators. It can particularly disadvantage women, who are

How many languages are there in Africa? 85% of Africans speak 15 core languages
The profusion of languages in Africa gives the impression of unending fragmentation. Closer examination reveals convergences and structural similarities for superficially distinct cultures, clans and languages. Colonial administrators and missionaries, sometimes for administrative expediency and sometimes for proselytizing reasons (biblical translations, in particular), elevated small dialects to the status of languages and narrow local groups to the status of tribes. Just as colonialera ethnologists would eagerly “discover” tribes that were often more appropriately parts of much larger groups, so languages in Africa have much greater affinity to each other than is commonly believed. Most of what are counted as distinct languages in Africa are actually dialects of core languages. As first, second or third language
Source: Prah 2004.

speakers (most Africans are multilingual), more than 75% of Africans speak 12 core languages: Nguni, Soth-Tswana, Swahili, Amharic, Fulful, Mandenkan, Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba, Luo, Eastern Inter-lacustrine and Western Interlacustrine (Kitara). Some 85% of the African population of the continent speak 15 core languages (the three additional languages are Somali-SamburuRendille, Oromo-Borana and Gur). Though lexically different, these languages are similar morphologically, syntactically and phonologically. If linguists across national boundaries in Sub-Saharan Africa were to work together to standardize vocabularies, it would be possible to use these languages to teach not just in the first three grades of primary school, but eventually in higher grades.



Recognition of linguistic diversity in Afghanistan’s Constitution
On 4 January 2004 Afghanistan’s new Constitution was adopted by a Loya Jirga (or grand assembly) of 502 representatives from all parts of Afghanistan. While the adoption itself is a significant milestone achieved over the past two years, certain aspects of the new Constitution are particularly noteworthy. For example, in recognizing the linguistic diversity in Afghanistan, the Constitution takes a step that is unprecedented in the history not only of Afghanistan, but of the region as a whole. Afghanistan has two major official languages, Pashto and Dari, which we have proudly spoken for centuries. The Constitution provides for the equal application of these two languages as the official medium of communication in all state organizations. Many state institutions will need to work to implement this, but some, including my own Office, do this already. It is gratifying to me as an Afghan, and as President, to be able to switch between Dari and Pashto when speaking publicly, as the occasion requires. In addition to the two major official languages the delegates to the Loya Jirga agreed to give official status to all minority languages in the areas where these languages are spoken. This is an important step that has precedence, I think, only in societies that are strong and solid. It is a powerful indication that, even though we are a society that has just emerged from war and disorder, we have the courage and broadmindedness to be inclusive and to recognize diversity. It makes us proud that today our Baluch, Nuristani, Pamiri, Pashai, Turkmen and Uzbek fellow Afghans are enjoying the right to use their own languages and to have them recognized as official. I am confident that this step will make Afghanistan a stronger nation, prouder than before, and an exemplary nation in the region. Having taken the first step, Afghanistan now needs to work to make the words of the Constitution a reality. While we are confident about the feasibility of making regional languages official in their respective regions, it is indeed not a small task to put the infrastructure in place for this purpose. To teach people to read and write in their mother tongue requires incorporating the language into the school curriculum. This will require changes in our mainstream education system. We will need to train more teachers and to print more books. But above all, we need to proceed carefully to ensure that making regional languages official contributes to national integration, rather than reinforcing the isolation of communities. In the 21st century, people around the world are increasingly searching for commonalities, including commonality in language. Learning a local language should not become a countercurrent. And it should not reduce the quality of education for our children. The Loya Jirga representatives ensured that our new Constitution represents not only the deep aspirations of the nation but also the diverse preferences of the people of Afghanistan. Turning their vision into reality may indeed be a challenge, but it is a challenge we are confident that we can meet. Recognizing our diversity, while affirming our nationhood, will further solidify the foundations of a democratic Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai President Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan

In Tanzania, by contrast, Kiswahili is the judicial language in the primary courts. Bills come to Parliament in English but are debated in Kiswahili, before being written into law in English. In the lower courts both English and Kiswahili are used, but sentences are written in English. In 1980 Kiswahili was used 80% of the time in lower courts; only English is used in the high court.46 In 1987 New Zealand, with a 14% indigenous Maori population, declared Maori an official language, giving any person (not just a defendant) the right to speak Maori in any legal proceeding, regardless of the person’s proficiency in English.47 It is the judge’s responsibility to ensure that a competent interpreter is available. Since most Maori speak English as their first language, this provision views language as a right, not as a problem as most other countries view it. When a new language policy is being explored or implemented, a special state language board should be created, as was done in Quebec,

Catalonia and the Baltic States. The board should include experts to analyze the socio-lingual situation, draft policy proposals and organize language learning programmes, especially needed if a new language policy includes language requirements for civil service jobs, licensing or naturalization. If the state openly acknowledges that facility in a language is required for access to public services, it has a duty to assist and monitor the acquisition of that language— otherwise conflict is inevitable between the deprived and the dominant. A state language board with expert commissions and a permanent staff naturally requires substantial resources, as do language learning programmes. With new states there may be unprecedented opportunities to resolve ethnic conflicts by negotiating an agreement that involves trade-offs for various groups. For instance, it may be possible to negotiate more language autonomy in return for less territorial self-rule. Under the recent Ohrid agreement the Albanians in Macedonia gave up claims to territorial autonomy in return



for official-language status throughout the country. In newly independent Malaysia in 1956 the Chinese accepted the public dominance of the Malay language in return for a liberal naturalization policy. The Chinese diaspora safeguards the survival of its languages by importing books, supporting cultural associations and sending students to Chinese universities abroad. In addition, there are still Chinese language schools where the Chinese community can study in Chinese as the medium of instruction. Students in these schools are merely required to sit an examination in the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. In Soviet Latvia Russian was the dominant language, and Latvian was rarely used in official affairs. Since independence in 1991 Latvian has become the language of state and other public affairs. A massive state-sponsored language programme was begun so that Russian residents could learn Latvian, in order to end a situation in which mostly bilingual Latvians had to accommodate monolingual Russians. Russians have been able to continue schooling in Russianlanguage public schools. Not that tensions have completely dissipated. There are restrictions on the use of Russian on signs and public election posters, and there are time quotas for Russian on radio and television.48 In addition to issues of language use in national institutions, there is also a risk that national information media could be monopolized by speakers of one (or two) dominant languages. Even though most countries that gained their independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union have large Russian majorities, nationalists attempt to protect the informational space under their control from “foreign” influence— that is, from the impact of Russian media—by limiting newspapers and broadcasts in nonstate languages (Russian). That narrows people’s choices, though satellite dishes can broaden them by providing access to television programming in Russian. POLICIES FOR REDRESSING

shorter life expectancies and lower education attainments and other social indicators. They also are most likely to suffer socio-economic exclusion. Redressing that exclusion requires a combination of policies, including: • Addressing unequal social investments to achieve equality of opportunity. • Recognizing legitimate collective claims to land and livelihoods. • Taking affirmative action in favour of disadvantaged groups. But minorities are not always disadvantaged in access to social and economic opportunities. In fact, perhaps the most politically dangerous exclusion occurs when an ethnic minority holds a large part of the wealth (agricultural land, key industries and services). For example, the Chinese in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand own a large part of the industry in these countries.49 Their economic dominance has been a factor in civil conflict, for example when the Suharto regime was replaced in Indonesia. Similarly, white settlers in southern Africa have dominant control over agricultural land. The response to such domination, whether induced by the market or the colonial state, is likely to take the form of affirmative action for the disadvantaged majority. ADDRESSING

In addition to issues of language use in national institutions, there is also a risk that national information media could be monopolized by speakers of one (or two) dominant languages


Ethnic minorities and indigenous people are often the poorest groups in most parts of the world. As chapter 2 documents, they have

Policies that promote growth with equity are necessary to achieve socio-economic inclusion for all groups. For most developing countries this would include investing in the agricultural and other labour-intensive sectors and broadening access to assets, especially agricultural land. But too often development policies become a source of intergroup tension. In other words, development itself can create, sustain and often intensify inequalities between groups and between individuals. In many African countries state-based control and distribution of mineral resources became a key source of ethno-regional wealth differentials. Thus, in Sudan the discovery and exploitation of oil became the major source of post-independence conflict, with the government annexing oil-bearing lands in the South.



In many countries public spending in basic social services systematically discriminates against minorities and indigenous people

And in Nigeria the oil resources in the SouthEast and the use of oil revenues have heightened ethnic tensions, sparking the civil war in Biafra. Botswana, by contrast, used its mineral wealth to invest in social infrastructure and human development—perhaps precisely because it is almost entirely made up of a single ethnic group, the Batswana.50 As noted earlier, colonial governance entrenched ethnic identities in Africa. It also promoted ethnic dominance through structures of state power that gave predominance to some ethnic identities and not to others.51 External factors remain critical today. External forces are usually subregional or interventions by neighbouring states, as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Mozambique and Nigeria. But developed country (often the former metropolitan country) interventions, by governments or by multinationals, are more generalized in Africa, albeit more prominent in the mineral resource–rich African states (Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone). Since international firms are usually involved in the extractive industries in most developing countries, corporations should sign on to the “Publish what you pay” campaign— revealing publicly what they pay to developing country governments in the form of taxes, royalties and other fees. Such information would make it much more difficult for developing country governments to use the revenues and rents from mineral resources to benefit particular ethnic groups or individuals. When such information is publicly available, affected communities can track the flow and use of resources. They can question whether the resources benefit only local or national elites. And they can demand that resources also be made available for investments in their area. Indigenous people are more likely to be poor than non-indigenous people (figure 3.1). A World Bank study in Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru suggests that if human capital characteristics (health and education services and their use) were equalized, much of the earnings differential between indigenous and non-indigenous workers would disappear.52 Distance cannot excuse a failure to provide services: if logging and mining infrastructure can

be provided in the remotest corners of the Amazon basin, so can social infrastructure.53 In many countries public spending in basic social services systematically discriminates against minorities and indigenous people. The low provision of services can be a result of lower financial allocations or of distance and isolation. Indigenous people often receive fewer health care inputs and have worse health outcomes than the average population. The Brazilian government spent $7 per capita on health care for the indigenous population, compared with $33 on average for the country.54 Indigenous people may also be underserved because health infrastructure and medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas. In South Africa race has been associated with major differences in infant mortality rates and with enormous inequities in the resources allocated per health intervention (figure 3.2). In Mexico there are 79 hospital beds and 96 doctors per 100,000 people on a national level, but the number of hospital beds falls to 8 and doctors to 14 per 100,000 in areas where indigenous people constitute more than two-fifths of the population.55 In Bolivia and Peru surveys show that indigenous people are more likely to have been sick in the previous month than are nonindigenous people but are much less likely to consult a physician.56 Poorer uptake of health services by indigenous people may sometimes reflect their view that the services are culturally inappropriate because they fail to consider the spiritual dimensions of good health or fail to incorporate their traditional medicine, based on herbs and other plants. These issues need to be addressed if the health of indigenous people is to improve, and this can be done without additional financial resources. The right to education is often also compromised for indigenous people. Bilingual education, though it can be very effective, often remains underresourced and so of poor quality. Indigenous children’s schooling also suffers from a lack of school facilities in areas where they live and a shortage of qualified teachers, partly because indigenous education is given a lower priority. The problem is often the low relevance of teaching content, especially if teachers are not drawn from indigenous communities.



It is not easy to universalize access to basic services where there is ethnic fragmentation and identities have been politicized. A study in Kenya finds lower primary school funding in more ethnically diverse districts.57 Using a sample of US cities, one study finds that the level and variety of public goods provided worsens as ethnic diversity increases.58 Another US study shows that individuals’ support for public welfare spending increases if a larger fraction of welfare recipients in their area belong to their racial group.59 So, even though comparatively disadvantaged minorities or groups may need favourable public policies to enable them to escape deprivation, such policies may not be forthcoming because of the absence of a national consensus and the required tax base to finance such policies. R ECOGNIZING


Percent 100

Indigenous people are more likely than non-indigenous people to be poor in Latin America
Indigenous population, 1989–91 Non-indigenous population, 1989–91 87 81 64 79










Source: Psacharapoulos and Patrinos 1994; Helwege 1995.



Non-whites benefit less than whites from public health spending in South Africa
Public health expenditure per person (rand) White Indian 356.2 340.2 137.8 Coloured African 597.1 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000) 7.3 9.9 36.3 54.3


Rights to traditional lands. An important political trend over the last decade has been the rise of powerful indigenous movements around the world—from Bolivia to Cambodia to Canada to Ecuador. At the core of these movements is the demand to protect indigenous people’s rights to historic lands and mineral wealth. These claims have to be recognized for what they are: claims for who owns the land and the right to use its soil and resources (water, minerals, plants, forests). Only then can policy instruments appropriately address the claims. Indigenous people often have a special relationship with the land—for many it is still their source of livelihood and sustenance and the basis of their existence as communities. The right to own, occupy and use land collectively is inherent in the self-conception of indigenous people, and this right is generally vested not in the individual but in the local community, the tribe or the indigenous nation. Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, adopted in 1989, calls on states to respect indigenous lands and territories and proclaims the right of indigenous people to control their natural resources. But only 17 countries have ratified it (mostly in Latin America). Many of the current conflicts over land and territory relate to the possession, control, exploitation and use of natural resources. In many

Source: Mehrotra and Delamonica forthcoming.

countries the state claims the right to control such resources. And in many instances multinational corporations assert their own economic interests, unleashing conflicts. In Chile one law recognizes the rights of indigenous people over their lands, but other laws allow any private party to claim possession of subsoil and water resources on those lands, making it hard for indigenous communities to defend their ancestral claims. Some countries protect such claims through legislation, but in many places indigenous people lack private ownership title. Powerful economic interests often turn communal possession into private property. From southern Chile to the Amazon basin to Canada’s northern forests to the tropical jungles of South-East Asia to the bush of southern Africa, there is no territory not coveted by some international corporation. It is coveted for its mineral wealth, its oil deposits, its pastures, its forests, its medicinal plants, its suitability for commercial plantations, its water resources or its tourist potential. When the national government signs agreements with international companies for resources (logging, mines) on



Liberation struggles against colonialism were also struggles over access to land

lands inhabited by indigenous people without their participation in decision-making, indigenous people become victims of globalized development (see chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of this issue). The claims of indigenous people over land and natural resources are collective and therefore complex. The idea of collective rights is troubling in a democracy because it seems to contradict individual rights. But the lack of legal recognition of collective rights violates individual rights. Countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico have begun to find ways to recognize diversity in their constitutions. Countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico have also recognized degrees of territorial autonomy. Countries such as Bolivia, Brazil and Guatemala have established institutions to address the morass of incomplete or contradictory land titling and the challenge of land reform. And countries such as the Philippines have recognized the land rights of indigenous people (box 3.9). In Africa the problem is similar, but with different roots. Despite movements towards democracy over the last decade, in many cases authoritarian regimes have broadly retained control over security forces, economic resources and funding from industrialized countries and multilateral institutions. Economic austerity programmes have often been used to advantage

by the ruling elites. And the dismantling of significant parts of the public sector, which marketoriented reforms usually require, without first creating a true market, has recentralized power in many cases. In that sense the structural adjustments of the 1980s and 1990s might be said to have had similar outcomes to the nationalizations of the 1960s and 1970s. Unequal ownership of land. Independence and reconciliation policies in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and the end of apartheid in South Africa, led many to believe that racial conflicts would be mitigated. Liberation struggles against colonialism were also struggles over access to land, expropriated illegally during colonial times. But the post-colonial failure of national governments and their international partners to mobilize finance to acquire land on the market has fuelled perceptions that white landowners are being protected. The legacy of racially unequal land control afflicts the main agricultural settler areas of Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, as well as of Botswana, Malawi and Swaziland. And the shift to the market has brought new migrations of white farmers to Mozambique and Zambia. Most settler agriculture is on large farms, claimed to be more efficient than the small subsistence farms of black farmers. The fact that large farms provide most of the agricultural

BOX 3.9

Land rights in the Philippines
After decades of struggle the Philippine government passed the Indigenous People’s Rights Act in 1997. This is the first time that a state in the region explicitly recognized the rights of indigenous people to their ancestral domain, to selfdetermination and to the free exercise of their culture. The act affirms that native title is the main basis of the ancestral domain rights of indigenous people. It offers an option to apply for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title, which formally acknowledges such rights. As of July 2003 the National Commission on Indigenous People announced that 11 Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles had been awarded covering 367,000 hectares. Around 76,000 indigenous people are direct beneficiaries of these certificates, a tiny proportion of the total indigenous population of 8 million. The act defines ancestral domain as all areas belonging to indigenous cultural communities and indigenous people. This includes lands, inland waters and coastal areas occupied or possessed by indigenous people since time immemorial. The interruption of this possession because of war, force majeure, deceit or government projects does not invalidate the right. Ancestral domain also includes forests, pastures, burial grounds, worship areas, mineral and other resources that indigenous people may no longer exclusively occupy and use but to which they had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. This provision is important because it clearly acknowledges the integral link of indigenous cultures and traditions with the land. This is consistent with Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects linguistic, cultural and religious rights and for indigenous people includes land, resource, subsistence and participation rights. For those who were dispossessed of their lands, the law recognizes their cultural rights. It also recognizes their inherent right to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. The state thus guarantees their right to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. However, implementation of the act has also proved difficult, primarily because of bureaucratic inadequacies and discriminatory behaviour of politicians and civil servants. Indigenous people and their advocates must be vigilant in converting words to actions. The international community can help in this.

Source: National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 2004a, 2004b; UN 1994.



surplus for export and urban consumption ignores the well established research in agricultural economics: that small farms are more efficient than large ones. Land reform thus has to become a much greater state priority in the region. Yet colonial land expropriations continue to be reinforced by new land concessions to foreign investors. Some of the biggest landowners in southern Africa are multinational companies with cattle ranches and mining concessions. These companies now control wildlife and safari parks—in the name of eco-tourism— which are growing in Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Few of the benefits of such activities go to the local inhabitants. In response, some of these countries have begun to take steps to alter the situation, such as setting up smaller game parks that are not controlled by large companies. To date land reform in southern Africa has been slow, and accelerating the process will require donor support. Land reform should preferably be carried out in a transparent manner that allows poor, indigenous groups fair and productive use of land, which in addition to being a critical economic asset is a potent political symbol. Land issues have remained relevant to race relations in Latin America as well. In the mid20th century, as part of a corporatist state model, laws recognized indigenous people as candidates for citizenship rather than as objects of local control. When the corporatist state granted indigenous communities land titles and provided social services, it gave them the means for securing a basic standard of living. And peasant federations provided Indians with institutional avenues for accessing and interacting with the state. However, in the 1980s and 1990s there has been a steady erosion of the citizenship regimes of corporatist states and a simultaneous politicization of ethnic cleavages in the Andean and Mesomerican countries of Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. The dismantling of rural programmes (including land reforms and credit programmes) has increased uncertainty about property regimes among Indian peasants. Liberalizing states have made it clear that they will not maintain (in Bolivia, Ecuador and

Mexico) or re-establish (in Guatemala and Peru) special forms of property rights, credit and subsidies for Indian peasants. Thus the contemporary period challenges access to the state and its resources for poor indigenous people. Rural organizing and protests respond to this material uncertainty, as peasants fear indebtedness, declining incomes and loss of land. Unless these issues are addressed, indigenous people cannot realize the promise of democracy in the region. The potential loss of land also affects the viability and autonomy of local indigenous political institutions.60 TAKING

Relying only on general policies of economic growth with equity for removing such group inequalities would take an insupportably long time, leading to resentment or even civil conflict


Affirmative action policies allocate jobs, promotions, public contracts, business loans, admissions to higher education and legislative seats on the basis of membership in a disadvantaged group. Such policies are needed when the disadvantage is cultural exclusion. Relying only on general policies of economic growth with equity for removing such group inequalities would take an insupportably long time, leading to resentment or even civil conflict. Some affirmative action policies allocate numerical quotas; others set more flexibly defined goals. Affirmative action can be voluntary or legislatively mandated. In some countries, such as Malaysia, affirmative action has been used as a policy to address participation exclusion—to remove group distinctions so that racial, ethnic or linguistic identification is not identical to low socio-economic status. In other countries, such as South Africa, it is part of a policy of redressing past wrongs and reducing inequalities between groups (box 3.10). Affirmative action has reduced intergroup inequalities in places where it has been effectively implemented. But studies of countries with extensive recorded data and a long history of affirmative action—India, Malaysia and the United States and, over a shorter period, South Africa— show that inequalities between individuals (vertical inequalities) as opposed to inequalities between groups (horizontal inequalities) have either increased or remained stable. The Chinese to Bumiputera disparity ratio in mean monthly



BOX 3.10

Experiences with affirmative action in Malaysia and South Africa
Affirmative action, defined as public policy to reduce group inequalities, takes different forms. In South Africa over the past decade and Malaysia over the past three decades, affirmative action has increased the designated groups’ representation in the elite and middle classes, but progress has not prevented increasing inequality between rich and poor, both within the formerly disadvantaged groups, as well as generally throughout society. Malaysia At independence in the late 1950s Malays and other indigenous groups (Bumiputera), though a numerical majority, were economically far behind the Chinese minority. Malays owned only 10% of registered businesses and 1.5% of invested capital. The Constitution granted Chinese and Indian residents citizenship and at the same time conferred special rights on Malays to land ownership, government jobs, education and business permits. Following interethnic rioting in May 1969, the government adopted the New Economic Policy to eradicate poverty among all Malaysians and to restructure Malaysian society so that identification of race with economic function and geographical location is reduced and eventually eliminated through rapid economic expansion. The government legislated Malay quotas for trading and business licences and equity ownership and provided special assistance through credit, training and business sites. It also acquired shares in private corporations on behalf of the Bumiputera, with a view to achieving 30% corporate ownership. While incomes have risen for all groups since 1969, group income disparities have fallen, an impressive achievement. But income inequality within groups has risen since the late 1980s, especially among the Bumiputera, where the gap between rich and poor has widened substantially. The growing abuse of ethnic privileges, especially by the politically well connected, has probably contributed to the cultural alienation of recent decades, with dissent being expressed among the Malays. With privatization opportunities from the mid-1980s largely decided by the government on a discretionary basis, there have been accusations of rent-seeking. Thus while the specific socio-economic targets of the New Economic Program have been largely achieved, national unity has remained somewhat elusive. Identifying improved interethnic relations almost exclusively with reduced disparities in participation in business communities and the middle class has generated greater ethnic resentment and suspicion on both sides. South Africa At the end of the apartheid era in 1995 whites accounted for 13% of the population and earned 59% of personal income; Africans, 76% of the population, earned 29%.1 In a 2000 survey of 161 large firms employing 560,000 workers, whites still held 80% of management positions. The racial wage differential was also substantial although much smaller than before: at the end of the 1990s white workers earned an average of five times as much as Africans (although half of that discrepancy was explained by a difference in education and location). In the post-apartheid era the democratic government introduced a range of programs designed to narrow these gaps. The 1998 Employment Equity Act requires employers to submit data on compensation and benefits for each occupational category by race and gender and to take appropriate measures if disproportionate income differentials exist. Firms above a certain size are obliged to provide the government with annual reports outlining how they plan to make their workforce more demographically representative at all levels. The law also states that a protected group member’s lack of necessary “experience” is not sufficient reason for hiring someone else as long as the applicant has the “capacity to acquire, within a reasonable time, the ability to do the job”.2 In addition, “black empowerment charters” for every industry set targets for the proportion of shares that must be transferred to blacks (indigenous Africans, coloureds and Asians). Charters have already been published for the oil, mining and banking sectors. The general thrust is that about a quarter of South African shares should be in black hands within a decade or so. How have these efforts worked? About half of South Africa’s middle managers and a quarter of top managers are black, up from hardly any a decade ago. Blacks have been promoted especially fast in the public sector—the government does not face competitors. However, since many underqualified people had been promoted, the government had to hire a large number of consultants to assist them, but that situation is changing. Efficiency is an issue. Under procurement rules black-owned firms can charge more and still win government contracts, leaving less money for public goods such as roads, bridges and houses. As for the empowerment charters, it is still unclear how this transfer of shares will be funded. The current practice of black empowerment “has created no new products or independent new companies that are not propped up by large white corporations”, according to Moeletsi Mbeki, a well known commentator.

1. “Coloureds” and “Asians” made up 11% of the population. 2. The employer “may not unfairly discriminate against a person solely on the grounds of that person’s lack of relevant experience”, South Africa Employment Equity Act, no 55 of 1998, section 20 (5). Source: Sabbagh 2004; Jomo 2004; The Economist 2004a; van der Westhuizen. 2002; Schultz and Mwabo 1998.

household income declined from 2.3 in 1970 to 1.8 in 2000 and that for Indians and Bumiputera fell from 1.73 to 1.3 (figure 3.3). And after decades of affirmative action policies in the United States the percentage of African Americans in the professions—lawyers, judges, physicians, engineers, college and university professors—has increased (figure 3.4). Thus the size of the African American elite has grown, and the dilemma now may be whether the second generation of this elite should continue to receive the benefits. In fact, in university admissions

the shift from affirmative action to colour blind policies, as enforced in Texas and California since 1996, has led to significant drops in minority enrolment in elite institutions. India has one of the longest histories of any country in implementing affirmative action policies. Affirmative action rules (also known as “reservations”) apply to three groups: the scheduled castes (Hindu untouchables and the deprived segments of religious minorities), scheduled tribes and “other backward classes” (caste groups that lie between the untouchables



and the twice-born Dvija). Colonial regimes excluded these three groups from the structure of power. The result was that for centuries poverty was systematically concentrated in certain social groups. Reservations, which cover about 65% of the population, are designed to bring power to these peoples. There are quotas for the scheduled castes (15% of the population) and scheduled tribes (8%) in legislative bodies at all government levels (local, provincial and national), in government jobs and in educational institutions.61 Since 1991 the other backward classes, the largest and most heterogeneous group, have had quotas in government jobs and higher education institutions (27% at the national and state levels, a little over half of their proportion in the population), but not in legislative bodies since they constitute a majority in many states in India and their representation in legislatures has increased greatly through normal processes of competitive politics. Reservations have changed the nature and composition of the Indian middle class. A sizeable portion of the middle class now consists of the second and third generation beneficiaries of reservations. At Independence the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes could aspire only to a limited degree of upward mobility. Reservations have broadened their opportunities. Education has become a social and cultural value, helping to create an upper crust whose members serve both as role models and as “spearheads” for their people to enter the economic and political mainstream.62 One result is that middle-class identity is no longer perceived in ritual status terms. Educational and occupational reservations have also made a lasting impact on India’s political system. The entire structure of political power has changed since Independence, beginning with the south Indian states. A new political leadership has emerged from among the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. In almost all states the beneficiaries of reservations occupy important positions in government and positions in lower levels of the bureaucracy. This new political class has ended the monopoly on power of the Congress Party.


Ratio 2.5

Group inequalities have declined in Malaysia, but personal inequalities have not
Disparity ratio for mean monthly household incomes by ethnic group
Percent 100 80

Distribution of personal income


Top 20%




40 1.5 20

35.0 Indian/Bumiputera

Middle 40%


1.0 1970 Source: Jomo 2004. 1979 1990 1999 2002


13.8 1987

Bottom 40% 1999




The record of affirmative action in the United States is mixed
Report card on equality
White Life expectancy (years) Maternal deaths (per thousand births) Infant mortality rate (per thousand births) People below the poverty line (percent) Unemployment rate (16 and older) Unemployment rate (16- to 19-year-olds) 74.4 6.7 10.9 10.2 6.3 15.5 Circa 1980 Black 68.1 21.5 22.2 32.5 14.3 38.5 Circa 2000 White 77.7 5.1 5.2 9.5 3.5 11.4 Black 72.2 17.1 14 22.5 7.6 24.5

Blacks as share of professionals (percent)
1978 2003
Percent 10

5 5.1 0 1.2 Lawyers and judges 2.0 Physicians 5.6 1.1 Engineers 5.5 2.6 Professors 6.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2004b; U.S. Department of Labor 2004.

While affirmative action policies have had many successes, income inequalities between individuals have continued to increase even in societies that have tried to reduce group inequalities through affirmative action (India, Malaysia, South Africa and the United States). True, these inequalities might have been worse without the affirmative action policies. But to reduce individual inequalities and build truly inclusive and equitable societies, other policies are needed—of the kind discussed in previous Human Development Reports—such as policies that promote equitable economic development. The original rationale of affirmative action was to redress past racial wrongs. US blacks were victimized first by slavery and then by a



There is no question that affirmative action has been necessary in the countries examined here. Most countries that have adopted policies have also experienced an increase in overall inequalities in personal income

century of legal, and frequently violent, discrimination. Affirmative action was intended as a temporary measure. Instead, it has become a feature of US life. Now its rationale, supported not only by top universities but also by most large companies and even the military, is the pursuit of “diversity”. The United States is slowly moving towards a model of formally colour blind policies, whose most distinctive feature is a principled negation of race as a legal category. For example, one suggested policy measure is to transform preferences based on race to preferences based on economic class. For university admissions, however, given that highscoring poor white students outnumber highscoring poor Hispanics and blacks on tests six to one, class-based preference will not foster racial equality.63 In India the intention was to end reservations once affected groups caught up. That has not happened. Instead, the preferences have become self-perpetuating. Reserved legislative districts, which were supposed to end 10 years after the Constitution of 1950, have been extended at 10-year intervals. Following a strategy of “we are more backward than you are”, people try to get classified as members of preferred castes to be eligible for preferences. Reservations in some form now cover 65% of the population. Such widespread gaming of the system has increased the rancour, bordering on animosity, of the “forward” castes and classes towards the “backward” ones. Several confrontations have resulted in the destruction of property and

the loss of life, raising the question of whether the polarization is worth the preference. The reasons: • The scope of reservations in public employment has been widened from recruitment to promotions. • The broadening of reservations constricts opportunities for the forward castes. • Governments have used reservations as a populist policy to get votes. • The reservations have led to the relaxation of standards for admitting members of the designated classes into professional schools. Despite these concerns affirmative action policies have been quite successful in achieving their goals, and political considerations will probably prevent their retirement. And without them, group inequalities and socio-economic exclusions would likely be worse than they are today. Hence, there is no question that affirmative action has been necessary in the countries examined here. One worrying aspect remains. Most countries that have adopted such policies have also experienced an increase in overall inequalities in personal income (accompanied by growing inequality within the underprivileged group). This suggests strongly that many other forces require action on a broader front: unequal land and resource ownership, inequalities in the provision of basic social services, and patterns of development that exploit or exclude indigenous people—just the factors underlying culturally driven socio-economic exclusion.




Confronting movements for cultural domination

This Report argues that people should be free to be who they are, to choose their identities and to live accordingly. It further argues that the recognition of multiple and complementary identities—with individuals identifying themselves as citizens of a state as well as members of ethnic, religious and other cultural groups—is the cornerstone of cultural liberty. But movements hostile to these principles seek to eliminate diversity in the name of cultural superiority. Such movements, and their underlying sources of support, must be confronted. The question is: How? This chapter is about coercive movements for cultural domination—those that are motivated by an ideology of cultural supremacy and domination and that use coercion to suppress the cultural identities of others. These movements are a familiar part of the political landscape in many countries and may even be growing in strength. It is important to clarify what is distinctive about this sort of movement. Many types of movements use coercive strategies of violence or intimidation, but not all such movements are movements for cultural domination. Many historically disadvantaged or subordinated groups feel compelled to use coercive strategies, particularly if they are excluded from or marginalized within the normal political process. Their tactics may involve coercion, but their goal is the pursuit of equal rights, power sharing, autonomy and a more inclusive society (for example, the Zapatistas in Mexico). Insofar as the recommendations discussed in chapters 3 and 5 are adopted, the use of coercive strategies by such groups would no longer be necessary or justified. This chapter, by contrast, focuses on movements that typically seek to create ethnically or religiously “pure” states by expelling, coercively assimilating or even killing anyone viewed as “other”. For such movements the sorts of

multiculturalist policies defended in this Report are anathema. It is the intolerance or hatred of other ways—and organizing to spread that intolerance while denying people choice over their identities—that makes a movement coercive (figure 4.1). The target: freedom and diversity. Such movements are often misleadingly described as religious “fundamentalist” movements. But it is important to emphasize that the focus in this chapter is both broader and narrower than the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. On the one hand, many forms of religious fundamentalism do not believe in the use of violence to achieve their aims. Nor do they necessarily seek to coercively impose their ideology on others. They may work solely within the democratic system. Tibetan or Trappist monks have strong religious beliefs but do not impinge on the religious freedom of others. On the other hand, there are cases of coercive movements for cultural domination that are not based primarily on religion, but rather on appeals to racial or ethnic purity. Thus, religious fundamentalism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to qualify as a coercive movement for cultural domination.

This chapter focuses on movements that typically seek to create ethnically or religiously “pure” states by expelling, coercively assimilating or even killing anyone viewed as “other”


Movements for cultural domination— not the same as all fundamentalist or all violent movements
Movements for cultural domination Supremacist and seek to suppress other identities, even with violence

Fundamentalist groups Not all fundamentalists seek to impose their ideology

Violent groups Not all violent groups have an agenda of cultural domination

Source: Human Development Report Office.



The absence of democracy often creates conditions for the rise of such movements, while political accommodation can often moderate the sources of conflict and strengthen liberal democracy

How can states respond to such movements without compromising their democratic principles? States have two options: to repress such movements or to undermine their bases of support by democratically accommodating their underlying concerns and grievances. States have a legitimate right, and responsibility, to prosecute criminal acts. At times, the use of force is necessary. But states have to ensure that measures to restrict movements for cultural domination do not repress fundamental rights and freedoms. This chapter argues that repression seldom works. The absence of democracy often creates conditions for the rise of such movements, while political accommodation can often moderate the sources of conflict and strengthen liberal democracy. MOVEMENTS FOR CULTURAL DOMINATION— TODAY ’ S CHALLENGES Coercive and intolerant movements are not new, but they have been on the rise. In many countries movements for cultural domination are becoming a prominent force in national politics. Among the disturbing indications: • In Europe extreme right parties have had election successes in several countries, obtaining as much as 26.9% of the vote in Austria in 1999 (figure 4.2). • In North America and Europe hate crimes and xenophobic violence—motivated by



Some European extreme right parties have won steadily increasing vote shares
Trends in national parliamentary elections
















a. The AN party in Italy was in the electoral alliance Casa Delle Liberta, which included Forza Italia, Lega Nord and the New Italian Socialist Party (the alliance recieved 45.4% of the vote.) The vote percentage shown refers to the proportional part of the election, in which 155 of the 630 deputies are elected. Source: 2004; Ignazi 2003; Jackman and Volpert 1996; Widfeldt 2004.

racist, ethnic or religious bias—remain widespread. In 2002 there were 12,933 such crimes in Germany and 2,391 in Sweden, 3,597 prosecutions in the United Kingdom and 7,314 offences in the United States.1 These countries are not unique in experiencing extreme intolerance; they are among the few, however, that collect such data. • In 2003, 13 of 65 (one in five) groups engaging in terrorism could be identified as seeking religious domination or ethnic cleansing.2 • In Africa the Lord’s Resistance Army, which aims to establish a government based on the Ten Commandments, has inflicted brutal violence in northern Uganda since 1988, including kidnapping, torture and rape. The Interahamwe Hutu rebels, perpetrators of the 1994 genocide, continue to pose a threat in Rwanda. • In South Asia organized violent attacks on Christian churches and missions have increased. India, despite its long secular tradition, has experienced considerable communal violence, with rising intensity: 36.2% of casualties due to communal violence since 1954 occurred in 1990–2002.3 In Pakistan certain organizations (the Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkare-Jhangvi and Tehreek-i-Jafariya) have stoked brutal sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites since 1989 (table 4.1).4 • In South-East Asia the militant Jemaah Islamiyah, with networks in Indonsia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore, seeks to establish an Asian Islamic state. Some of its members were convicted for the Bali bombing in October 2002. • Such movements are often found on the fringes, but they can also be segments of a political party or even a state. In seeking to impose a particular notion of national identity and ideology, while suppressing other cultural identities, coercive states have committed some of the worst brutalities of recent history—the genocide of non-communists by the Khmer Rouge and the ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbian forces in Kosovo. Political activism for cultural domination exists in all major religions. In the United States Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics. In




Casualties resulting from sectarian violence in Pakistan, 1989–2003
Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number killed 18 32 47 58 39 73 59 86 193 157 86 149 261 121 102 Number injured 102 328 263 261 247 326 189 168 219 231 189 .. 495 257 103

.. Not available. Note: Data for 2000 are for terrorist attacks using explosives only. Data on casualties and incidents of other terrorist activity are not available. Source: SATP 2004.

India Hindu extremists have fomented antiMuslim violence in Gujarat even as Muslim extremists have targeted Hindus. The Jewish Gush Emunim, a militant settler group, aims to recreate Biblical Israel and has used violence to expel Palestinians. The Armed Islamic Group in Algeria threatens to kill those who do not pray or women who choose not to wear a headscarf. In Japan the Aum Shinrikyo cult, which claimed to be associated with Buddhism, poisoned commuters on the Tokyo subway system in 1995. Nor is religion the only wellspring of extremism. Brutalities on the basis of ethnicity or race include the attempted extermination of Jews by the Nazis in Germany and the massacre of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda. IDENTIFYING

Movements for cultural domination share some key elements. They distinguish themselves by their cultural identity—whether ethnic, racial or religious—and they attempt to impose their ideology by coercion, even extermination. They: • Believe in the superiority of their culture and reject all others. • Act on this belief to impose their ideology on others and create a “pure” society. • Often, though not always, resort to violence to achieve their aims.

Movements for cultural domination are supremacist and often predatory. They espouse an ideology that demonizes other identities to justify the creation of a “pure”, sacred and homogeneous homeland. They view anyone who does not belong to the core community as inferior, unwanted and unworthy of respect. The Jemaah Islamiyah blames Indonesia’s problems on “Kaffir Chinese and Christians”5— this is its justification for seeking to create an Islamic state at the cost of Indonesian secularism. The National Alliance—the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States—wants to create a new government “answerable to white people only”.6 Movements for cultural domination are exclusionary and seek to impose their ideology on others. They build support by engendering a sense of fear that their own values and identity are under threat (chapter 1). A study of extreme right parties in Europe revealed common characteristics: they foment xenophobia, leading to demands to create mono-cultural societies, to exclude “outsiders” from welfare policies and to mould a strong state that can protect the nation from “evil forces”.7 Movements of cultural domination also target members of their own community by denigrating and suppressing dissenting opinions and questioning integrity and loyalty (purity of faith or patriotism). Other motives may be at work. Many ethnic conflicts are also about political or economic power (chapter 2), and ethnic identity is a way to mobilize allies. The Rwandan genocide, for example, was a manifestation of the struggle for political and economic power between the Tutsi, excluded under the Hutu-dominated government, and the Hutu, excluded under colonial rule. What distinguishes these movements is that they pursue cultural domination in the name of identity. Inciting an ideology of hatred against the Tutsis, the Hutu militants redefined Hutu identity in racial terms, claiming that Hutus were the original inhabitants and deriding Tutsis as “foreigners” from Ethiopia. Not all movements for cultural domination are overtly violent. Threats, harassment and electoral politics are also common tactics. Moreover, the same organization might use a range of strategies—propaganda, electoral politics, soliciting of external support, forcible demands

Movements for cultural domination are exclusionary and seek to impose their ideology on others



for local support, and guerrilla or terrorist campaigns. Electoral politics is not always an alternative to coercion—many parties instil fear and insecurity to gain votes and to threaten members of other communities. While violence is not a universal characteristic of coercive movements, it is a common one. Coercive ideologies spread intolerance, which can inspire acts of random violence. The Christian Identity movement in the United States inspired racist shootings and murders by members of the Aryan Nations in 1998.

When the state fails, coercive movements may step in to offer education, insurance or law and order
Ideology. Discrimination. Poverty and inequality. Manipulative leadership. A weak or ineffectual state. Outside political interventions. Linkages with alienated diaspora. All are among the reasons for the rise and staying power of coercive movements for cultural domination. Failures of development and governance can leave a vacuum that coercive movements are only too eager to fill. A consistent characteristic of such movements is that they offer a simple (often distorted) explanation for the world’s failings—and a simple agenda to correct them (expelling immigrants, killing members of other communities). Identity politics often has underlying economic explanations of grievance or greed. In Western Europe extreme right parties have gained votes when there has been a significant loss of trust in mainstream parties over issues ranging from corruption to globalization.8 Religious movements offer doctrinal salvation to people who see modernization as alien and repressive in contexts where neither democratization nor economic development has succeeded. So, even a threatened middle class and professionally frustrated intelligentsia might join the ranks of the economically and socially marginalized in coercive movements. This was evident in the role of the “oppositional lay intelligentsia” in the rise of many coercive Islamist movements until the 1970s. In recent years clerics have played the dominant role.9 When the state fails, coercive movements may step in to offer education, insurance or law and order. The Taliban initially helped secure WHY

trading routes. The Gush Emunim briefly provided security to its members’ settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Adolat brigades in Uzbekistan gained popularity when they took the law into their own hands to reduce crime and lower food prices. The lack of resources to send children to secular (government or private) schools is one reason individuals rely on religious schools that provide free education. In principle, this is unobjectionable. Islamic schools, for example, can provide cultural and economic benefits to students who might otherwise not get an education. But in some communities such schools have also promoted coercive cultural ideologies and encouraged students to engage in coercive activities. While 2–3% of Pakistan’s Islamic schools are said to be recruiting children into coercive movements, only about half the estimated 15,000–20,000 religious schools are officially registered.10 It becomes difficult for the state to oversee and regulate such unregistered schools. In Thailand 300 of the 550 Islamic schools offer no secular education (the state is investigating their involvement in recruiting and training militants).11 But even state schools can preach intolerance. Nazism was propagated in state schools. Ideologies of white supremacy were part of the curriculum in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Control over education resources permits states to revise textbooks to distort history, target particular communities and encourage racist stereotypes. Leaders define the ideology of a movement. One of their main functions is to interpret religious doctrine to persuade members of the “divine” rightness of their acts. Because militias have a high risk of defection, leaders might demand that members prove their loyalty by studying religious texts for years or by committing acts of destruction. They also change the organization’s ideology or target, depending on the circumstances. And leaders convert wanton acts of coercion into a corporate effort. They recruit, indoctrinate and train their cadres (sometimes children). They plan terrorist acts and prepare publicity materials. And they secure funds to compensate family members of cadres who die in action and are then glorified as heroes (box 4.1).



Long-term immigrant communities abroad can contribute to the rise of coercive movements in their countries of origin. As members of the diaspora they struggle between retaining their original identity and cultural traditions and adapting to their new environment. When they feel insecure or unappreciated, they may separate themselves from mainstream society. There is evidence of such dissatisfaction among Muslim populations in Germany and the Netherlands.12 Coercive movements can exploit such sentiments to tap the diaspora for financial and political support. In the early 1990s “weekend fighters” came from Germany to fight for their ethnic groups in Bosnia.13 Many of these underlying factors in the rise of movements of cultural domination also inspire nationalist movements. Many of these factors are the reasons why discriminatedagainst groups struggle for political rights. But many movements for autonomy can be liberal and recognize the importance of accommodating diversity within an autonomous region. By contrast, movements for cultural domination can arise even within the majority and politically dominant group. Racists do not seek territorial autonomy; instead, they target all who are viewed as “other” or inferior. Movements for cultural domination are adept at using people’s genuine grievances to gain supporters. What distinguishes them is their agenda of cultural superiority and elimination of diversity and tolerance. DILEMMAS FOR DEMOCRACIES—RESTRICTIVE OR ACCOMMODATIVE MEASURES ? Coercive movements can be a powerfully destabilizing force. A challenge for all states, they present a particular dilemma for democratic ones. If movements for cultural domination use violent means, threaten law and order or deny the human rights of their members, governments have every right to take forceful action against them. But the problem is much broader than crime and punishment. In states that respect the right of free speech, movements for cultural domination use the freedoms of democratic societies to try to undermine them. It is possible—indeed, common— to advocate exclusion, discrimination and the

denial of civil and political liberties without ever breaking the law. The dilemma is that democratic states, which hold their values of freedom dear, do not want to stand accused of improperly restricting free speech and rights of assembly. Nor do they want to ignore threats to communal peace or intimidation of minority groups. If the rights of some groups are restricted, while the rest of society enjoys them, there is a danger of provoking extreme, even violent reactions. The challenge is to protect freedom while discouraging coercive movements. Coercive movements tend to be more powerful, and threatening, in non-democratic states. They make themselves heard through violence and extremism because the public sphere is otherwise closed to them. By definition, non-democratic states embody little or no allegiance to such values as free speech or the right to organize politically. For non-democratic regimes the trade-off between liberty and repression is less acute because there is less liberty to start with. For non-democratic governments, moving towards more liberal politics can be an effective
BOX 4.1

Coercive movements can be a powerfully destabilizing force

Leadership, ideological manipulation and recruiting supporters
Leaders of movements for cultural domination build group identities and mobilize their followers to adopt coercive methods against others. Leaders use their organizational skills to gain supporters, modify ideologies to suit their needs, arrange finances at home and abroad and give weapons and training to militant cadres. Such leaders pursue two core aims: creating an ideology of intolerance and altering the balance of political power. The easiest way to breed intolerance is to use self-serving interpretations of history to describe and vilify other groups. By doing so, leaders emphasize the quest for justice and focus on the losses their group allegedly suffered. The focus is not on solving real grievances but on using ostensible grievances as rallying cries. The Web site of the Bajrang Dal, a Hindu extremist group, accuses the Indian state of appeasing “anti-national elements (muslims)” and demands that Indian Muslims “prove that they are not the heirs and followers” of past invaders who destroyed Hindu temples. In the United States after the 1993 Waco tragedy involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and the Branch Davidian cult, leaders of religious cults and white supremacist organizations tried to rally support by attacking the federal government for perpetrating what they claimed was an injustice. Leaders also seek to change the structure of governance, such as substituting theological law for secular rules, repudiating electoral processes or restricting the constitutional rights of others. All these measures serve to impose one group’s authority and superiority over others. Notwithstanding the violent activities of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, in the past Buddhist monks have regularly opposed any moves towards granting autonomy to Tamils in the northeast.

Source: ADL 2003; The Economist 2000; Grove and Carter 1999; 2004; IRR 2003; Stern 2003.



strategy (box 4.2). Democratic societies, better suited to dealing with movements of cultural domination, have more options. RESTRICTIVE

Restricting the activities of coercive movements is only the first step

Restricting the activities of coercive movements is the first step. When these movements threaten, intimidate and violently target other groups, states need to restrain them, even if that requires the use of force. Common measures to restrict (and eventually eliminate) the activities of coercive movements include: • Erecting institutional barriers against coercive political parties. • Enacting legislation and using judicial intervention. • Applying force. Erecting barriers against coercive political parties. Institutional barriers that exclude certain types of organizations from participating freely in electoral politics or civil society are a common way for democratic societies to keep cultural extremism from infecting the larger society. Barriers include requiring a minimum share of votes to enter the legislature, controlling campaign funds, restricting access to broadcast services and

banning certain types of political parties through constitutional provisions. Non-democratic governments use similar measures to suppress opposition, compromising their ability to deal with coercive movements when a specific threat arises because there are no lines of communication. In Germany a political party must get 5% of the national vote to take a seat in the legislature. This threshold has helped to exclude from power all major extreme right parties since the end of the Second World War—the National Democratic Party (NPD), Republican Party (REP) and the German People’s Union (DVU). Israel’s threshold of 1.5%, by contrast, was not high enough to keep Rabbi Kahane of the racist Kach Party from winning a seat in the Knesset in 1984. In response, parliament adopted section 7A of the Basic Law, which blocks a slate of candidates from participating in elections if its purposes include, among others, “denial of the democratic character of the state” or “incitement to racism”. The government banned Kach in 1988 for inciting racism and declared it a terrorist organization in 1994. In both Germany and Israel coercive groups, even if permitted to contest elections, found their freedoms constrained when authorities identified them as hostile to the constitution.

BOX 4.2

Central Asia—the danger in restricting political and cultural liberties
By the end of Soviet rule in Central Asia Islam was polarized and new Islamist movements had emerged. There was official Islam, as regulated (and suppressed) by the Soviet state; traditional Islam, as organized around unofficial clergy; and reformist Islam, as espoused by the ahl al-Quran—“people of the Book”—who wanted to establish “pure Islam” and believed in strict adherence to Sharia law. With the repression of movements expressing popular aspirations, each successive religious movement became more ideologically extreme and coercive. Repression seldom works … In the early 1990s the pan-Central Asian Islamic Revival Party (IRP) sought to purify Islam but lacked a coherent structure. Despite being generally moderate, the IRP was banned in Uzbekistan in 1991. Around the same time the Adolat (justice) movement became a force, demanding that Uzbekistan become an Islamic state. It gained popularity as bands of volunteers patrolled the Ferghana Valley to reduce crime and demand lower food prices. Fearing alleged links with the IRP, authorities prosecuted Adolat leaders. This only boosted their popular appeal and forced the movement underground. In 1999–2000 the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), headed by former Adolat leaders, sought to depose the Uzbek government and establish an Islamic state. Another Islamist group, the Hizb-ut Tahrir (HT), has gained supporters throughout the Ferghana Valley region of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It wants to establish an Islamic caliphate in Central Asia. But it strongly criticizes the violence of the IMU, relying instead on grass-roots campaigns, distribution of leaflets and similar tactics. However, the HT also espouses radical ideas, rejecting democracy, imposing Sharia and threatening the possible use of force in future. The HT has been banned in all three states, but its popularity has not waned. … but democratic accommodation can Tajikistan’s civil war (1992–97) was largely a power struggle between different ethnic groups. After the United Tajik Opposition had been expelled from its strongholds, religious activists took over its leadership and renamed the group the Movement for the Islamic Revival of Tajikistan (MIRT), trying to reshape it as a religious force. In areas under its control the MIRT threatened to punish people who did not pray and demanded that women wear veils. Many moderate opposition leaders left the MIRT. After a peace agreement in 1997 former opposition members (including those from the relegalized Islamic Revival Party of Tajikistan) received government positions. More moderate leaders joined the party. The IRPT has kept its commitment— surrendering weapons, upholding the constitution, supporting a secular democratic state. The IRPT continues to advocate inclusion of religious values in the legal system, though it has limited political influence.

Source: Cornell and Spector 2002; The Economist 2003b; Rotar’ 2002; Rubin 2004; Zelkina 1999.



Such bans on political participation may be legitimate if a party has been implicated in criminal behaviour. But restrictions on political parties only because they adhere to a particular ideology might not work for two reasons. First, a movement that expresses a genuine public concern seldom withers away. Second, opposition against the regime can increase, and take more extreme forms, if the public considers such bans illegitimate. Morocco’s experience shows that wider political participation can increase moderation. After constitutional changes expanded the electoral playing field, the Islamist Justice and Development Party became the main opposition party in 2002. Within a year its leaders were arguing less about imposing Islamic law and more about advancing development. Enacting legislation and using judicial intervention. Laws restricting coercive groups differ in scope and implementation. Despite strong anti-racism laws in Sweden the Parliament rejected a ban on extreme right groups. But at times stringent laws against terrorism become necessary. In the United Kingdom the AntiTerrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 extended its scope to include both racially and religiously aggravated crimes. This law and India’s Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 extend the period of detention of suspects without trial. Malaysia and Singapore have used similar provisions for decades. But there are lively debates about anti-terror legislation almost everywhere—Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—because there is also a danger that anti-terror laws, enacted to deal with a crisis, will be abused or will remain in use in perpetuity. It is important to regularly review these laws for their need and effectiveness to justify their continuing application. The Indian government allowed its earlier anti-terror law to lapse in 1995 after accusations of human rights abuses. The UK antiterror law was introduced as a temporary measure in 1974 (in the wake of Northern Ireland-related terrorism) and amended in 1976, 1984, 1989 and 1996. When made permanent, such laws compromise guarantees of civil liberties in democratic societies. The UK legislation has no expiry date.

The effectiveness of laws that seek to cut the ground out from under movements for cultural domination depends not on how much they restrict civil liberties but on how much they protect them. The role of a functioning civilian justice system is critical for prosecuting coercive movements and individuals but also to serve as a check on government actions. Courts have come to different conclusions about the proper balance between protecting liberty and permitting the spread of hatred. In 1996 the Swedish Supreme Court interpreted a 1948 law that prohibited agitation against other ethnic groups (hets mot folkgrupp) to allow the banning of any display of emblems, symbols or clothing connected with racial hatred. The Dutch are also working through such complexities. In early 2001 the mayor of the municipality of Kerkrade invoked the Law on Public Events to forbid a march by the Netherlands People’s Union, an extreme right party with a racist ideology. A court in Maastricht overturned the order, and the march took place. The legitimacy of actions rests on acceptance of internationally recognized laws and norms. Coercive movements often develop international networks. If due process of law is not followed in one country, then a movement might gain sympathy and support in other countries as well. Applying force. All states, democratic or not, have a right to use force when faced with violent movements. What matters is how they use it. The use of force loses much or all of its legitimacy when the state restricts political rights, avoids civilian jurisdiction or uses torture. There is a practical argument against the use of force as the first option: it often does not work. Repression of the generally moderate Islamic Revival Party in Uzbekistan in the early 1990s led to the growth of extremist groups like the Adolat movement, and by 1999 the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was attempting to overthrow the government and engaging in terrorism (see box 4.2). Ensuring that force is used legitimately is not always easy. Force should be used only against groups that are coercive, not against groups demanding rights for political participation. It is sometimes difficult to make that distinction, however. Members of the same movement might

There is a practical argument against the use of force as the first option: it often does not work



States should go beyond restrictive measures to contain intolerant ideologies and coercive movements

espouse different ideologies and objectives, some coercive, others not. States become wary that giving freedom to a coercive movement could encourage more intolerance. Egypt shows just how difficult it has been to identify coercive movements—and yet how important it is to choose the right policy response (box 4.3). But certain strategies should be avoided. States have resorted to torture, arguing that it is justified under certain circumstances. No matter how infrequent or moderate the use, there is always the danger of abuse when the law condones such actions. In 1987 an Israeli judicial commission recommended allowing “moderate physical pressure” in interrogations.14 But the abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Shin Bet, the security service, became widespread. Recognizing this reality, the Israeli Supreme Court declared all such methods illegal in 1999. As of March 2004, 58 of 191 United Nations member states had not ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (indicator table 30). Most democratic states, and even some nondemocratic ones, apply five basic principles in their judicial processes: no arbitrary detention,

no torture, habeas corpus, access to trial by civilian magistrate and access to a defence lawyer. Confronting coercive movements does not mean that these principles have to be compromised. Doing so makes restrictive measures repressive—and even ineffective. DEMOCRATIC

States should avoid using only restrictive measures to contain intolerant ideologies and coercive movements. Why? Because the measures can undermine democratic principles—and are frequently ineffective. There is no evidence, for example, that banning political parties and movements with a racist agenda ends racism. Movements for cultural domination exploit real grievances; if banned, they simply go underground. Restriction, especially repression, provokes resistance not only from the movements—it can also turn popular opinion against the state. Coercive movements are sustainable at least in part because they give expression to people’s concerns and sentiments. Such concerns can be addressed only if they can be expressed and understood.

BOX 4.3

Egypt—distinguishing between moderates and extremists
Islamist groups are not all alike. Treating them so is not only poor politics, it is also ineffective in addressing the concerns that animate them. At the same time, distinguishing between groups and their ideologies is not always easy. This can be seen clearly in Egypt. For the better part of a century Egypt has contended with Islamist movements. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1928), al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya and al-Jihad are the most prominent. From the 1940s to the 1960s the Muslim Brotherhood had a violent element involving high-profile assassinations and armed plots against the government. But in the past two decades some of its leaders have rejected revolutionary and violent methods (they claim completely), even suggesting that violence contradicts Islamic Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated objectives now are the establishment of an Islamic democracy based on freedom, and the creation of a society with social justice and security for all citizens. It seeks an Egypt governed by Sharia law, while emphasizing the need to work within the institutions of democracy. The Egyptian state allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to run for election, in alliance with other parties, in 1984 and 1987, without officially recognizing it. The Brotherhood contested in alliance with other parties (Wafd in 1984, Liberal and Socialist Labour in 1987) and scored impressive gains—initially 8 seats, then 36. However, partly due to internal conflicts, the Brotherhood was equivocal in condemning violent acts committed by other groups in the early 1990s. Such ambiguity about its ideology has undercut the Brotherhood’s attempts to position itself as a moderate political alternative. In the 1990s the government arrested hundreds of Brotherhood members on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism. Deciding how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood is difficult. Egypt would be in a stronger position, however, if it acted from a position free from accusations of human rights abuses. Excluding one of the country’s prominent political organizations from public life is untenable in the long term. Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya and al-Jihad, which originated in the 1970s, have relied on violent tactics to secure their objective of imposing Sharia. The most gruesome attack was the massacre of 68 foreigners and Egyptians at a temple in Luxor in 1997 (the Muslim Brotherhood denounced the attack). Since then these groups have suffered ideological divisions. Some leaders now reject violence, while others defend it. The attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 (both groups allegedly contributed to them) highlighted the threats extremist elements pose. Alleged links to al-Qaeda have further eroded their claims to political participation. They are not allowed to enter elections. As the world seeks solutions to the threats posed by international terrorism, the Egyptian experience shows how difficult it is to distinguish between moderate and extremist groups. But opening the political sphere to the moderates can help to reduce the appeal of the extremists.

Source: Abed-Kotob 1995; Campagna 1996; Fahmy 1998; Gerges 2000.



Allowing political parties that espouse coercive ideologies to participate in elections might provide a democratic channel for expressing resentment, thereby reducing violence. The risk is that such parties, on gaining power, might then try to suppress cultural freedoms. Should the state ban parties that want to coercively impose Islamic Sharia law? Should a white-power group in Sweden be allowed to operate freely? This Report has already argued that universal values of human rights and individual freedoms must not be sacrificed to claims of tradition or customary law. But repressing a party for its ideology risks undermining democratic processes and might encourage the excluded to turn to violence. The experience of several countries suggests four strategies to guide the actions of democratic states—strategies that non-democracies can learn from: • Allowing normal democratic processes to function. • Prosecuting hate crimes. • Paying attention to school curricula. • Helping communities come to terms with past hatred and violence.
BOX 4.4

Allowing normal democratic processes to function. Suppression of political rights on grounds of ideology seldom succeeds. In Algeria a military intervention in 1992 annulled the election of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) party. This led to the emergence of a more militant group, the Armed Islamist Group (GIA). The result: more than a decade of deadly violence and nearly 100,000 lives lost.15 Political accommodation can split coercive movements between those prepared to participate in elections or government and those not (box 4.4). Mainstream parties in Europe tend to avoid links with racist, anti-immigrant parties, but political realities have at times coaxed them into bringing extreme right parties into a coalition. Austria’s extreme right Freedom Party (FPÖ) has been part of regional coalition governments since the 1970s. After winning 26.9% of the vote in 1999, it became a partner in the national coalition government. But this was on the condition that its leader, Jörg Haider, not be part of the government; he even stepped down as party chairman in 2000. Government policy remained moderate: Austrian immigration policy

Democratic accommodation can shed the hard light of reality on the fringe appeal of extremism

Algeria—discontent, democratization and violence
The Algerian civil war is often portrayed as a conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and the state. But the rise of intolerant and violent groups resulted from failed democratization. Accommodative strategies in recent years have yielded some initial positive results even as several other challenges remain. After an economic collapse in the 1980s pressure for greater democratization increased. The National Liberation Front (FLN) government, which had ruled Algeria since independence, introduced constitutional changes in 1989 to legalize political parties and curtail the role of the military. It had also encouraged an Islamist movement by significantly increasing religious spending from 1982 to 1987. Beginning in 1988 the country prepared for its first multiparty election, and the government dramatically cut religious spending to dampen the Islamist movement’s growing appeal. In the December 1991 elections the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which wanted to establish an Islamic state, won 47% of the vote in the first round. With the election outcome almost certain, the government halted the electoral process in early 1992. Democracy had failed in Algeria. While the failure had little to do with Islam, Islam was a major factor in the crisis. An armed Islamist movement had begun organizing in Algeria in 1990. Many groups, believing that democracy was not the route to an Islamic state, stayed out of the FIS. The FIS, arguing for democratic processes, at first marginalized violent groups. But it started losing credibility in the aftermath of the 1992 coup. By 1994, when armed groups opposing dialogue with the “apostate regime” (Hafez 2000, p. 577) united as the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the FIS formed its own military wing—the Islamic Salvation Army (AIS). The differences in ideology were substantial. The GIA targeted civilians; the AIS declared such methods un-Islamic and focused on military targets. The GIA considered violent jihad an Islamic imperative; the AIS viewed it as only one of many means to build an Islamic state. The GIA portrayed an uncompromising struggle against infidels and apostates; the AIS and FIS appealed to the president to restore democracy and political rights. These varying interpretations of Islam and its role indicate why generalizations about Islam and Islamist movements in Algeria are unhelpful. Since 1997, when the AIS negotiated a ceasefire with the military in return for a general amnesty, Algeria has made some moves towards reconciliation and democracy. In 1999 the government released political prisoners and passed a Law of Civil Reconciliation to extend amnesty to rebels who had not killed civilians, placed bombs in public places or committed rape. In elections in 2002 two Islamist-oriented parties earned seats in the National Assembly. Algeria has a long road ahead. The FIS continues to be disqualified from elections. The GIA and the recently established Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat continue to threaten violence. Demands for cultural recognition by the Berbers are another source of tension. Algeria’s experience exemplifies the argument presented throughout this Report: religion and ethnicity are not intrinsically causes of conflict, and democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for guaranteeing cultural freedoms.

Source: Hafez 2000; Middle East Institute 2003; Testas 2002; Tremlett 2002.



Difference is not a threat but a source of strength
Most societies in the world today include more than one culture, one community or one tradition. All too often in such a situation one element may seek to dominate the society as a whole. That approach can generate tension and conflict. It is in the interests of all to work together to build a society beneficial to all its members. Northern Ireland and the European Union are particularly strong examples of how the existence of more than one culture can prove to be positive in the building and development of society through a process of conflict resolution. It is now almost four decades since the beginnings of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, which has sought by peaceful means the same rights and opportunities for all the people living in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background or religion. Throughout those years I have maintained that, when you have a divided people, violence has absolutely no role to play in healing the division or in solving the problems—it only deepens the division. The problem can be resolved only through peace, stability, agreement, consensus and partnership. There cannot be victory for one side or the other. So long as the legitimate rights of each community in Northern Ireland were not accommodated together in a new political framework acceptable to all, the situation would continue to give rise to conflict and instability. There needed to be agreement. That is the purpose of the 1998 Belfast Agreement. It represents an accommodation that protects and promotes the identities and rights of all political traditions, groups and individuals. No one is asked to yield cherished convictions or beliefs. Everyone is asked to respect the views and rights of others as equal to his or her own. I also believe that the European Union is the best example of conflict prevention and conflict resolution in international history. It is important that we maintain and build on that record. European visionaries demonstrated that difference—whether of race, religion or nationality—is not a threat, but is natural, positive and a source of strength. It should never be the source of hatred or conflict. A fundamental principle of peace is respect for diversity. I entered the European Parliament in 1979 on the occasion of the first direct election to the parliament by the voters of its then nine member states. I will soon be stepping down from elected public life, delighted in the knowledge that in those 25 years the European Union has progressed to the point that it will by then have expanded to include 25 member states. This will end the artificial division of our continent created after the Second World War and reunite our European family. The European Parliament’s location is in Strasbourg, on the River Rhine, on the border between France and Germany. When I first visited Strasbourg I walked across the bridge from Strasbourg in France to Kehl in Germany and reflected on the tens of millions of people who had been killed in the numerous wars waged for control of territory. The European Union has replaced those conflicts with co-operation between its people. It has transformed its wide range of traditions from a source of conflict into a source of unifying strength.

John Hume, MP MEP 1998 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

did not become dramatically harsher, as had been feared. And in 2002 the FPÖ won only 10% of the vote, suffering from internal party divisions (see figure 4.2). Democratic accommodation can shed the hard light of reality on the fringe appeal of extremism. Extreme right parties might initially show populism-driven electoral success, but it is not always easy to maintain the momentum. Many European extreme right parties, like the Denmark Progress Party (FRPd) or the German Republican Party (REP), openly contested elections but were rendered irrelevant when they received miniscule proportions of the vote. Others like the Social Movement Tricolour Flame (MS-FT) in Italy got barely any support (figure 4.3). Non-democratic countries, by definition, have a narrow public space for political contests. This can encourage the growth of coercive movements, but it also limits the state’s ability to confront them in a way that the public deems legitimate. Prosecuting hate crimes. Failure to prosecute hate crimes only encourages coercive movements to advance their agenda through threats

and violence. Legislation that specifically targets hate crimes is controversial. Critics ask why bigotry should be considered more reprehensible

Percent 7

Democratic participation can expose the fringe appeal of extreme right parties
Share of vote in national parliamentary elections











Source: 2004; Ignazi 2003; Jackman and Volpert 1996; Widfeldt 2004; 2004; Swedish Election Authority 2002.



than, say, greed, and claim that such laws come close to prosecuting thoughts not deeds, perilous territory for democracies. The case for hate crime legislation rests on two premises. First, hate crimes have symbolic relevance—they are intended to send a message to an entire community and therefore, in a sense, threaten all its members. The crime is greater than the physical or verbal assault involved. Second, a potential victim can do little to prevent attack. Since it is religious or ethnic identity that motivates such crimes—often immutable characteristics—the threat is constant. Cultural liberty is about allowing individuals to make choices; hate crime is about coercing them into a straitjacket of someone else’s design. Having hate crime laws on the books is not enough. To identify potential threats countries need to collect data on hate crimes or xenophobic violence. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which assists EU countries with standard procedures for collecting such data, undertakes comparative analysis for the region. States must also have the political will to take a stand against intolerance. Of the 191 member states of the United Nations, 56 states (29%) have not ratified
BOX 4.5

the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (indicator table 30). Paying attention to school curricula. States should ensure that religious schools are not exempt from state regulation and that their students receive a broad-based education. Some countries have made encouraging efforts in this direction. Pakistan recently sanctioned a $100 million programme for including secular subjects in the curricula of religious schools.16 In Malaysia the government is introducing the J-QAF project to incorporate a comprehensive Islamic studies syllabus in the national education system; students will thus get both religious and secular education. In Indonesia since the early 20th century the Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama movements have run schools that have the same syllabus as public schools in addition to their religious curriculum. The State University of Islamic Studies also promotes humanities and social sciences within Islamic education systems. The curriculum of state schools also deserves attention. UNESCO has been engaged in several projects in Central America, western and southern Africa and southeastern Europe for the promotion of human rights in teacher

States must have the political will to take a stand against intolerance

United States—targeting intolerance and hatred
The United States has used a mix of strategies to respond to cultural extremism. These strategies have targeted intolerance, but they have not compromised fundamental rights and freedoms. Protecting freedom of speech and expression The United States targeted the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and American Nazis in the 1930s. But since then the evolution of the US legal system has been towards strongly defending the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably. A famous case during the 1970s involved the neoNazi National Socialist Party (NSPA), which demanded the right to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a large Jewish population. In 1978 the Illinois Supreme Court permitted the NSPA to march, arguing that “[s]peech can be restricted only when it interferes in a physical way with other legitimate activities” (Pehdazur 2001, p. 349). Recording hate crimes Yet the United States also has been recording hate crimes for a longer time than many other countries. In 1990 Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Statistics Act and amended it in 1994. Hate crimes are categorized according to the bias-motivation for a criminal act—race, religion, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation. Law enforcement agencies have several guidelines to objectively determine whether a crime was motivated by a bias—clothing, drawings and symbols, oral and written comments, acts on religious holidays and so forth. Lately, debate has begun on extending the scope of biases considered as hate crimes. A bill was introduced in the Oregon State Senate to extend the law to ecoterrorist and anti-capitalist actions. Prosecuting militants In the United States criminal prosecutions and civil law suits have been pursued with vigour against violent racist groups, with long jail sentences handed down to their leaders. Consequently, several groups have become bankrupt and fallen into disarray in recent years—Aryan Nations, the Creativity Movement, Greater Ministries International. Others, like the Hammerskin Nation, have also suffered but continue to pose a threat. Helping communities Finally, the Department of Justice has tried to resolve hate crimes at the community level. It established the Community Relations Service in 1964 to provide several services targeted at reducing hate crime activity: mediation to resolve communitywide tensions; technical assistance and training for local officials, police officers and residents on how to recognize hate crimes and share information; public awareness programmes and planning for contingencies such as marches and demonstrations that might exacerbate tensions.

Source: ADL 2003; De Kadt 2004; DoJ 2001; FBI 1999; Levin 2001; Pehdazur 2001.



To choke off coercive movements for cultural domination, states need to respond constructively, openly and legitimately to the forces that animate them

training programmes. The Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding, in the Republic of Korea, develops education curricula to promote understanding of diverse cultures in the region. Cameroon’s teacher training programmes include courses on tolerance and international understanding. Subjects like ethics and civics have become compulsory in primary and secondary education. Croatia has begun producing textbooks incorporating human rights education in both national (nursery, primary and secondary) and non-formal education programmes. Helping communities come to terms with past hatred and violence. Coercive movements, often the product of entrenched historical antagonisms, cannot be wiped out unless these antagonisms are dealt with. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission set in motion successful efforts in this direction. The use of community institutions (like the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda) appears to have had some success in healing wounds in the community. Communities in Angola and Mozambique are using traditional purification rituals to help traumatized child soldiers re-establish relations with their

families and larger communities. In Sweden joint projects between police and schools and youth centres have reduced ethnic tensions and provide alternative activities for youth.17 As countries like Afghanistan emerge from violent conflict, efforts to keep coercive movements at bay require strong state institutions (inclusive constitutions, fair legislative processes and independent judiciaries) and sound strategies for reintegration. Over several decades the United States has used such a mix of policies to effectively target racist groups and individuals. Criminal acts are met with force, but fundamental rights have also been protected (box 4.5). * * *

Movements for cultural domination exist because they tap into people’s real grievances and concerns. Wishing them away, pretending they do not exist or simply outlawing them only gives them more legitimacy to grow. To choke off coercive movements for cultural domination, states need to respond constructively, openly and legitimately to the forces that animate them.




Globalization and cultural choice

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” —Mahatma Gandhi1 When historians write of the world’s recent history, they are likely to reflect on two trends: the advance of globalization and the spread of democracy. Globalization has been the more contentious, because it has effects both good and bad, and democracy has opened space for people to protest the bad effects. So, controversies rage over the environmental, economic and social consequences of globalization. But there is another domain of globalization, that of culture and identity, which is just as controversial and even more divisive because it engages ordinary people, not just economists, government officials and political activists. Globalization has increased contacts between people and their values, ideas and ways of life in unprecedented ways (feature 5.1). People are travelling more frequently and more widely. Television now reaches families in the deepest rural areas of China. From Brazilian music in Tokyo to African films in Bangkok, to Shakespeare in Croatia, to books on the history of the Arab world in Moscow, to the CNN world news in Amman, people revel in the diversity of the age of globalization. For many people this new diversity is exciting, even empowering, but for some it is disquieting and disempowering. They fear that their country is becoming fragmented, their values lost as growing numbers of immigrants bring new customs and international trade and modern communications media invade every corner of the world, displacing local culture. Some even foresee a nightmarish scenario of cultural homogenization—with diverse national

cultures giving way to a world dominated by Western values and symbols. The questions go deeper. Do economic growth and social progress have to mean adoption of dominant Western values? Is there only one model for economic policy, political institutions and social values? The fears come to a head over investment, trade and migration policies. Indian activists protest the patenting of the neem tree by foreign pharmaceutical companies. Anti-globalization movements protest treating cultural goods the same as any other commodity in global trade and investment agreements. Groups in Western Europe oppose the entry of foreign workers and their families. What these protesters have in common is the fear of losing their cultural identity, and each contentious issue has sparked widespread political mobilization. How should governments respond? This chapter argues that policies that regulate the advance of economic globalization—the movements of people, capital, goods and ideas—must promote, rather than quash, cultural freedoms. It looks at three policy challenges that are among the most divisive in today’s public debates: • Indigenous people, extractive industries and traditional knowledge. Controversy rages over the importance of extractive industries for national economic growth and the socio-economic and cultural exclusion and dislocation of indigenous people that often accompany mining activities. Indigenous people’s traditional knowledge is recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity but not by the global intellectual property rights regime as embodied in the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. • Trade in cultural goods. International trade and investment negotiations have been divided over the question of a “cultural

Policies that regulate the advance of economic globalization must promote, rather than quash, cultural freedoms



Feature 5.1 What’s new about globalization’s implications for identity politics?
Cross-border flows of investment and knowledge, films and other cultural goods, and people are not new phenomena. Indigenous people have struggled for centuries to maintain their identity and way of life against the tide of foreign economic investment and the new settlers that often come with it. As chapter 2 shows, new settlers have spread their culture, sometimes by design, often by failing to respect indigenous ways of life. Similarly, the free flow of films has been an essential part of the development of the industry since the early 20th century. And people have moved across national borders from the earliest times. International migration has risen in recent decades but is still below 3% of world population, no higher than it was when it last peaked 100 years ago.1 What makes these flows a stronger source of identity politics today? Are old problems worsening? Are new problems emerging? Or are people simply freer, with more capacity to claim their rights? For each case, the answer is different but contains an element of all three. Indigenous people and flows of investment and knowledge Globalization has accelerated the flows of investment that profoundly affect the livelihoods of many indigenous people. In the last 20 years more than 70 countries have strengthened legislation to promote investment in extractive industries such as oil, gas and mining. Foreign investment in these sectors is up sharply (figure 1). For example, investments in mining exploration and development in Africa doubled between 1990 and 1997.2 Because so many of the world’s untapped natural resources are located in indigenous people’s territories, the global spread of investments in mining and the survival of indigenous people are inextricably linked (see map 5.1 and table 5.1). These trends have increased pressure on indigenous people’s territories, resulting in forcible displacement in Colombia, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru and the Philippines.3 If current trends continue, most large mines may end up being on the territory of indigenous people.4 Globalization has also heightened demand for knowledge as an economic resource. Indigenous people have a rich resource of traditional knowledge—about plants with medicinal value, food varieties that consumers demand and other valuable knowledge. Entrepreneurs were quick to see the market potential if they could patent and sell this knowledge. So traditional knowledge is increasingly misappropriated, with many “inventions” falsely awarded patents. Examples include the medicinal properties of the sacred Ayahuasca plant in the Amazon basin (processed by indigenous communities for centuries); the Maca plant in Peru, which enhances fertility (known by Andean Indians when the Spanish arrived in the 16th century); and a pesticidal extract from the neem tree used in India for its antiseptic properties (common knowledge since ancient times). Developing countries seldom have the resources to challenge false patents in foreign jurisdictions—indigenous people even less so. A March 2000 study concluded that 7,000 patents had been granted for the unauthorized use of traditional knowledge or the misappropriation of medicinal plants.5 But indigenous groups are increasingly assertive. Globalization has made it easier for indigenous people to organize, raise funds and network with other groups around the world, with greater political reach and impact than before. The United Nations declared 1995–2004 the International Decade for the World’s Indigenous People, and in 2000 the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was created. In August 2003 the Canadian government recognized the ownership claims of the Tlicho Indians over a diamond-rich area in the Northwest Territories. In October 2003 the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that indigenous people had both communal land ownership and mineral rights over their territory and that attempts to dispossess them constituted racial discrimination. Indigenous people now own or control more than 16% of Australia, with the Indigenous Land Corporation expected to be fully funded with a A$1.3 billion capital base, to be used to purchase land for indigenous people unable to gain ownership by other means.6 Flows of cultural goods—films and other audiovisual products The controversy over cultural goods in international trade and investment agreements has intensified because of exponential growth in the quantity of trade, increasing concentration of the film industry in Hollywood and the growing influence of films and entertainment on youth lifestyles. World trade in cultural goods—cinema, photography, radio and television, printed matter, literature, music and visual arts— quadrupled, from $95 billion in 1980 to more than $380 billion in 1998.7 About four-fifths of these flows originate in 13 countries.8 Hollywood reaches 2.6 billion people around the world, and Bollywood 3.6 billion.9 In the film industry US productions regularly account for about 85% of film audiences worldwide.10 In the audiovisual trade with just the European Union, the United States had an $8.1 billion surplus in 2000, divided equally between films and television rights.11 Of 98 countries around the world with comparable data, only 8 produced more films than they imported annually in the 1990s.12 China, India and the Philippines are among the largest producers in the number of films per year. But the evidence changes when revenue is considered. Of global production of more than 3,000 films a year Hollywood accounted for more than 35% of total industry revenues. Furthermore, in 1994–98, in 66 of 73 countries with data, the United States was the first or second major country of origin of imported films.13 The European film industry, by contrast, has been in decline over the past three decades. Production is down in Italy, which produced 92 films in 1998, and Spain, which produced 85, while remaining unchanged in the United Kingdom and Germany.14 France is the exception. Production there increased to 183 films in 1998.15 The share of domestic films


Millions of US$ 6,000 5,000 4,000

Rapid increases in investments in extractive industries in developing countries, 1988–97
Inflows in mining, quarrying and petroleum

3,580 1988 1997

3,000 2,037 2,000 1,219 1,000 0 561 599

South and East Asia
Source: UNCTAD 1999.

Latin America

Developing countries



viewed between 1984 and 2001 declined dramatically in much of Europe, with the exception of France and Germany, where policies support the domestic film industry. For the same period, the share of US films increased across most of the continent (figure 2). The international dominance of US films is just one aspect of the spread of Western consumer culture. New satellite communications technologies in the 1980s gave rise to a powerful new medium with global reach and to such global media networks as CNN. The number of television sets per thousand people worldwide more than doubled, from 113 in 1980 to 229 in 1995. It has grown to 243 since then.16 Consumption patterns are now global. Market research has identified a “global elite”, a global middle class that follows the same consumption style and prefers “global brands”. Most striking are “global teens”, who inhabit a “global space”, a single pop culture world, soaking up the same videos and music and providing a huge market for designer running shoes, t-shirts and jeans. Flows of people Policies on immigration have become socially divisive in many countries. Debates are not just about jobs and competition for social welfare resources but about culture—whether immigrants should be required to adopt the language and values of their new society. Why are these issues more prominent today? What has globalization got to do with it? Globalization is quantitatively and qualitatively reshaping international movements of people, with more migrants going to highincome countries and wanting to maintain their cultural identities and ties with their home countries (table 1). People have always moved across borders, but the numbers have grown over the last three decades. The number of international migrants—people living outside their country of birth—grew from 76 million in 1960 to 154 million in 1990 and 175 million in 2000.17 Technological advances make travel and communication easier, faster and cheaper. The price of a plane ticket from Nairobi to London fell from $24,000 in 1960 to $2,000 in 2000.18 The telephone, the Internet and the global media bring the realities of life across the globe into the living room, making people aware of disparities in wages and living conditions—and eager to improve their prospects.


Top 10 countries by share of migrant population, 2000 (Percent) United Arab Emirates Kuwait Jordan Israel Singapore Oman Switzerland Australia Saudi Arabia New Zealand
Source: UN 2003a.

68 49 39 37 34 26 25 25 24 22

poor to rich countries. In the 1990s the foreign-born population in more developed regions increased by 23 million.19 Today, almost 1 in 10 people living in those countries was born elsewhere.20 • Irregular migration has reached unprecedented levels: up to 30 million people worldwide do not have legal residency status in the country where they live.21 Circular migration. People who decide to migrate today are more likely to return to their place of birth, or to move on to a third country, than to stay in the first country to which they migrate. With cheaper communication and travel, migrants stay in closer touch with their home communities. Diaspora network. Having friends and family abroad makes migration easier. Diaspora networks provide shelter, work and assistance with bureaucracy. So migrants coming from the same country tend to concentrate where others have settled: 92% of Algerian immigrants to Europe live in France, and 81% of Greek immigrants in Germany.22 Chinese illegal emigration has swelled the diaspora to some 30–50 million people.23 Remittances. In little more than 10 years remittances to developing countries went from $30 billion in 1990 to nearly $80 billion in 2002.24 Remittances sent from Salvadorans abroad amounted to 13.3% of El Salvador’s GDP in 2000.25 Asylum seekers and refugees. About 9% of the world’s migrants are refugees (16 million people). Europe hosted more than 2 million political asylum seekers in 2000, four times more than North America.26 Feminization. Women have always migrated as family members, but today more women are migrating alone for work abroad, leaving their families at home. For the Philippines, women made up 70% of migrant workers abroad in 2000.27

Politics also influence the flow of people. Repression can push people to leave; so can greater openness. Political transitions in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the Baltics made it possible for many people to leave for the first time in decades. But more than the numeric increase, the structure of migration has changed radically. • Changing demographics. For Western Europe, Australia and North America, the growth in migration in the last decade was almost entirely concentrated in flows from Fewer domestic films, more US films: evolving film attendance, 1984–2001
Share of US films
Percent 100 80 60 40 20 0 39 1984 2001 60 47 48 53 62 81 74 66 77




France Italy


UK Germany

5 19 34 45 42 22 18 17 17 16

20 40 60 80 100 97 94


Share of domestic films
Source: Cohen 2004.

Source: ATSIA 2003; CSD and ICC 2002; Moody 2000; WIPO 2003d; World Bank 2004; Cohen 2004; Kapur and McHale 2003; IOM 2003b, 2003c, 2004; UN 2002a, 2002b, 2003a.



The aim of multicultural policies is to protect cultural liberty and expand people’s choices—in the ways people live and identify themselves—and not to penalize them for these choices

exception” for films and audiovisual goods, which would permit them to be treated differently from other goods. • Immigration. Managing the inflow and integration of foreign migrants requires responding to anti-immigrant groups, who argue that the national culture is threatened, and to migrant groups, who demand respect for their ways of life. The extreme positions in these debates often provoke regressive responses that are nationalistic, xenophobic and conservative: close the country off from all outside influences and preserve tradition. That defence of national culture comes at great costs to development and to human choice. This report argues that these extreme positions are not the way to protect local cultures and identities. There need not be a choice between protecting local identities and adopting open policies to global flows of migrants, foreign films and knowledge and capital. The challenge for countries around the world is to design countryspecific policies that widen choices rather than narrow them by supporting and protecting national identities while also keeping borders open. GLOBALIZATION AND MULTICULTURALISM The impact of globalization on cultural liberty deserves special attention. Previous Human Development Reports have addressed sources of economic exclusion, such as trade barriers that keep markets closed to poor countries’ exports, and of political exclusion, such as the weak voice of developing countries in trade negotiations. Removing such barriers will not itself eliminate a third type of exclusion: cultural exclusion. That requires new approaches based on multicultural policies. Global flows of goods, ideas, people and capital can seem a threat to national culture in many ways. They can lead to the abandonment of traditional values and practices and the dismantling of the economic basis on which the survival of indigenous cultures depends. When such global flows lead to cultural exclusion, multicultural policies are needed to manage trade, immigration and investments in ways that recognize cultural differences and identities. And the exclusion of traditional knowledge

from global regimes for intellectual property needs to be explicitly recognized, as does the cultural impact of such goods as films and the cultural identity of immigrants. The aim of multicultural policies is not to preserve tradition, however, but to protect cultural liberty and expand people’s choices—in the ways people live and identify themselves—and not to penalize them for these choices. Preserving tradition can help to keep the options open, but people should not be bound in an immutable box called “a culture”. Unfortunately, today’s debates about globalization and the loss of cultural identity have often been argued in terms of upholding national sovereignty, preserving the ancient heritage of indigenous people and safeguarding national culture in the face of growing inflows of foreign people, films, music and other goods. But cultural identities are heterogeneous and evolving—they are dynamic processes in which internal inconsistencies and conflicts drive change (box 5.1). Four principles should inform a strategy for multiculturalism in globalization: • Defending tradition can hold back human development. • Respecting difference and diversity is essential. • Diversity thrives in a globally interdependent world when people have multiple and complementary identities and belong not only to a local community and a country but also to humanity at large. • Addressing imbalances in economic and political power helps to forestall threats to the cultures of poorer and weaker communities. DEFENDING


The first principle is that tradition should not be confused with freedom of choice. As chapter 1 points out, “To argue for cultural diversity on the ground that this is what the different groups of people have inherited is clearly not reasoning based on cultural liberty”. Furthermore, tradition can work against cultural freedom. “Cultural conservatism can discourage—or prevent—people from adopting a different lifestyle, indeed even from joining the lifestyle



that others, from a different cultural background, standardly follow in the society in question.” There is much to cherish in traditional values and practices, and much that is consonant with universal values of human rights. But there is also much that is challenged by universal ethics, such as inheritance laws that are biased against women, or decision-making procedures that are not participatory and democratic. Taking the extreme position of preserving tradition at all cost can hold back human development. Some indigenous people fear that their ancient cultural practices are endangered by the inflow of foreign investment in extractive industries or that sharing traditional knowledge necessarily leads to its misuse. Some have reacted to violations of their cultural identity by shutting out all new ideas and change, trying to preserve tradition at all cost. Such reactions reduce not only cultural choices but also social and economic choices for indigenous people. Similarly, anti-immigrant groups often defend national identities in the name of tradition. This narrows their choices as well by shutting countries off from the socio-economic benefits of immigration, which brings new skills and workers to an economy. And defending national cultural industries through protectionism reduces the choices for consumers. In no society are lifestyles or values static. Anthropologists have discarded concerns with reifying cultures and now see importance in how cultures change, continuously influenced by internal conflicts and contradictions (see box 5.1). RESPECTING

BOX 5.1

Culture—paradigm shift in anthropology
For many years, defining cultural and social anthropology as the study of the cultural dimension of people would have raised few objections. “A culture” was understood as synonymous with what before had been called “a people”. During the past two decades, however, the concept of “culture”, and by extension the idea of “cultural difference” and the underlying assumptions of homogeneity, holism and integrity, have been re-evaluated. Cultural difference is no longer viewed as a stable, exotic otherness. Self-other relations are increasingly considered to be matters of power and rhetoric rather than essence. And cultures are increasingly conceived of as reflecting processes of change and internal contradictions and conflicts. But just as anthropologists were losing faith in the concept of coherent, stable and bounded cultural “wholes”, the concept was being embraced by a wide range of culture builders worldwide. Anthropological works are increasingly being consulted by people trying to assign to groups the kinds of generalized cultural identities that anthropologists now find deeply problematic. Today, politicians, economists and the general public want culture defined in precisely the bounded, reified, essentialized and timeless fashion recently discarded by anthropologists. Culture and cultural diversity have become political and juridical realities, as stated in the first Article of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001): “cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations”. Many people have grasped at least part of the anthropological message: culture is there, it is learned, it permeates everyday life, it is important and it is far more responsible for differences among human groups than are genes.

Source: Preis 2004 citing Brumann 1999; Clifford 1988; Rosaldo 1989; Olwig, Fog and Hastrup 1997; UNESCO 2002.

it is not diversity that inevitably leads to conflict but the suppression of cultural identity and social, political and economic exclusion on the basis of culture that can spark violence and tensions. People may be fearful of diversity and its consequences, but it is opposition to diversity— as in the positions of anti-immigrant groups—that can polarize societies and that fuels social tensions. DEVELOPING


The second principle is that diversity is not an end in itself but, as chapter 1 points out, it promotes cultural liberty and enriches people’s lives. It is an outcome of the freedoms people have and the choices they make. It also implies an opportunity to assess different options in making these choices. If local cultures disappear and countries become homogeneous, the scope for choice is reduced. Much of the fear of a loss of national identity and culture comes from the belief that cultural diversity inevitably leads to conflict or to failed development. As chapter 2 explains, this is a myth:

The third principle is that globalization can expand cultural freedoms only if all people develop multiple and complementary identities as citizens of the world as well as citizens of a state and members of a cultural group. Just as a culturally diverse state can build unity on multiple and complementary identities (chapter 3), a culturally diverse world needs to do the same. As globalization proceeds, this means not only recognizing local and national identities but also strengthening commitments to being citizens of the world. Today’s intensified global interactions can function well only if governed by bonds of



Multiple and complementary identities are a reality in many countries

shared values, communication and commitment. Cooperation among people and nations with different interests is more likely when all are bound and motivated by shared values and commitments. Global culture is not about the English language or brand name sneakers—it is about universal ethics based on universal human rights and respect for the freedom, equality and dignity of all individuals (box 5.2). Today’s interactions also require respect for difference—respect for the cultural heritage of the thousands of cultural groups in the world. Some people believe that there are contradictions between the values of some cultural traditions and advances in development and democracy. As chapter 2 shows, there is no objective evidence for claiming that some cultures are “inferior” or “superior” for human progress and the expansion of human freedoms. States develop national identities not only to unify the population but also to project an identity different from that of others. But unchanging

notions of identity can lead to morbid mistrust of people and things foreign—to wanting to bar immigrants, fearing that they would not be loyal to their adopted country or its values, or wanting to block flows of cultural goods and ideas, fearing that homogenizing forces would destroy their national arts and heritage. But identities are seldom singular. Multiple and complementary identities are a reality in many countries—and people have a sense of belonging to the country as well as to a group or groups within it. ADDRESSING

The fourth principle is that asymmetries in flows of ideas and goods need to be addressed, so that some cultures do not dominate others because of their economic power. The unequal economic and political powers of countries, industries and corporations cause some cultures to spread, others to wither. Hollywood’s powerful film industry, with access to enor-

BOX 5.2

Sources of global ethics
All cultures share a commonality of basic values that are the foundation of global ethics. That individuals can have multiple and complementary identities suggests that they can find these commonalities of values. Global ethics are not the imposition of “Western” values on the rest of the world. To think so would be both artificially restrictive of the scope of global ethics and an insult to other cultures, religions and communities. The principal source of global ethics is the idea of human vulnerability and the desire to alleviate the suffering of every individual to the extent possible. Another source is the belief in the basic moral equality of all human beings. The injunction to treat others as you would want to be treated finds explicit mention in Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism, and it is implicit in the practices of other faiths. It is on the basis of these common teachings across all cultures that states have come together to endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supported by the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social Rights. Regional treaties, such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, the American Convention of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, have taken similar initiatives. More recently, the UN’s Millennium Declaration, adopted by the full membership of the General Assembly in 2000, recommitted itself to human rights, fundamental freedoms and respect for equal rights to all without distinction. There are five core elements of global ethics. • Equity. Recognizing the equality of all individuals regardless of class, race, gender, community or generation is the ethos of universal values. Equity also envelops the need to preserve the environment and natural resources that can be used by future generations. • Human rights and responsibilities. Human rights are an indispensable standard of international conduct. The basic concern is to protect the integrity of all individuals from threats to freedom and equality. The focus on individual rights acknowledges their expression of equity between individuals, which outweighs any claims made on behalf of group and collective values. But with rights come duties: bonds without options are oppressive; options without bonds are anarchy. • Democracy. Democracy serves multiple ends: providing political autonomy, safeguarding fundamental rights and creating conditions for the full participation of citizens in economic development. At the global level democratic standards are essential for ensuring participation and giving voice to poor countries, marginalized communities and discriminated against minorities. Protection of minorities. Discrimination against minorities occurs at several levels: non-recognition, denial of political rights, socio-economic exclusion and violence. Global ethics cannot be comprehensive unless minorities receive recognition and equal rights within a larger national and global community. The promotion of tolerance is central to the process. Peaceful conflict resolution and fair negotiation. Justice and fairness cannot be achieved by imposing pre-conceived moral principles. Resolution of disagreements must be sought through negotiations. All parties deserve a say. Global ethics does not mean a single path towards peace or development or modernization. It is a framework within which societies can find peaceful solutions to problems.

Source: World Commission on Culture and Development 1995; UN 2000a.



Indigenous peoples and development
Development divorced from its human or cultural context is growth without a soul. Economic development in its full flowering is part of a people’s culture. —World Commission on Culture and Development 1995 Indigenous peoples are proponents and representatives of humanity’s cultural diversity. Historically, however, indigenous peoples have been marginalized by dominant societies and have often faced assimilation and cultural genocide. In the multicultural societies growing up around them, indigenous peoples seek an end to such marginalization and fringe dwelling. They have much to contribute to society, and they bring to both national and international debates valuable advice about the great issues facing humanity in this new millennium. In May 2003 the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues stressed in its Second Session the importance of recognizing cultural diversity in development processes and the need for all development to be sustainable. Recommendation 8 of the Second Session calls for “instituting a legal framework that makes cultural, environmental and social impact assessment studies mandatory” (E/2003/43). The forum also expressed concern over development practices that do not take into account the characteristics of indigenous communities as groups, thus significantly undermining meaningful ways of participatory development. Indigenous peoples have dynamic living cultures and seek their place in the modern world. They are not against development, but for too long they have been victims of development and now demand to be participants in—and to benefit from—a development that is sustainable.

Ole Henrik Magga Chairman of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

mous resources, can squeeze the Mexican film industry and other small competitors out of existence. Powerful corporations can outbid indigenous people in using land rich in resources. Powerful countries can outnegotiate weak countries in recognition of traditional knowledge in World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Powerful and exploitative employers can victimize defenceless migrants. FLOWS OF INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGE—

on respect for cultural traditions and the sharing of the economic benefits of resource use. WHY


Indigenous people see globalization as a threat to their cultural identities, their control over territory and their centuries-old traditions of knowledge and artistic expression (see feature 5.1). They fear that the cultural significance of their territories and knowledge will go unrecognized—or that they will receive inadequate compensation for these cultural assets. In these situations globalization is often blamed. One reaction is to opt out of the global economy and to oppose the flows of goods and ideas. Another is to preserve tradition for its own sake, without accounting for individual choice or democratic decision-making. But there are alternatives. Preserving cultural identity need not require staying out of the global economy. There are ways of ensuring the cultural and socioeconomic inclusion of indigenous people based

Central to ensuring the inclusion of indigenous people in a global world are how national governments and international institutions deal with investments in indigenous territories and protect traditional knowledge. The historical territories of indigenous people are often rich in minerals and oil and gas deposits (map 5.1, table 5.1 and feature 5.1). That can set up the potential for conflict between promoting national economic growth through extractive industries and protecting the cultural identity and economic livelihood of indigenous people. The traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous people, developed over many generations and collectively owned by the community, can have practical uses in agriculture, forestry and health. Conflict can arise between recognizing collective ownership and following the modern intellectual property regime, which focuses on individual rights. Extractive industries. The cultural identity and socio-economic equity of indigenous people can be threatened in several ways by the activities of extractive industries. First, there is inadequate recognition of the cultural significance of the land and territories that indigenous





Indigenous population in Latin America
Percent Country Bolivia Guatemala Peru Ecuador Honduras Mexico Panama Chile El Salvador Nicaragua Colombia Paraguay Argentina Venezuela Costa Rica Brazil Uruguay Share of total population 71.0 66.0 47.0 38.0 15.0 14.0 10.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.4


Much extractive and infrastructural activity in developing countries is in areas where indigenous people live
Latin America, 2003







Source: De Ferranti and others 2003.

Note: Black dots represent areas with high prevalence of indigenous people and with intense extractive and infrastructural activities (mining, oil exploration, dam and road construction, industrial agriculture, fisheries, electricity plants, biopiracy, logging).


South-East Asia and Pacific, 2003






Source: Tebtebba and International Forum on Globalization 2003.

people inhabit. Indigenous people have strong spiritual connections to their land, which is why some of them oppose any investment in extractive industries within their territories. For instance, some groups of San Bushmen in Botswana oppose the exploration licences that the government has granted to Kalahari Diamonds Ltd. Second, there is plausible concern about the impact of extractive industries on local livelihoods. When mineral extraction leads to the widespread displacement of communities and loss of their farmlands, it affects both their sense of cultural identity and their source of sustainable livelihood. The Lihir Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea has destroyed sacred sites of the

Lihirians and sharply reduced their ability to subsist by hunting game. Third, indigenous groups complain about unfair exclusion from decision-making. And when consultations with local communities do occur, they often leave much to be desired. Keeping such concerns in mind, the World Bank used a new approach to support the Chad–Cameroon Pipeline project.2 By law, net incomes were to be deposited in an offshore account to ensure annual publication of audits and reduce corruption. Further, 10% of revenues were earmarked for a Future Generations Fund. Civil society representatives and a member of the opposition were to be part of a monitoring board. The project had to comply with the Bank’s safeguard policies on environmental assessments and resettlement. And two new national parks were planned to compensate for the loss of a small forest area. The project highlights the innovative steps international institutions are taking to build capacity and transparency and ensure targeted benefit sharing. But some indigenous groups believe that this has been inadequate. Fewer than 5% of the Bagyéli people affected by the pipeline were employed on the project. They received little compensation and few of the promised health care facilities.3 In countries with very weak institutional structures, project partners face major challenges in effectively implementing well conceived projects. This does not mean that investments need to be stopped; rather, even greater efforts are needed. Fourth, indigenous people feel cheated when their physical resources are misappropriated without adequate compensation. There was very limited involvement of local people on the Yanacocha gold mine in the Cajamarca region in Peru (a joint venture between Peruvian and US mining companies and the International Finance Corporation). Some of the tax revenues were to go to the indigenous inhabitants, but they received less than they were promised.4 Ecuador is home to one of the largest confirmed oil reserves in Latin America. Companies pay about $30 million in taxes for a special Amazon development fund, but little of that money reaches the indigenous communities.5 These issues highlight the conflict between national sovereignty over resources and the




special rights of indigenous people to their territories and the mineral resources they contain. For instance, Ecuador’s Constitution does not give native Indians any rights to the oil and gas within their territories. While it is not necessary that such rights be constitutionally guaranteed, it is necessary that indigenous people have a say in the use of resources within their territories. Traditional knowledge. The traditional knowledge of indigenous groups has attributes of communal ownership and sometimes has spiritual significance. Intellectual property regimes fail to recognize either the community ownership or spiritual significance of traditional knowledge. The laws protect the work of individual, identifiable authors or inventors and spell out how others can use their work. The Quechua Indians in Peru oppose the commercial exploitation of their traditional knowledge but can do little about it. The Maori in New Zealand believe that even when their knowledge is publicly disclosed, there is no automatic right to use it—that right must be determined collectively. There is also a danger of wrongly awarding intellectual property rights, so that communities that have produced, preserved or developed traditional knowledge over several generations are not compensated for its use. To qualify for patent protection an invention must fulfil three strict criteria: it must be novel, not obvious and industrially useful. Since traditional knowledge does not always meet these criteria, the international intellectual property regime does not explicitly protect it. Researchers can appropriate traditional knowledge and apply for a patent, claiming to have invented a new product. Copyright protection can also be wrongly awarded for the appropriation. Misappropriation of traditional knowledge need not be deliberate. Sometimes it arises from mistakenly treating traditional knowledge as part of the public domain, where intellectual property protection does not apply. Traditional knowledge, because it is known publicly within the community (and sometimes outside it), is more prone to appropriation without compensation to the community that developed it than are other types of intellectual property. The Sami Council of Scandinavia argues that even if its knowledge is publicly known, the public

domain principle ignores obligations to the community. The Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes traditional knowledge, in contrast to the global intellectual property rights regime administered under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Article 8(j) stipulates that contracting parties must preserve and maintain the knowledge and innovations of indigenous and local communities. It also seeks the wider application of traditional knowledge “with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge” and encourages “equitable sharing of the benefits”. Article 10(c) of the convention encourages the “customary use of biological resources in accord with traditional cultural practices”. The issue, then, is to find ways to reconcile the provisions of different international intellectual property regimes in order to protect traditional knowledge for the benefit of the indigenous community and promote its appropriate use within wider society. POLICY

The solution is not to block flows of investment or knowledge or to preserve tradition for its own sake. Human development aims at expanding an individual’s choices


The solution is not to block flows of investment or knowledge or to preserve tradition for its own sake. Human development aims at expanding an individual’s choices, through growth that favours the poor and through equitable socio-economic opportunities within a democratic framework that protects liberties. Addressing the concerns of indigenous people will require global, national and corporate policies that advance human development goals (box 5.3). International institutions are already looking for ways to mitigate some of the problems. In 2001 the World Bank commissioned an extractive industries review to determine how such projects can assist in poverty reduction and sustainable development. Based on discussions with governments, non-governmental organizations, indigenous people’s organizations, industry, labour unions and academia, the 2004 report recommends pro-poor public and corporate governance, effective social and environmental policies and respect for human



BOX 5.3

Private companies and indigenous people can work together for development
Is it possible for private companies to work cooperatively with indigenous people and to gain in the process? Yes. Consider these examples. Pilbara region, Australia Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd has been exporting ore from the natural resource–rich Pilbara region since the mid-1960s. While Aboriginal populations remained concentrated in welfaredependent towns, the company’s need for skilled labour led to a massive influx into the region of non-indigenous people. The Aboriginal groups began to oppose the development of newer mines and demanded discussions on the company’s activities on traditional lands. In 1992 Hamersley established the Aboriginal Training and Liaison Unit, to provide job training, increase business development in the area and improve infrastructure and living conditions while preserving the aboriginal heritage and culture. By 1997 the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation had signed joint venture agreements with Hamersley to develop newer mines. Aboriginal men
Source: International Council on Metals and the Environment 1999.

would receive training in operating machinery, and services would be contracted to the local communities. Hamersley would contribute more than A$60 million for these purposes. Raglan project, Canada After a 1975 agreement to settle land ownership issues in northern Quebec between indigenous groups and the provincial and federal governments, the Inuit received financial compensation to set up the Makivik Corporation as a heritage fund. In 1993 Makivik signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Falconbridge Ltd (later the Raglan Agreement) to guarantee benefits from planned mining projects in the region, including priority employment and contracts for the Inuit, profit sharing and environmental monitoring. Falconbridge will pay an estimated C$70 million to an Inuit trust fund over 18 years. Archaeological sites were also identified and marked as off limits to mining, and the rights of Inuit employees to hunt outside the Raglan site were assured.

Red Dog Mine, United States In the 1970s the Inupiat people of Northwest Alaska successfully blocked Cominco Inc.’s interest in exploiting zinc-lead deposits at the Red Dog site. After several years of negotiations the Northwest Alaska Native Association (NANA) and Cominco signed an agreement in 1982 to allow mining to go forward. Cominco agreed to compensate the Inupiat through royalties, to include NANA representatives in an advisory committee, to employ indigenous people and to protect the environment. In lieu of taxes Red Dog would pay $70 million into the Northwest Arctic Borough over 24 years. By 1998 Cominco had invested $8.8 million in technical training almost entirely for NANA shareholders employed in the project. NANA has also monitored the impact on subsistence activities and forced efforts to reduce effluent flows into streams. Cominco has maintained a flexible work schedule that allows Inupiat employees to continue their traditional way of life.

rights. WIPO’s General Assembly established an Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore in October 2000. It is reviewing mechanisms for protecting traditional knowledge while increasing the participation of indigenous people. States and international institutions need to collaborate in continuing to adjust global rules and national laws in ways that more successfully take into account the concerns of indigenous people, giving them a genuine stake in the flows of investments, ideas and knowledge. Three measures are essential: • Explicitly recognizing indigenous people’s rights over their physical and intellectual property. • Requiring consultations with indigenous communities and their participation for the use of any resource, thus ensuring informed consent. • Empowering communities by developing strategies to share benefits. Loans to companies or countries for projects that wrongly appropriate property must be withdrawn, and patents granted to others who

have misappropriated traditional knowledge should be revoked. Recognizing rights. Many states have laws that explicitly recognize indigenous people’s rights over their resources. In a 2002 report the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights argued that national legislation is needed to address specific circumstances. The Philippines has laws requiring informed consent for access to ancestral lands and indigenous knowledge and for equitable sharing of benefits. Guatemalan law promotes the wider use of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions by placing them under state protection. Bangladesh, the Philippines and the African Union recognize the customary practices of communities and the community-based rights to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Requiring participation and consultation. Including the local community in decisionmaking is not only democratic—it also ensures against future disruption of projects. Having learned from the Yanacocha mine, the Antamina zinc and copper mine in Peru involved indigenous communities in decision-making at



the start of operations in 2001. But consultations have to be meaningful. This requires carefully identifying the affected groups and providing full information about the likely costs and benefits of a project. Consultations can also prevent the false appropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Countries now demand disclosure of the origin of plants and other genetic material before granting patents. The Andean Communities, Costa Rica and India, among others, include this provision in laws and regulations. Documenting traditional knowledge is often essential for protecting it, as is being done by the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library in India and a similar initiative in China. Lao PDR has a Traditional Medicines Resource Centre. In Africa, where much traditional knowledge is oral, documentation would diminish possibilities for uncompensated exploitation of knowledge. But in Latin America some indigenous people worry that documentation, by making their knowledge more accessible, would facilitate exploitation. Documentation does not prejudice rights. It preserves knowledge in written form and prevents others from claiming it as their own. WIPO has an Online Portal of Databases and Registries of
BOX 5.4

Traditional and Genetic Resources for use by patent examiners. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has linked its information to the portal. And India has contributed its Health Heritage Test Database. Sharing benefits. Opportunities for benefit sharing in extractive industries are extensive, including education, training, preferential employment for local people, financial compensation, business opportunities and environmental commitments. In Papua New Guinea, where indigenous communities own 97% of the land, small mining projects have assisted in poverty alleviation. At the Bulolo mine a well planned closure allowed the mining company to use its infrastructure to develop a timber plantation—which remains financially viable 35 years after the mine was closed.6 Companies in other countries have also had success involving local communities in decision-making and profit sharing. While multilateral negotiations on protecting traditional knowledge within the intellectual property rights regime continue, countries are discovering ways of using existing systems to do so (box 5.4). Industrial designs protect carpets and headdresses in Kazakhstan. Geographical indications protect liquors and teas in Venezuela

Documenting traditional knowledge is often essential for protecting it

Using intellectual property rights to protect traditional knowledge
Respecting traditional knowledge does not mean keeping it from the world. It means using it in ways that benefit the communities from which it is drawn. Australia’s intellectual property rights laws do not cover traditional knowledge, but certification trademarks are used to identify and authenticate products or services provided by indigenous people. In the 1995 Milpurrurru case—Aboriginal designs were reproduced on carpets without prior consent—an Australian court judged that “cultural harm” had been caused due to trademark violation and awarded compensation of A$70,000 (WIPO 2003c). In the 1998 Bulun Bulun case a court judgement found that an indigenous person owed fiduciary obligations to his community and could not exploit indigenous art contrary to the community’s customary law. In Canada trademarks are used to protect traditional symbols, including food products, clothing and tourist services run by First Nations.
Source: Commission on Intellectual Property Rights 2002; WIPO 2003c.

The Copyright Act protects tradition-based creations like woodcarvings, songs and sculptures. In 1999 the Snuneymuxw First Nation used the Trademarks Act to protect 10 religious petroglyphs (ancient rock paintings) from unauthorized reproduction and to stop the sale of goods bearing these images. Other countries have explicitly recognized traditional knowledge and customary legal systems. Greenland retains its Inuit legal tradition within its Home Rule Government. Over the past 150 years written Inuit literature has documented cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is treated as dynamic and not restricted to traditional aspects alone. Both traditional and modern cultural expressions are respected and enjoy equal protection under law. A more celebrated case involves the San Bushmen of southern Africa. An anthropologist noticed in 1937 that the San ate the Hoodia cactus to stave off hunger and thirst. Based on this

knowledge the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 1995 patented the Hoodia cactus’s appetite-suppressing element (P57). By 1998 revenues from the licensing fee for developing and marketing P57 as a slimming drug had risen to $32 million (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights 2002). When the San alleged biopiracy and threatened legal action in 2002, the CSIR agreed to share future royalties with the San. Recognition of traditional culture can occur at the regional level as well. Article 136(g) of Decision 486 of the Commission of the Andean Community states that signs may not be registered as marks if they consist of the names of indigenous, Afro-American or local communities. The Colombian government used Article 136(g) to reject an application for registration of the term “Tairona”, citing it as an invaluable heritage of the country—the Taironas inhabited Colombian territory in the pre-Hispanic period.



Globalization can bring recognition to indigenous people who have developed their resources over the centuries

and Viet Nam. Copyrights and trademarks are used for traditional art in Australia and Canada. In many cases these measures have resulted in monetary benefits for the community as well. Discussions at WIPO are focusing on how to complement intellectual property provisions with unique national approaches. One proposal—the compensatory liability approach— envisages rights for both the patent owner and the owner of traditional knowledge. While the patent owner would have to seek a compulsory licence to use the traditional knowledge resource, the owner would also have the right to commercialize the patented invention after paying royalties to the patent owner. This mechanism avoids restricting scientific progress and makes benefit sharing economically significant. By promoting flows of investments and knowledge, globalization can bring recognition to indigenous people who have developed their resources over the centuries. But national and international rules on global trade and investment must also account for the cultural sensitivities and customary property rights of indigenous people. Respecting cultural identity and promoting socio-economic equity through participation and benefit sharing are possible as long as decisions are made democratically—by

states, by companies, by international institutions and by indigenous people. FLOWS OF CULTURAL GOODS—WIDENING

BOX 5.5

The debate on cultural goods and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments fiasco
After the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations ended in 1994, some countries wanted to set up a mechanism to liberalize, regulate and enforce global investment flows. This set the stage in 1998 for the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). The objective was to create a single multilateral regulatory framework to replace some 1,600 bilateral investment treaties. Among other provisions the MAI aimed at introducing the “national treatment” principle of nondiscrimination to investment rules and foreign investors. Country of origin would have ceased to be a factor when applying rules on investment and trade in services in order to stop discrimination against foreign investment and facilitate its flows. As the MAI was being negotiated within the OECD, though, a number of
Source: UNESCO 2000b, 2000c; Public Citizen 2004.

countries inserted exceptions and reservations that weakened the initiative. Concerned about the effect that MAI could have on cultural industries and fearing loss of leeway to subsidize or protect national industries, France introduced clauses for cultural industries. Motivated by a number of objections to the negotiations, including the treatment of cultural goods like any other merchandise, non-governmental groups in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States joined the French government’s campaign against the agreement. The initiative collapsed, demonstrating how contentious these issues are and complicating future talks on trade in services and investment that affect countries’ cultural diversity.

During the 1994 countdown to the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, a group of French movie producers, actors and directors was able to insert a “cultural exception” clause in trade rules, excluding cinema and other audiovisual goods from their provisions. The clause acknowledges the special nature of cultural goods as traded commodities. The Uruguay Round text provided a precedent for other trade agreements to allow countries to exempt cultural goods from trade agreements and adopt policies to protect such industries at home. Some exceptions for trade in cultural goods were written into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. In the acrimonious debates over the Multilateral Agreement on Investments in the OECD in 1998 the cultural exception was one of the most bitterly contested issues, propelling the collapse of negotiations (box 5.5). At the preparatory meetings in Cancun for the Doha Round in 2003 negotiations reportedly foundered over the Singapore Issues—trade facilitation, transparency in government procurement, trade and investment, and trade and competition.7 The United States had asked for a freeze on the extension of the cultural exception, to avoid bringing Internet-related audiovisual activities into the negotiations. The Free Trade Area of the Americas ministerial meeting in Miami in November 2003 faced similar challenges for cultural goods, and no clear agreement was reached. So, whether to treat cultural goods like any other commercial good or to make them an exception has become a hotly contested issue in international trade negotiations. Positions remain polarized. On one side are those who consider cultural products as commercial as apples or cars and therefore subject to all the rules of international trade. On the other side are those who view cultural products as assets conveying values, ideas and meaning and therefore deserving of special treatment.






The cultural exception has mobilized public support that politicians find difficult to ignore. The cultural exception touches people’s concerns that their national cultures might be swept away by the economic forces of the global market, threatening their cultural identity. The most extreme advocates of the cultural exception fear that foreign films and television programmes will spread foreign culture and eventually obliterate local cultures and traditional values. No doubt nationalism, traditionalism and economic advantage motivate many who advocate banning foreign products. But are the fears of those who predict a narrowing of cultural choices justified? In fact, free flows of foreign products widen cultural choices and do not necessarily weaken commitment to the national culture. Teenagers the world over listen to rap, but that has not meant the death of classical music or local folk music traditions. Attempts to close off foreign influences have had limited impact. Not until 1998 did the Republic of Korea gradually start to lift a half-century-old ban on Japanese music and film. Yet it is very likely that Koreans had access to Japanese pop culture, particularly animation and manga (comic books), well before the ban was eased. Restricting foreign influence does not promote cultural freedom. But that does not mean that cultural goods are not different in some ways from other commercial goods. Why are cultural goods different? Cultural goods convey ideas, symbols and lifestyles and are an intrinsic part of the identity of the community that produces them. There is little disagreement that cultural products need some public support to flourish. Subsidies for museums, ballet, libraries and other cultural products and services are widespread and accepted in all free market economies. The disagreement is over whether films and audiovisual products are cultural goods or merely entertainment. While it can be debated whether cinema and television programmes have intrinsic artistic value, it is clear that they are cultural goods in that they are symbols of ways of life. Films and audiovisual products are

powerful conveyors of lifestyles and carry social messages (see feature 5.1). They can have a powerful cultural impact. Indeed, they are contested precisely because of their impact on choices about identity.8 Why do cultural goods need public support? The reasons behind the arguments for public intervention have to do with the way cultural goods are consumed and produced. Both give advantage to large economies and large industries with access to large financial resources and lead to asymmetric flows of films and television programmes (figure 5.1).9 • Cultural goods are experience goods. Cultural products are consumed through experience: because of the subjective nature of these goods, consumers will not know whether they like the good until after they have consumed it. So prices will not reflect the quality of the product or the satisfaction it is likely to give to the consumer. Marketing campaigns, advertising and commercial reviews—amplified by word of mouth— are consumers’ principal sources of information, giving a massive advantage to producers with greater command over resources for marketing and distribution. Many small local producers will struggle to access the market, particularly producers operating from developing countries.

Whether to treat cultural goods like any other commercial good has become a hotly contested issue


Top-grossing films of all time at the international (non-US) box office were US films, April 2004
Country Year of origin 1997 2003 2001 2002 2002 1993 2003 1996 1999 US US US US US US US US US US Total gross revenue (millions of US$) 1,235 696 651 604 581 563 547 513 505 491

Rank US Films 1 Titanic 2 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 3 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone 4 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 5 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 6 Jurassic Park 8 Finding Nemo 9 Independence Day 10 Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace Non-US Films 44 Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi 69 The Full Monty 86 Four Weddings and a Funeral 96 Bridget Jones’ Diary
Source: The Internet Movie Database 2004.

7 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001

2001 1997 1994 2001

Japan UK UK UK

254 211 191 183



Cultural products and creative activities, if left to the market, could wither and diversity could decline

• Large producers can benefit from economies of scale. Smaller and less well financed producers are penalized in these markets because they cannot enjoy the economies of scale that characterize many cultural industries, especially films and other audiovisual products.10 The cost of making a movie is the same whether it is shown one time or a million times. The more times it is shown, the higher the returns. When the film reaches a big market—thanks to large domestic demand, widespread understanding of the language spoken in the film and strong advertising campaigns—it is much likelier to become an international success. The same is true for other cultural goods. Countries and corporations with greater financial leverage can benefit from these economies of scale by capturing large markets and enjoying their exclusive advantages in markets with few other large producers (table 5.2). POLICY


For these reasons, cultural products and creative activities, if left to the market, could wither and diversity could decline. What is the solution? Cultural protectionism and quotas? Or production subsidies?

Protection. As argued in past Human Development Reports, raising barriers to reduce flows of imports can be problematic, a conclusion that applies to trade in cultural goods as well. Trade barriers to reduce or block imports defeat the expansion of diversity and choice. Yet many countries have set production and broadcasting quotas for locally produced programmes on radio, television and films to guarantee a minimum market share. Hungary has a quota of 15% for national programmes on public channels.11 And the Republic of Korea’s screen quota system, based on minimum days of domestic projections each year, probably contributed to the increase in domestic market share and exports. But aggressive quota-based policies have not always resulted in greater variety and choice. Some critics point out that high quotas make local producers depend more on quotas and less on holding production costs down. Some also argue that protection can reduce the quality of goods.12 Promotion. Some countries have successfully maintained healthy cultural industries while also keeping trade links open. Argentina and Brazil offer financial incentives to help domestic industries, including tax breaks. In Hungary 6% of television receipts go to the production of Hungarian films. France spends some $400 million a year to support its film industry, one of the few thriving in Europe, producing more than 180

Policy choices for the promotion of the domestic film and audiovisual industry—market and industry size matter
Advantages Large producing countries (more than 200 productions) Large home markets, expanding broadcasting audiences allow higher returns Disadvantages Lowers market competition and the production of cultural and artistic films Policy solutions Specialized taxation incentives to encourage independent film-makers and specialized distributors to make more films New international legal frameworks to allow better and more balanced exchanges, expanding national production capacities

Medium-size producing countries (from 20 to 199 productions)

State and legal financial support guarantee the existence of a national infrastructure and markets, allowing for a public sector role and higher quality films Creativity does not suffer from high technical and organizational competition or financial constraints; the very limited financing does not seek immediate returns

National legal protectionism could impede international free film trade

Small producing countries (fewer than 20 productions)

Small domestic markets reflect a structural lack of investment in the film industry, limiting the number of national productions; unfair asymmetric international trade practices also diminish domestic production

As with communications and computer technologies, digital technologies can create new and less expensive production opportunities, thus overcoming distribution and production bottlenecks

Source: Human Development Report Office based on UNESCO 200a.



films annually (box 5.6 and feature 5.1).13, 14 The French-German worldwide success, Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain, shows the possibilities for cross-border co-productions.15 Studios and equipment can also be supported. Since 1996 the Egypt Film Society has built film studios with financing from a privatepublic partnership. Other developing economies are trying to do the same. As with all subsidies, there are challenges to make them work. Who should decide on the criteria for making grants? How should such decisions be made? The measures depend largely on the size of the domestic market (see table 5.2). The 2001 Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) set the stage for a number of international initiatives to encourage action in setting standards for cultural diversity, including the Round Table on Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, the Summit on the Francophonie, the annual Meeting of the International Network on Cultural Policy and the UN resolution proclaiming 21 May as “World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development”. Preparatory work has begun for a legally binding convention to secure the diversity of cultural expression. The emergence or consolidation of cultural industries should also be supported. Cooperation can support development of the necessary infrastructure and skills to create domestic markets and help local cultural products reach global markets. Small business incubators can encourage small and medium-size companies in music, fashion and design. International funds could be mobilized to finance the translation of books and the subtitling or dubbing of local films in international languages. Skills in these fields could be formalized in business schools and through exchanges on the economics of cultural industries. Cultural tourism and partnerships with the World Tourism Organization can disseminate advice to host communities. And partnerships with parliaments, ministries of culture and national statistical offices can gather best practices on cultural exchanges, data gathering and policy-making.

BOX 5.6

France’s successful support of domestic cultural industries
Under the “cultural exception” (l’exception culturelle) introduced during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations and resolutely defended by the French government in the mid-1990s, the state promotes and pays for the production of Gallic culture—a successful example of public support for cultural industries. The government subsidizes the production of televised versions of French fiction, a popular staple of public television. France imposes a 40% minimum quota of French language radio transmissions. (Canada has a similar system.) These measures have created opportunities for artists who might otherwise not have been able to crack the
Source: Financial Times 2004.

domestic market and have made France the largest film producer in Europe, effectively countering competition from Hollywood. The French government robustly defends the cultural exception—but for how much longer will it be able to do so? The new menace comes not from the usual suspects—Hollywood or the World Trade Organization—but from Brussels. The European Commission is considering limiting the amount of support that countries are allowed to provide to their domestic production. If the new rules are passed, a strong wave of opposition is likely to come from groups that fear a loss of national identity through excess foreign films.



Top 10 cities by share of foreign born population, 2000/01
Percent Miami Toronto Los Angeles Vancouver New York City Singapore Sydney Abidjan London Paris 59 44 41 37 36 33 31 30 28 23

Almost half the people in Toronto and Los Angeles are foreign born, and more than a quarter are in Abidjan, London and Singapore (table 5.3). Driven by globalization, the number of migrants soared in the last decade, especially to the high-income countries of Western Europe, North America and Australia (figure 5.2). And with the growing availability of the Internet and the low cost of air travel, more immigrants are maintaining closer ties with their countries of origin (see feature 5.1). Globalization is not only bringing cultural groups together. It is altering the rules of engagement. Democratization and a growing respect for human rights are bringing increasing political freedom and a sense of entitlement to fair treatment and are legitimizing protest. Immigration gives rise to an array of concerns on both sides. Receiving countries struggle with issues of cultural freedom. Should Muslim girls be allowed to wear headscarves to state schools in France (box 5.7)? Similar debates rage over whether education should be provided in Spanish in US schools or whether Sikh motorcyclists should be permitted to wear a turban instead of a standard helmet in Canada. Immigrants protest a lack of recognition for their cultural identities as well as discrimination in jobs, housing and education. In many countries these concerns are met by the counter-protests of local populations,

Source: UN HABITAT 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004b; World Cities Project 2002; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001; Statistics Canada 2004.





Unprecedented growth in international migration to Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, but refugees remain a small proportion, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Refugees Number of migrants
Millions 180 160 140 120 62 60 57 154 175

But this choice between acknowledging diversity and closing the country to immigration may be a false one if national cultures are not really threatened by diversity. DOES


41 40 28 20



16 16 20 0 16 1 2 1 1 5 6 7 6 9 6 4 1


Source: UN 2002a.


North America

Australia / New Zealand



Latin America and Caribbean



More and more governments (rich and poor) want to control immigration, 1976–2001
Governments viewing immigration as “too high”

50 40 30 20 10 0

More developed regions

Less developed regions

Governments adopting policies to reduce immigration
50 40 30 20 10 0

More developed regions

Less developed regions 1976 1986 2001

Source: UN 2002a.

who fear that their national identities and values are also being challenged. “They don’t adopt our way of life and values”, say those opposed to immigration. “Respect our way of life and our cultures and our human rights”, retort immigrant communities and their allies. One response would be to acknowledge diversity and promote the inclusion of immigrants, addressing both the social, economic and political exclusions they suffer and living mode exclusion, giving recognition to their identities. An alternative, advocated by anti-immigrant groups, would be to close countries to flows of people— reversing the trend of increasing diversity (figure 5.3). The political agenda of France’s National Front Party, for example, proposes to turn back the flow of immigration, revoking family reunification programmes, expelling undocumented aliens, developing programmes to return immigrants to their countries of origin and giving citizens preference in employment, social assistance and other areas.16 Italy’s Northern League and National Alliance parties (both members of the ruling coalition) are introducing legislation to limit immigration to people who have an employment contract in Italy and to provide aid to countries to stop illegal immigration.17

Those fearing that immigrants threaten national values make three arguments: that immigrants do not “assimilate” but reject the core values of the country; that immigrant and local cultures clash, inevitably leading to social conflict and fragmentation; and that immigrant cultures are inferior and if allowed a foothold would undermine democracy and retard progress, a drain on economic and social development. Their solution is to manage diversity by reducing immigrant flows and acculturating immigrant communities. Single or multiple identities. Underlying fears of losing national culture is an implicit belief that identities are singular. But people do not have single, fixed identities. They have multiple and often changing identities and loyalties. In the words of Long Litt-Woon, chairperson of the Drafting Group of the Council of Europe’s Conference on Diversity and Cohesion: “I am often asked how long I have lived [in Norway]; ‘20 years’, I say. The next remark often is ‘Oh, you are almost Norwegian!’ The assumption here is that I have become less Malaysian because it is common to think about identity as a zero sum game; if you have more of one identity, you have less of another. Identity is somehow imagined to be like a square box with a fixed size.”18 Some groups of immigrants may want to retain their cultural identities. But that does not mean that they do not develop loyalties to their new country. People of Turkish ancestry in Germany may speak Turkish at home well into the second generation, but they also speak German. Mexicans in the United States may cheer for the Mexican football team but serve in the US Army. Suspicions about the loyalties of immigrants have been common. But they are misplaced. Suspecting divided loyalties, the US and Canadian governments interned their citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Yet soldiers of Japanese descent serving in the US




BOX 5.7

The headscarf dilemma in France
Should Muslim girls be allowed to wear headscarves in state schools in France? Would that contradict the principles of secularism (laïcité) and respect for freedom of religion? Does this freedom require public spaces to be kept free of religious influence? Or would that constitute discrimination against the Muslim immigrant community? Or does the headscarf reflect subjugation of women by men? Few controversies have aroused as much passion—on both sides— and raised more penetrating challenges to accommodating cultural diversity in recent years. The controversy dates to 1989, when a secondary school expelled three young women who wore headscarves in class on the grounds that this violated French principles of secularism. This triggered massive public debate. The Council of State declared that the wearing of religious tokens is not in itself incompatible with secularism as long as it did not have an “ostentatious or militant” character. The Ministry of Education appointed a special mediator to deal with future such incidents. The controversy quieted down until December 2002, when a girl in a predominantly immigrant neighbourhood in Lyon appeared in school wearing a headscarf. The headscarf had been reduced nearly to a headband, covering neither her forehead nor her ears. The principal
Source: Zolberg 2003; Gutmann 1995; The Economist 2004b.

called in her parents and demanded that the girl stop wearing a headscarf to school. The parents protested that they had already accommodated French norms by reducing the headscarf to a headband. The mediator was called in but was unable to find an acceptable solution. Some teachers threatened to go on strike if the student were allowed to continue to wear the headscarf in school. The affair quickly turned into a politicized debate. Members of the National Assembly on both the left and the right proposed a law explicitly prohibiting the wearing of headscarves in schools and other public spaces. Leftist intellectuals quickly took positions for and against: either in defence of freedom of expression and against discrimination against Muslims, or in
Are you in favour of, or opposed to, a law banning signs or dress that conspicuously display religious affiliation? (21 January 2004) Group All French Left Right Muslims Muslim women In favour (%) 69 66 75 42 49 Opposed (%) 29 33 24 53 43

defence of secularism and values of gender equality, since it was thought that many girls were being intimidated into wearing the headscarf. In 2003 the Ministry of Education and the National Assembly established a committee of enquiry. In July an Independent Commission on the Application of Secularism in the Republic proposed a ban on the wearing of any obvious religious symbols in schools, including the headscarf. Ultimately, the legislation was passed, but opinions were divided. Positions did not fall as might be expected along typical divides: left–right, non-Muslim–Muslim, or women–men. Opinion polls taken just prior to the vote showed Muslim women equally divided for and against the new law (see table). The case highlights the dilemmas that countries face in trying to accommodate the religious and other cultural differences of immigrant communities. As in this case there are difficult tradeoffs and complex arguments. Those who defend the ban argue that it is a defence of freedom— freedom of religion and freedom of women from subordination. But so do those who argue against the ban—freedom against discrimination and unequal opportunities. Such trade-offs of principles are particularly difficult in public education, which is intended to impart the values of the state.

and Canadian armies exhibited high levels of valour and loyalty, becoming some of the most decorated heroes. In 1960 there were fears in the United States that a Roman Catholic President might have loyalties to the Pope beyond and above his loyalties to the United States, fears that President John F. Kennedy had to actively combat as a candidate in 1960. Concerns about national identity are sometimes also expressed through denunciations of immigrant cultures as “inferior”, with claims that allowing immigrants to flourish would retard the country’s progress and development. But this Report has demonstrated how little foundation there is for the arguments of cultural determinism. To be sure, many immigrant groups—though by no means all groups or in all countries—do have high rates of unemployment and lower than average educational achievement. But the reasons have to do with the multiple disadvantages they suffer rather than any culturally determined

group characteristics—disadvantages that can be remedied with appropriate policies of inclusion, as chapter 3 proposes. For most societies accommodating multiple identities does not happen overnight. It means coming to see as familiar differences that were once considered “alien”. Social scientists call this a shifting and blurring of the boundaries that separate “us” and “not us”. The confrontations in France over Muslim girls wearing headscarves to school or in the United States over instruction in Spanish in primary school are about people fighting to maintain boundaries as they have been drawn. Islam and Spanish are symbols of the “not us”. Admitting them as part of “us” suggests giving in to the dangers seen looming ahead: communal conflict and loss of cultural identity. In accommodating multiple identities, societies debate two questions: How different can we afford to be? How alike must we be? Accepting multiple identities is a major social



Closing doors to immigration is neither practical nor in the interest of national development

transformation. But history shows that it does happen. Almost all European countries have undergone such a transformation. Today, being different is no longer the difference between being an Alsatien and being a Breton but between being a Sri Lankan and being a Scot, creating a broader category of “us”. Immigration supports economic growth and development. Closing doors to immigration is neither practical nor in the interest of national development. Far from being a drain on development, immigrants are a source of skills, labour, ideas and know-how. Economists have long argued that the gains from liberalizing migration dwarf those from removing barriers to world trade. From Indian technology entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley in the United States to West African nurses throughout Europe to Chinese investors in Australia to Filipino domestic workers in Saudi Arabia, immigrants’ contributions to innovation, enterprise and skill are daily reminders of their value to society. In today’s knowledge economy countries compete by creating and attracting top talent. In 1990, for example, foreign-born students earned 62% of engineering doctorates in the United States, and more than 70% of foreignborn students who get doctorates in the United States stay in the United States.19, 20 Often among the more entrepreneurial in society, immigrants invest in small businesses and rejuvenate urban neighbourhoods—in Europe they are creating commercial zones in abandoned areas to generate thousands of jobs.21 Today, countries of Western Europe and Japan, facing the prospect of aging and shrinking populations, are in dire need of fresh inflows of people. Western Europe’s working age population is forecast to fall from 225 million in 1995 to 223 million by 2025.22 According to UN Population Division estimates, Europe will have to double its intake of immigrants just to maintain its population size by 2050.23 Barriers to entry have not been removed for people as they have been for goods and capital. Yet migration has climbed rapidly in the 1990s, including undocumented migration that has proliferated in the 1990s, reaching almost 30 million people worldwide (see feature 5.1). Efforts to reverse the flows of people fight

against the tide of globalization.24 Significantly reducing immigration would require measures that are difficult to implement in democracies. POLICY OPTIONS AND CHALLENGES— CULTURAL RECOGNITION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

Countries with historically large numbers of immigrants have followed two approaches to integration, differentialism and assimilation. Differentialism means maintaining clear boundaries between groups and respecting them as separate communities. Differentialist policies have typically been used when the state organizes immigration to fill temporary labour needs and does not expect migrants to become full members of the local community. Examples are guest workers in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s and domestic servants in Saudi Arabia today. The other approach, assimilation, seeks to make immigrants become “more like us”. The state and other institutions encourage immigrants to learn the predominant national language and adopt the social and cultural practices of the receiving community. By the time immigrants’ children have passed through the primary institutions of the new society, especially public schools, they will be almost indistinguishable from the rest of the local community. The image of the US “melting pot” best represents this approach. These two approaches, effective in earlier decades, are inadequate in diverse societies that need to build respect for differences and a commitment to unity. Culturally diverse societies are not predestined to disintegrate or to lose their national cultures and identities. But accommodating diversity requires efforts to build cohesion in managing immigration and the integration of migrants into society. Just as there are many ways in multi-ethnic states for ethnic minorities to feel pride in their own community as well as strong loyalty to the state, so too can immigrants become full members of their adopted countries and still maintain ties to their countries of origin. The challenge is to craft policies that integrate the objectives of unity and respect for difference and diversity. Differentialism does not build commitment to the country among



immigrants or provide adequate social protection. And guest worker programmes can be a source of exploitation and conflicts—“we wanted workers, but we got people” was the reaction of some (box 5.8). Assimilation does not accommodate difference or respect for diversity, nor does it explicitly address asymmetry. Immigrants are more inclined today—and more able—than in the past to maintain close connections with family and community in their place of birth. Such connections are not new, but the influence on social, economic and political behaviour is different, thanks to the ease of modern communication and travel. Immigrants want to keep a foot in each world—one in their place of birth and the other in their adopted country. Multiculturalism has recently become a third approach to incorporating immigrants, one that recognizes the value of diversity and supports multiple identities. It began in Canada in the early 1960s, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau articulated the idea in response to the challenges of a diverse population of indigenous people, French and English settlers and recent immigrants, with major divisions and inequalities among them. Australia introduced such a policy in the 1990s, after concluding that it was the only way to create cohesion amid diversity. Multiculturalism is not only about recognizing different value systems and cultural practices
BOX 5.8

within society—it is also about building a common commitment to core, non-negotiable values, such as human rights, rule of law, gender equality, and diversity and tolerance.25 Australia describes this as “United in Diversity”. Such a policy emphasizes not only the freedom of individuals to express and share their cultural values but also their obligations to abide by mutual civic obligations. Although there is a historical sequence to these models of immigrant integration, at any one time countries use all three approaches. While not adopting multiculturalism as an explicit state policy, many countries are introducing elements of this approach as they struggle to manage growing diversity. The challenge involves addressing cultural exclusions along three dimensions, with a common theme of building unity and respecting difference: • Addressing cultural exclusion by recognizing cultural identities (living mode exclusion). • Addressing socio-economic exclusion (participation exclusion). • Addressing exclusion from civic participation and citizenship rights (participation exclusion). Addressing cultural exclusion by recognizing cultural identities. Immigrant communities might not suffer explicit discrimination and suppression of their way of life, but most

Multiculturalism is about building a common commitment to core, non-negotiable values

Temporary contracts—welcoming workers but not people does not work
As states struggle to control the flow of workers in the globalized labor market, many are experimenting with temporary migration programmes. Immigrants recruited under such programmes are not offered citizenship; they are expected to work for a set period of time and then to go back “home”, making little impact on national culture and identity. Things rarely work that way, however. Nearly every region at some time has recruited temporary workers to meet specific economic needs. In the 19th century hundreds of thousands of South Indians were recruited to the rubber plantations of Malaysia and to the sugar cane plantations of Trinidad and Tobago. In the United States an agricultural labour programme that started as a temporary solution to a shortage during World War II
Source: Bach 2004.

became a labour recruitment programme lasting several decades. A number of European countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, experimented with “guest worker” programmes in the 1960s and early 1970s. More recently, Middle Eastern oil-producing states have turned to temporary labour for construction and other projects. South Africa continues to depend on temporary migrants to mine its natural resources and, in just the last few years, Mexico has designed a programme for 39,000 temporary workers from Guatemala to harvest coffee. Such programmes have provided opportunities for many to work and earn, sending billions home in remittances. But these programmes have also created marginalized communities. In the now famous phrase used to describe the

European guest worker programme, “We recruited workers, but we got people.” Many temporary workers often decide to stay, despite government efforts to prevent this— and then bring their families, creating communities of the undocumented. But because they are excluded from the mainstream, they create ghetto communities—feeding anti-immigrant sentiments. Explicit legal restrictions and powerful informal social obstacles, such as physically segregated housing compounds, also prevent immigrants from participating fully in society. These situations leave immigrants without protection from their home countries or their host countries. Legal residents without citizenship can be abused by employers and have little recourse to the legal or social services of the host country.



Some of the most divisive issues of “us” and “not us” concern traditional or religious practices thought to contradict national values or human rights

do suffer from a lack of support to practice it. Perhaps more important, they often suffer from the rejection of values felt to be in conflict with core national values or from a social prejudice that their culture is inferior (see box 5.7). Combating social prejudice and xenophobia is critical to building social harmony and unity in diverse societies. Greater respect and understanding for cultures can be fostered by providing positive and accurate images in the media, teaching the history of other cultures in schools and preparing museum exhibitions that demonstrate respect for cultural diversity and address socio-economic discrimination and inequalities (box 5.9). Religion is the most contested of cultural identities. Greater recognition has enormous practical value, making it easier to obtain permits to build places of worship, establish burial grounds and hold celebrations. It also has great symbolic value, demonstrating respect for other cultures. The celebration of Eid at the White House in 1996 was a strong sign of respect for the millions of Muslims in the United States. Controversies arise over support to religion in secular states. As chapter 3 shows, secularism does not necessarily mean no involvement by the state in religion. The state can support religious

BOX 5.9

How Berlin promotes respect for cultural difference
Berlin has earned a reputation in Germany as a pioneer in promoting the integration of immigrants. Berlin was the first among the federal states to establish an office to address obstacles to integration. In 1981 under the motto “Miteinander leben” (living with one another), the Commissioner’s Office of the Berlin Senate for Migration and Integration established a campaign for tolerance, respect for others and understanding. It conducts outreach activities in neighbourhoods with a high proportion of immigrants and public information campaigns describing the basic principles of the policy. The office also provides counselling and legal consultations in 12 languages, helping immigrants find jobs and tackle discrimination. Together with non-governmental organizations, the office organizes regular training for the police on relations towards immigrants and conducts annual surveys on local attitudes towards immigrants. The Commissioner’s Office builds capacity among immigrant organizations, helps immigrants organize into self-help groups and is a primary information source for people seeking advice on integration. Half of its €6.5 million annual budget goes to funding immigrant organizations and groups. The Commissioner’s Office has brought integration concerns to the attention of the media and the public. It has opened a direct channel of communication between immigrants and government. It has also focused on activities for both immigrant populations and ethnic Germans, showing that integration is a two-way process. Many other federal states have copied Berlin’s example.

Source: IOM 2003c; European Union 2004; Independent Commission on Migration to Germany 2001.

activity in ways that do not favour one religion over another, such as support to all religious schools. But the religions of immigrants are not always treated the same as the religion of the majority population. Some of the most divisive issues of “us” and “not us” concern traditional or religious practices that are thought to contradict national values or human rights. Cultural recognition does not simply mean defending tradition. It means promoting cultural liberty and human development. And immigrant communities themselves need to challenge “traditional values” that conflict with core national values or human rights. Addressing socio-economic inclusion. The 175 million people who live outside their countries of birth are a very mixed group. From highly skilled professionals to the young men and women who are smuggled across borders to work in sweat shops, they include people who have been in the country for decades and those who arrived only yesterday. And the ranks of “immigrant communities” that are politically mobilized expand beyond the 175 million to include the relatives and even friends of immigrants. Not all immigrants suffer socio-economic exclusion. For those who do, that exclusion takes many different forms. The biggest problem is that in many countries the poverty of immigrant groups divides society. It gives rise to antiimmigrant movements and accusations that immigrants are unwilling or unable to be productive members of society, that they live together in ghettos with no interest in integrating with the rest of society. State support to address socioeconomic exclusion of immigrant groups is therefore a critical part of building social harmony. Education and language are the first step. Many countries have proactive programmes for integration that offer instruction in the country’s national language. More controversial is the use of immigrants’ mother tongues in schools and in official communication. No single formula is appropriate for all situations. But objections to the use of mother tongues are often more ideological than pragmatic. People learn better, respect laws and generally participate in the life of a community more fully if they can understand better. Learning the language of



the state is critical, but there will be lags in achieving proficiency. Also controversial is the issue of social welfare protection for non-citizens, including undocumented residents. The fear—difficult to prove or disprove—is that social protection encourages more inflows of people, who in turn become dependent on the state. But the reality is that without welfare protection, the broader social consequences would be worse. And states have an obligation to protect and promote human rights—for all their residents. Addressing exclusion from civic participation and citizenship rights. Many immigrants are not citizens. For that reason they are excluded from the bundle of obligations and rights that states and their citizens have to each other. Without such rights immigrants lack access to the jobs and services that help them become fully contributing members of society. They also lack protection from abuse. Naturalization is intended to be the answer, but most states are beginning to rethink their policies in response to rising flows, temporary and circular movements and transnational multiple identities. Extending the civic rights traditionally associated with citizenship to non-citizens is a critical step, as is the recognition of dual nationality. Many countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, have extended voting rights to non-citizens in local elections. In other countries, like Belgium, such rights are likely to be extended soon. Some 30 countries now acknowledge dual nationality. But there are also contradictory trends of restrictions on access to long-term residence, naturalization and citizenship, and social services. For example, California recently made it impossible for immigrants without legal residence to acquire drivers’ licences, effectively excluding them from many jobs and other activities essential in everyday life. A globally interdependent world needs a new approach to citizenship for native residents

and immigrants that incorporates the fundamental principles of human rights into a multicultural strategy for advancing human development—a strategy that benefits everyone. * * * States, communities, institutions and individuals all have to make choices: • Should states seek to impose a homogenizing and unchanging national identity? Or should they celebrate diversity, helping to foster syncretic and evolving societies? • Should communities protect tradition even if it narrows choice and freedoms? Or should they use their common knowledge and resources for exchange and mutual benefit? • Should international institutions persist with rules that adhere to particular cultural and legal traditions? Or should they recognize, respect and promote the products and resources of other cultures, strengthening the legitimacy of institutions? • Should individuals restrict themselves to singular identities? Or should they recognize themselves as part of an interlinked humanity? Democracy and equitable growth are important in fostering cultural inclusion. But they are not enough. Multicultural policies for cultural inclusion—recognizing differences, supporting diversity and mitigating asymmetries of power— are also needed. Individuals have to shed rigid identities if they are to become part of a diverse society. International institutions have to respect other cultural traditions and create enabling conditions for developing local cultural resources. Poor countries and marginalized communities have to be given a greater voice in negotiations involving their cultures and rights and fair compensation for the use of their resources. Only under these circumstances will multiple and complementary identities evolve across national boundaries. Only then will identity and freedom flourish in a culturally diverse world.

Extending the civic rights traditionally associated with citizenship to noncitizens is a critical step, as is the recognition of dual nationality




Chapter 1 1. Smith 1976. 2. Kymlicka and Norman 2000; Benhabib 2002; Kymlicka 1990; Stepan 2001; Taylor 1992. 3. Fraser and Honneth 2003. 4. Hart 1955, pp. 175–91. 5. Sen 2004c. 6. Sen 2004c. 7. Sandel 1998. 8. Sandel 1998. 9. Crowley 1987. 10. Sen 1999, 2001. 11. Appiah 1996, p. 84. 12. This section is drawn from Sen 2002. 13. As quoted in Mokyr 1983, p. 291. 14. This section is drawn from Sen 2004b. 15. Harrison and Huntington 2000, p. xiii. 16. Kymlicka and Norman 2000; Stepan 2001; Young 2000. 17. Sen 2003. 18. Aston 1972. 19. Mandela 1994, p. 21. 20. Okin 1999. Chapter 2 1. Kymlicka 1996. 2. HDRO calculations based on CIA 2003. 3. Statistics Canada 2004. 4. Kymlicka 2004. 5. UNDP 2003e. 6. Dragoljub 2000. 7. Gurr 2000. 8. While there is no internationally agreed on definition of indigenous people, a widely accepted understanding of indigenous people may be found in UNDP 2004a. 9. UNDP 2004c. 10. Stavenhagen 2004. 11. Minority Rights Group International 2003. 12. Bell-Fiakoff 1993, pp. 110–21; Kiernan 1999; The Bangkok Post 2000; 2001. The vast majority of this reduction in numbers was from introduced diseases. The extent of intent is unclear, and it appears to be more of a case of non-prevention. 13. Indigenous Australia 2003. 14. During 1992. 15. UN 2002a. 16. HDRO calculations based on Wanner 2002. Total refers to 15 European countries with data: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. 17. The Guardian 2001. 18. Migration Information Source 2003. 19. UN 2002a.

20. UN 2002a. 21. Kelso and Vasagar 2002. 22. Statistical feature 1, The state of human development, in this volume. 23. Statistical feature 1, The state of human development, in this volume. 24. Statistical feature 1, The state of human development, in this volume. 25. Statistical feature 1, The state of human development, in this volume. 26. Calculations based on the Polity IV Project 2003. 27. Kymlicka 2004. 28. Wikipedia 2004. 29. Zolberg 2004. 30. Human Rights Watch 2002. 31. Human Rights Watch 2002. 32. International Federation of Human Rights 2003. 33. Zolberg 2004. 34. UNESCO 2003b. 35. UNESCO 2003b. 36. Calculations based on UNESCO 2000c. 37. SIL International 2004b. 38. The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project 2003. 39. Calculations based on the Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project 2003. 40. Human Rights Watch 2003. 41. Libanio 2004. 42. Kanyinga 2003. 43. Fraenkel 2003. 44. Premdas 2003. 45. Calculations based on the Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project 2003. 46. UNDP 2000c. 47. Dragoljub 2000. 48. Alvim 2002. 49. Bryld and others 2003. 50. UNDP 2003e. 51. UNDP 2000c. 52. Kymlicka 2004. 53. Kymlicka 2004. 54. Arizpe 2004. 55. Sen 2004b. 56. Huntington 1996. 57. Sen 2004b. 58. Sen 2004b. 59. See, for example, Inglehart 1997. 60. Sen 2004b 61. Inglehart and Baker 2000; Sen 2004b. 62. Barro and McLeary 2003. 63. Sen 2004b. 64. Sen 2004b. 65. See, for example, Etounga-Manguelle 2000.



66. Sen 2004b. 67. Indicator table 13. 68. UNDP 2003b. 69. Sen 2004b. 70. Stepan and Robertson 2003, pp. 30–44. 71. Sen 2004b. 72. Stepan and Robertson 2003. Countries with average GDP per capita under $1,500. 73. UNDP 2003a. 74. UNDP 2003a. 75. Not counting the peoples of former European colonies. 76. Marshall and Gurr 2003. 77. Huntington 1996. 78. Stewart 2003. 79. Cohen 1974; Alexander and McGregor 2000; Ranger 1983; Turton 1997, pp. 77–94. 80. Collier and Hoeffler 2001. 81. Justiniano 2004. 82. Stewart 2003. 83. Stewart 2002. 84. See, for example, Easterley and Levine 1997, pp. 1203–50. 85. See, for example, Easterley and Levine 1997, pp. 1203–50. 86. Snodgrass 1995. 87. The Economist 2002a. 88. Kapur and McHale 2003, pp. 48–57. 89. Kapur and McHale 2003, pp. 48–57. 90. “Charter oath” as cited in Sen 2004b. 91. Sen 2004b. 92. UNDP 2003a. 93. Florida and Gates 2002, pp. 32–35. Chapter 3 1. Benhabib 1996. 2. Kymlicka and Norman 2000. 3. Moncrieffe 2004, pp 32–33, has an interesting discussion of the founding ideology of the revolutionary movement in Cuba, which argues that the racial problem was subsumed within the general battle against social injustice in all is manifestations. 4. Sheth 2004. 5. Okin 1999. 6. Moncrieffe 2004. 7. Prashad 2001. 8. Kymlicka 1996. 9. Young 2000. 10. Requejo 2001. 11. Young 1999. 12. Snyder 2000, p. 327. 13. Martínez-Herrera 2002, pp. 1–22. 14. Alfred 1995. 15. Watts 1998. 16. ILO 2003. 17. ILO 2003. 18. Luter and Deschouwer 1999. 19. Fleiner 2003. 20. Moncrieffe 2004. 21. O’Leary 2004. 22. O’Leary 2004. 23. Boix 1999, pp. 609–24. 24. Nagel 2004. 25. O’Leary 2004. 26. Cohn 1996; Kaviraj 1992; Hansen 2001; Corbridge and Harriss 2000; Dirks 2004. 27. Phillips 2001.
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Care 1999. Schacher 2001. Tetley 1999. Dirks 2004. Kuruk 2002. Thompson 2001.

34. Haffajee 1999. 35. Zorzi 2002.

36. This was unequivocally shown by the European Court of Human Rights in the Belgian linguistic case (de Varennes 1996, pp. 291–300). 37. Dutcher 1982. 38. Cummings and Tamayo 1994. 39. Ndoye 2003. 40. Patrinos and Velez 1996. 41. Patrinos and Velez 1996. 42. India 2004. 43. Ndoye 2003. 44. Matiki 2003. 45. Moeketsi 1999. 46. Temu 2000. 47. Eades 2004, pp. 23 and 113–33. 48. De Varennes 1996, pp. 291–300. 49. Chua 2003. 50. Duncan, Jefferis and Molutsi 2000. 51. Moyo 2004. 52. Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 1994. 53. UNICEF 2004. 54. United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2004. 55. UNICEF 2004. 56. Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 1994. 57. Miguel 1999. 58. Alesina, Baqir and Easterly 1997. 59. Luttmer 1997. 60. Yashar 2004. 61. Sheth 2004. 62. For instance, in the Surat District of Gujarat in the 1960s about 80% of primary school teachers were members of tribal groups. This enabled members of the tribal groups in the district to access political power in Gujarat. They have become members of the legislative assembly and members of Parliament (which was mechanically possible through quotas) and also ministers and chief minister of the state. This political power was then used to acquire other linkages. 63. Sabbagh 2004. Feature 3.1 1. Kymlicka 2004. 2. Kymlicka 2004. 3. Stepan, Linz and Yadav 2004. 4. Breytenbach 2000. 5. Keating 2002. 6. Linz and Stepan 1996. 7. Stepan 2001. 8. Bhargava 2004. 9. Stepan, Linz and Yadav 2004. Chapter 4 1. CPS 2002; DUMC 2002; EUMC 2002; FBI 2002; SSS 2002. The number for the United States does not include hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation or disability. 2. RAND Corporation 2004. 3. Engineer 2004. Casualties include numbers killed and injured. For 1954–94 the data are from Home Ministry records. For 1995–2002 the data are from newspaper accounts. 4. Noting the threat posed by extremist organizations, in August 2001 Pakistan banned the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. In January 2002 it banned the Sipah-e-Sahaba and Tehreek-i-Jafariya (South Asia Monitor 2003). 5. Symonds 2003. 6. ADL 2003. 7. Mudde 2000. 8. Eatwell 2000. 9. Arjomand 1989, cited in De Kadt 2004, p. 23.



10. Sands 2003. Estimates are those of Pakistan’s Minister of Education, Zubaida Jalal. 11. Macan-Markar 2004. 12. Entzinger 2003; Meyer 2001. 13. Kaldor and Muro 2003, p. 179. 14. The Economist 2003a, p. 19. 15. Testas 2002. 16. AFP 2004. 17. Widfeldt 2001. Chapter 5 1. Gandhi 1921. 2. World Bank 2002. 3. Tebtebba and Forest Peoples Programme 2003. 4. World Bank 2002. 5. Forero 2003; The New York Times 2003. 6. World Bank 2004. 7. European Union 2003. 8. In the United States, for example, these have become some of the strongest export sectors, providing much needed export revenues at a time when the country is facing a ballooning trade deficit. 9. Assuming a $3 admission price, an estimated 1 in every 10 people around the world saw the film Titanic. Moreover, its titanic $200 million production cost is dwarfed by its revenues: over $1.8 billion worldwide of which $1.2 billion came from abroad (Internet Movie Database 2004). Such cost structures often create very high entry costs in domestic—let alone international—markets that justify public intervention. 10. Extensive literature on this matter and more details on the theory behind how the industry works can be found in Vogel 2001. 11. Cohen 2004. 12. The quality of French audiovisual programming deteriorated rapidly after the introduction of a heavy system of quotas for national content (Cohen 2004). 13. Riding 2003. 14. Cohen 2004. 15. Cross-subsidization initiatives like this are already raising concerns by some groups, who often attack them on nationalistic grounds (Buck 2004).

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Front National 2004. Lega Nord 2004. Council of Europe 2000. Bhagwati 2003, pp. 98–104. IOM 2003c. Niessen 2000. Geddes 2002. UN 2000b. The Economist 2002a. IOM 2003a.

Feature 5.1 1. IOM 2003b. 2. ATSIA 2003. 3. World Bank 2004. 4. CSD and ICC 2002. 5. Moody 2000. 6. WIPO 2003d. 7. UNESCO 2000a. 8. UNESCO 2000b. 9. Mishra 2003. 10. UNESCO 2000a.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Riding 2003. UNESCO 2000a. UNESCO 2000a. Cohen 2004. Cohen 2004. World Bank 2003. UN 2003a. IOM 2003b. UN 2002a. UN 2002a. IOM 2004. Wanner 2002. IOM 2003c. Kapur and McHale 2003, pp. 48–57. UN 2002b. UN 2002b. IOM 2003c.



Bibliographic note

Chapter 1 draws on Agarwal 1994; Ambedkar 2002; Appadurai 1996; Appiah 1996; Appiah and Gates 1995; Arizpe 2000; Aston 1972; Avrami, Mason, and De La Torre 2000; Basu 1992; Benhabib 1996, 2002; Blau 1993, 2001; Crowley 1987; Fraser 1995, 1997; Fraser and Honneth 2003; Goody 1996; Granovetter 1985; Greif 1994; Gutmann 1994, 1995; Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Habermas 1975, 1996; Harrison and Huntington 2000; Hart 1955; Huntington 1996; Kymlicka 1990; Kymlicka and Norman 2000; Lenoir 1989; Linz and Stepan 1996; Mandela 1994; Mansbridge 1998; Mokyr 1983; Nussbaum 1995; Nussbaum and Glover 1995; Okin 1999; Ostrom 1990, 1998; Pattanaik 1998; Platteau 2000; Putnam 1993; Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993; Rodgers, Gore, and Figueirdo 1995; Runciman 1966; Sandel 1998; Sen 1984, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004a, 2003, 2004c, Forthcoming; Silver 1995; Smith 1976; Stepan 2001; Taylor 1992; Throsby 1999; Townsend 1979; UN 2000a; UNESCO 1998, 2000c; Weber 1976; and Young 2000. Chapter 2 draws on Afrikanska Språk 2004; Alexander and McGregor 2000; Alvim 2002; Ansari 2002; The Arizona Republic 2003; Arizpe 2004; The Associated Press 2003; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004; The Bangkok Post 2000, 2001; Barro and McCleary 2003; Bell-Fiakoff 1993; Bengwayan 2003; Bird 2003; Brindis and others 2002; Bromley 1974; CIA 2003; Cohen 1974; Collier and Hoeffler 2001; Davenport 2004; Discover France 2000; Douglas 1988; Dragoljub 2000; During 1992, 1993; Easterley and Levine 1997; Etounga-Manguelle 2000; France, Ministère de Jeunesse, Éducation et Recherche 2004; FBI 2004; Florida and Gates 2002; Fraenkel 2003; Fukuda-Parr 2001; Goldstone 1998; The Guardian 2001; Gurr 1993, 2000; Human Rights Watch 2002, 2003; Huntington 1996; IOE 2003; IOM 2003c; India, Ministry of Personnel 2002; India, Office of the Registrar General 2004; Indigenous Australia 2003; Inglehart 1997; Inglehart and Wayne 2000; International Federation of Human Rights 2003; Jacobs 2003; Justiniano 2004; Justino and Litchfield 2003; Kanyinga 2003; Kapur and McHale 2003; Kelso and Vasagar 2002; Kiernan 1999; Kymlicka 2004; Lavery 2004; Libanio 2004; Linz and Stepan 1996; Marshall 2000; Marshall and Gurr 2003; Mexico, Ministry of Health 2004; Migration Information Source 2003; The Minorities at Risk Project 2003; Minority Rights Group International 2003; NARAL Pro Choice 2004; The New York Times 2003; Nicaragua Network 2004; Opondo 2004; The Pew Research Center 2003; The Polity IV Project 2003; Ponzio 2004; Premdas 2003; Ranger 1983; Rutter 1998; Schwenken 2003; Sen 2002, 2004b; SIL International 2004b; Smith 1986, 1991; Snodgrass 1995; Stamatopoulou 2002; Statistics Canada 2004; Statistics Sweden 2004; Stavenhagen 2004; Stepan and Robertson 2003; Stepanov 2004; Stewart 2002, 2003; Third World Network 2003; Turton 1997; UN 2002a, 2003b, 2004; UNDP 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003e, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; UNESCO 2000c; 2003b, 2004a; Valdés 2002; WHO 2001; Walden 2000; Wanner 2002; Wikipedia 2004; World Values Survey 2004; World Bank 2004; and Zolberg 2004. Chapter 3 draws on Addison and Rahman 2001; Alesina, Baquir, and Easterly 1997; Austin and O'Neill 2000; Awakuni and Mio 2000; Bangura 2004; Baqir and Easterly 1997; Bardhan 1997; Baron and Diermeier 2001; Barry 2001; Bauböck 2001;

Bauböck and Rundell 1998; Benhabib 1996; Bgoya and others 1997; Bhargava 2004; Bird 2003; Boix 1999; Boothroyd 2004; Boulle 1984; Bowen and Derek 1998; Breytenbach 2000; Brint and Renéo 2001; Brock-Utne 2002; Brown and Ganguly 1997; Bryld and others 2003; Burnley 2001; Buvollen 2002; Caballero 2003; Care 1999; Carens 2000; Chua 2003; Cohn 1996; Congleton 2000; Congleton, Kyriacou and Bacaria 1999; Conversi 2002; Corbridge and Harriss 2000; CRIP 2004; Cummings and Tamayo 1994; De Varennes 1996; Delgado-Moreira 2000; D'Ercole and Salvini 2003; Dirks 2004; Donders 2003; Doomernik 2001; Duncan and Molutsi 2000; Dunleavy and O'Leary 1987; Dutcher 1982; Eades 2004; The Economist 2004a; Edgerton 1996; Elazar 1998; Engineer 2003; Fafunwa 1990; Feldman 2002; Fleiner 2003; Fossas 1999; Fraser 1989; Funke 2001; Gill 2001; Giovarelli and Akmatova 2002; Goodman 2004; Griffiths and Nerenberg 2002; Grillo 1998; Grin 2003; Halfin 2002; Hammer and Schulz 2003; Hansen 2001; Harding and Narayan 2000; Harris and Reilly 1998; Hastrup 2001; Helwege 1995; Hoodfar and Pazira 2003; ILO 2001, 2003; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2004; India, Ministry of Education 2004; Jarkko and Smith 2001; Jefferis and Molutsi 2000; Jomo 2004; Jureidini 2001; Kanbur 2001; Kaviraj 1992; Kearns and Sarat 1997, 1999; Keating 2002; Kertzer and Arel 2002; Klaus 2003; Knop 2002; Knowles and Amit-Talai 1996; Kuruk 2002; Kymlicka 1990, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004; Kymlicka and Norman 2000; Leibfried and Rieger 2003; Lewis 1998, 2003; Lewis and Miller 2003; Licha 2002; Linz and Stepan 1978; Linz and Yadav 2004; Ljiphart 1984; Lott 1998; Loury 2001; Lukes and Joppke 1999; Luter and Deschouwer 1999; Luttmer 1997; Macedo 2000; Malhotra 2002; Martínez-Herrera 2002; Matiki 2003; Mazrui 1996; McRae 1974; Medrano 2002; Mehrotra and Delamonica Forthcoming; Miguel 1999; Modood and Werbner 1997; Mody 2003; Moeketsi 1999; Moghadam 2004; Moncrieffe 2004; Moya 2002; Moyo 2004; Myerson 1991; Nagel 2004; National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 2004a, 2004b; Ndoye 2003; Neville 2001; Ocampo 2001; Office of Personnel Management 2003; Okin 1999; O'Leary 2004, Forthcoming; Parekh 2000; Patrinos and Velez 1996; Patterson and Susser 2001; Phillips 2001; Prah 2000, 2004; Prashad 2001; Preis 2004; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos 1994; Reiss 2002; Renshon 2001; Requejo 2001; Richey 2003; Rotimi 2001; Rubin 2004; Rudolph 2001; Russell 2002; Sabbagh 2004; Sarat and Simon 2003; Schacher 2001; Schultz and Mwabo 1998; Schulze 1999; Sepúlveda 2003; Sheth 2004; SIL International 2004a; South Africa, Ministry of Labour 2004; Snyder 2000; Stepan 2001; Subirats 2003; Taiaiake 1995; Tauli-Corpus 2004; Temu 2000; Tetley 1999; Thompson 2001; Tran 2000; UN 1994; UNDP 2003d; UNICEF 2001, 2004; United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004b; U.S. Department of Labor 2004; Van der Westhuizen 2002; Vuchelen 2003; Watts 1998, 1999, 2002; Willett 1998; World Bank 2003; Wright 2001; Yashar 2004; Young 1999, 2000; and Zorzi 2002. Chapter 4 draws on Abed-Kotob 1995; Abuza 2002; ADL 2003; AFP 2004; Arjomand 1989; Barraclough 1998; Berman 2003; Bhavnani and Backer 2000; Brumberg 2002; Byman and others 2001; Campagna 1996; Caplan 1987; Chicuecue 1997; CNN 2003; Conner 1986; Cornell and Spector 2002; CPS 2002; De Kadt 2004; DUMC 2002; Eatwell 2000; The Economist 2000,



2003a, 2003b; 2004; Engineer 2004; Entelis 2002; Entzinger 2003; Esman 1986; EUMC 2002; Fahmy 1998; FBI 1999, 2002; Gerges 2000; Godmer and Kestel 2001; Grove and Carter 1999; Gurr 1993; Hafez 2000; Haubrich 2003; 2004; Hoffman 1998-99; Honwana 1999; Iganski 2002; Ignazi 2003; IRR 2003; Jackman and Volpert 1996; Jeness 2002; Kaldor and Muro 2003; Kogacioglu 2003; Koh 2002; Leone and Angrig 2003; Levin 2001; Levin and McDevitt 1999; Mabry 1998; Macan-Markar 2004; Mamdani 2001; Martínez-Herrera 2002; Marty and Appleby 1991, 1993, 1995; Mayer 2001; Meyer 2001; Middle East Institute 2003; The Minorities at Risk Project 2003; Moreau Yousafazai, and Hussain 2003; Mudde 2000; Pehdazur 2001; Prah 2004; RAND Corporation 2004; Roberts 2002; Rotar 2002; Rubin 2004; Sands 2003; SATP 2004; Scott 2003; Sen 2004a; Shain 1994-95; Shain and Barth 2003; Sheffer 1986, 1993; Sivan 2003; South Asia Monitor 2003; SSS 2002; Stern 2000, 2003; 2004; Swedish Election Authority 2002; Symonds 2003; Testas 2002; Tremlett 2002; UNESCO 2001; U.S. Department of Justice 2001; Van Holsteyn 2003; Wahlbeck 2002; Wanandi 2002; Wedgwood 2002; Widfeldt 2001, 2004; Moreau, Yousafzai and Hussain 2003; Zelkina 1999; and Zhao 1998. Chapter 5 draws on Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer 2000; ATSIA 2003; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001; Bach 2004; Bhagwati 2003; Brucker and others 2001; Brumann 1999; Buck 2004; CBD 2002; Clifford 1988; Cohen 2004; Commission on Intellectual

Property Rights 2002; Coombe 1998; Council of Europe 2000; Coussey 2000; CSD and ICC 2002; De Ferranti and others 2003; Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs 2003; Doomernik 2001; Droege and Soete 2001; The Economist 2002a, 2002b, 2004b; European Union 2003; European Union 2004; Fermin 2001; Financial Times 2004; Forero 2003; Front National 2004; Garson and Loizillon 2003; Geddes 2002; Ghosh 2003; Graeme 2003; Independent Commission on Migration to Germany 2001; Inglis 2004; International Council on Metals and the Environment 1999; The Internet Movie Database 2004; IOM 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2004; Kongolo 2001; Koopmans 2002; Kymlicka 2003; Lega Nord 2004; McPhail 2000; Mgbeoji 2001; Mishra 2003; Moody 2000; Niessen Jan 2000; Norchi 2000; OECD 2003; Olwig and Hastrup 1997; Ostergard and Altman 2001; Papademetriou 2003; Preis 2004; Public Citizen 2004; Riding 2003; Rodwin 2002; Rosaldo 1989; Salomon and Sengupta 2003; Sen 2004a; Stalker 2002; Statistics Canada 2004; Stavenhagen 2004; Tebtebba and Forest Peoples Programme 2003; Tebtebba and International Forum on Globalization 2003; UIS 2001; UN 2000b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a; UNCTAD 1999; UNDP 1999; UNESCO 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2002, 2003a, 2003c, 2004b; UN HABITAT forthcoming; U.S. Census Bureau 2004a; WIPO 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2004; World Bank 2002, 2004; World Commission on Culture and Development 1995; Yashar 2004; and Zolberg 2001, 2004.




Background papers
Conceptual studies
Arizpe, Lourdes. 2004. “Notes on Cultural Policies and Best Practices in Cultural Diversity.” Bach, Robert. 2004. “Migration.” Cohen, Elie. 2004. “Économie de L’Exception Culturelle.” De Kadt, Emanuel. 2004. “Curbing Coercive Identities.” Deere, Carolyn. 2003. “Building Inclusive Societies: Managing Diversity.” Dirks, Nicholas. 2004. “Colonial and Postcolonial Histories: Comparative Reflections on the Legacies of Empire.” Kymlicka, Will. 2004. “Culturally Responsive Policies.” O’Leary, Brendan. 2004. “Building Inclusive States.” Sabbagh, Daniel. 2004. “Affirmative Action Policies: An International Perspective.” Sen, Amartya. 2004a. “Cultural Freedom and Human Development.” Stavenhagen, Rodolfo. 2004. “Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective.” Stepan, Alfred, Juan J. Linz, and Yogendra Yadav. 2004. “”Nation State” or “State Nation”?: Conceptual Reflections and Some Spanish, Belgian and Indian Data.” UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2004. “BCPR (Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery) Geneva: Contribution to HDR2004.”

Regional studies
Bhargava, Rajeev. 2004. “Inclusion and Exclusion in South Asia: The Role of Religion.” Jomo, K. S., with Wee Chong Hui 2004. “Affirmative Action and Exclusion in Malaysia: Ethnic and Regional Inequalities in a Multicultural Society.” Moghadam, Valentine. 2004. “Cultural Traditions and Gender Equality in the Arab Region.” Moncrieffe, Joy. 2004. “Ethnic Diversity and State Response in the Caribbean.” Moyo, Sam. 2004. “Dominance of Ethnic and Racial Groups: The African Experience.” Prah, Kwesi Kwaa. 2004. “African Wars and Ethnic Conflict— Rebuilding Failed States.” Rubin, Barnett R. 2004. “Central Asia: Wars and Ethnic Conflicts—Rebuilding Failed States.” Sheth, D. L. 2004. “Caste, Ethnicity and Exclusion in South Asia: The Role of Affirmative Action Policies in Building Inclusive Societies.” Yashar, Deborah. 2004. “Citizenship and Ethnic Politics in Latin America: Building Inclusive Societies.” Zolberg, Aristide. 2004. “The Democratic Management of Cultural Differences: Building Inclusive Societies in Western Europe and North America.”

Abed-Kotob, Sana. 1995. “The Accommodationists Speak: Goals and Strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 27(3): 321–39.

Abuza, Zachary. 2002. “Tentacles of Terror: Al Qaeda’s Southeast Asian Network.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 24(3): 427–65. Addison, T., and A. Rahman. 2001. “Why is So Little Spent on Educating the Poor?” Discussion Paper 2001/29. World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki. ADL (Anti-Defamation League). 2003. “Extremism in America.” []. December 2003. AFP (Agence France Presse). 2004. “Pakistan Approves 100 Million Dollars to Reform Religious Schools.” 7 January. Afrikanska Språk. 2004. “Small and Endangered Languages of Africa: A Bibliographical Survey.” Stockholm. [http://www.]. February 2004. Agarwal, Bina. 1994. A Field Of One’s Own; Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, and Douglas Klusmeyer, eds. 2000. From Migrants to Citizens: Membership in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Alesina, Alberto, Reza Baqir, and William Easterly. 1997. Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions. NBER Working Paper 6009. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Alexander, J., and J. McGregor. 2000. “Ethnicity and the Politics of Conflict: The Case of Matabeleland.” In S. F. Nafziger and R. Vayrynen, eds. War, Hunger and Displacement: The Origin of Human Emergencies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alfred, Taiaiake. 1995. Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Alvim, Marta. 2002. “Mixed Race, Mixed Feeling.” Los Angeles. []. February 2004. Ambedkar, B. R. 2002. “Basic Features of the Indian Constitution.” In Valerian Rodriguez, ed. The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ansari, Humayun. 2002. “Muslims in Britain.” Minority Rights Group International, London. [http://www.minorityrights. org/admin/Download/Pdf/muslimsinbritain.pdf]. February 2004. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Appiah, K. Anthony. 1996. “Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections.” In K. Anthony Appiah and Amy Gutmann, eds. Color Consciousness: The Political Morality of Race. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Appiah, K. Anthony, and Henry Gates. 1995. Identities. Chicago: University Chicago Press. Arizpe, Lourdes. 2000. “Cultural Heritage and Globalization.” In Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, and Marta De La Torre, eds. Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. The Arizona Republic. 2003. “English-Only Latinos on the Rise.” 5 May. []. February 2004. Arjomand, Said Amir. 1989. “The Emergence of Islamic Political Ideologies.” In James A. Beckford and Thomas Luckman, eds. The Changing Face of Religion. London: Sage.



The Associated Press. 2003. “Falun Gong Turns to International Courts in Campaign Against Chinese Leadership.” 26 September. [ falun282.html]. February 2004. Aston, W. G. 1972. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Time to A.D. 697. Tokyo: Tuttle. ATSIA (Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Australia). 2003. “Land and Native Title.” []. December 2003. Austin, Dennis, and Michael O’Neill, eds. 2000. Democracy and Cultural Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2004. “Indigenous Health: Greater Risks, Shorter Life Expectancy.” Canberra. [http://www.abs. 256AB7007FBBFE]. February 2004. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Community Relations Commission, Census Statistics. 2001. “The People of New South Wales.” [ Division4pp.pdf]. March 2004. Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta De La Torre, eds. 2000. Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Awakuni, Gene, and Jeffery Scott Mio. 2000. Resistance to Multiculturalism: Issues and Interventions. Philadelphia and London: Brunner/Mazel. The Bangkok Post. 2000. “Australia’s Aboriginal Genocides.” 10 September. ———. 2001. “The Genocide of Native Americans.” 29 July. Bangura, Yusuf. 2004. “Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. Bardhan, Pranab. 1997. “Method in the Madness? A Political Economy Analysis of the Ethnic Conflicts in Less Developed Countries.” World Development 25(9): 1381–98. Baron, David P., and Daniel Diermeier. 2001. “Elections, Governments and Parliaments in Proportional Representation Systems.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(3): 933–67. Barraclough, Steven. 1998. “Al-Azhar: Between the Government and the Islamists.” The Middle East Journal 52(2): 236–49. Barro, Robert J., and Rachel M. McCleary. 2003. “Religion and Economic Growth.” Cambridge, Mass. [http://post.economics. Growth.pdf]. March 2004. Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. Basu, Alaka. 1992. Culture, the Status of Women and Demographic Behaviour. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bauböck, Rainer, and John Rundell, eds. 1998. Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bauböck, Rainer. 2001. “Multinational Federalism: Territorial or Cultural Autonomy?” Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers. School of International Migration and Ethnic Relations. Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. [ Forsk.nsf/0/2e9cc319839b3a2dc1256cf5005a4f8e/$FILE/ Workingpaper201.pdf]. February 2004. Bell-Fiakoff, Andrew. 1993. “A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing.” Foreign Affairs 72(3): 110–21. Bengwayan, Michael A. 2003. “Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Asia.” Minority Rights Group International, London. Benhabib, Seyla, ed. 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berman, Eli. 2003. Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground: An Economist’s View of Radical Religious Militias. NBER Working Paper 10004. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research. [http://www.nber .org/ papers/w10004]. January 2004. Bgoya, W., N. Billany, M. Lujanen, R. Noonan, T. Paajanen, and E. Syrjanen. 1997. “The Economics of Publishing Educational Materials in Africa.” Working Group on Books and Learning Materials, Perspectives on African Book Development. The Association for the Development of Education in Africa, London. Bhagwati, Jagdish. 2003. “Borders Beyond Control.” Foreign Affairs 82(1): 98–104. Bhavnani, Ravi, and David Backer. 2000. “Localized Ethnic Conflict and Genocide: Accounting for Differences in Rwanda and Burundi.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(3): 283–306. Bird, Karen. 2003. “The Political Representation of Women and Ethnic Minorities in Established Democracies: A Framework for Comparative Research.” Paper presented at the Academy for Migration Studies in Denmark, Aalborg University, 11 November, Aalborg, Denmark. [http://www.]. February 2004. Blau, Judith. 1993. Social Contracts and Economic Markets. New York: Plenum. Blau, Judith, ed. 2001. The Blackwell Companion to Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell. Boix, Charles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game. The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93: 609–24. Boothroyd, David. 2004. “United Kingdom Election Results.” London. []. February 2004. Boulle, L. J. 1984. South Africa and the Consociational Option: A Constitutional Analysis. Cape Town: Juta. Bowen, W., and B. Derek. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Breytenbach, W. J. 2000. “Democracy in South Africa: What Kind and Is It Consolidating?” Bureau for Economic Research. University of Stellenbosch, Johannesburg. [ Publications/SeminarReports/ConsolidatingDemocracy/ Consolidating%20Democracy.pdf]. February 2004. Brindis, C. D., A. K. Driscoll, M. A. Biggs, and L. T. Valderrama. 2002. “Fact Sheet on Latino Youth: Immigrant Generation.” Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Health Sciences and the Institute for Health Policy Studies. University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco. [ articles/Latino.imm.pdf]. February 2004. Brint, Michael, and Lukic Renéo, eds. 2001. Culture, Politics and Nationalism in the Age of Globalization. Aldershot: Ashgate. Brock-Utne, Birgit. 2002. “Language, Democracy and Education in Africa.” Discussion Paper 15. Nordiska Afrikainstitut. Uppsala, Sweden. Bromley, Yulian. 1974. Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today. The Hague: Mouton. Brown, Michael E., and Sumit Ganguly, eds. 1997. Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press. Brucker, Herbert, Gil Epstein, Barry McCormick, Gilles SaintPaul, Alessandra Venturini, and Klaus Zimmermann. 2001. “Managing Migration in the European Welfare State.” Third European Conference of the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti “Immigration Policy and the Welfare State,” June, Trieste, Italy. [ _23jun01.pdf]. February 2004. Brumann, Christoph. 1999. “Writing for Culture. Why a Successful Concept Should not be Discarded.” Current Anthropology 40.



Brumberg, Daniel. 2002. “Islamists and the Politics of Consensus.” Journal of Democracy 13(3): 109–15. Bryld, Erik, Heather Bryant, Nanako Tsukahara, Leela Sthapit, and Mayline Py. 2003. “Rural Urban Linkages (RLL) Under the Rural Urban Partnership Programme (RUPP): A Case of Affirmative Action for Dalits in Nepal.” United Nations Development Programme, Kathmandu. Buck, Tobias. 2004. “Brussels Call for Bigger Budget Will Irk Rich States.” Financial Times. 9 January. Burnley, Ian H. 2001. The Impact of Immigration on Australia: A Demographic Approach. South Melbourne and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buvollen, Hans Petter. 2002. “Cultural and Legal Barriers to Justice in Guatemala.” UNDP Access to Justice Workshop, 1 March, Oslo. [ documents/34.pdf]. February 2002. Byman, Daniel L., Peter Chalk, Bruce Hoffman, William Rosenau and David Brannan. 2001. Trends in Outside Support for Insurgent Movements. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND. Caballero, Gonzalo. 2003. “The Dynamics of the Spanish Institutional Evolution Towards Economic, Social and Political Decentralization, 1950–2000: Markets, Democracy and Federalism for Economic Development.” Paper presented at the 2003 European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy Conference, 7 November, Maastricht, Netherlands. []. March 2004. Campagna, Joel. 1996. “From Accommodation to Confrontation: The Muslim Brotherhood in the Mubarak Years.” Journal of International Affairs 50(1): 278–304. Caplan, Lionel. 1987. Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. Houndsmills and London: Macmillan. Care, Jennifer Corrin. 1999. “Conflict Between Customary Laws and Human Rights in the South Pacific.” Paper presented at the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference, 1 September, Kuala Lumpur. [ JenniferCorrin-Care.htm]. February 2004. Carens, Joseph H. 2000. Culture, Citizenship and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2002. “Traditional Knowledge and the Convention on Biological Diversity.” []. February 2004. Chicuecue, Noel Muchenga. 1997. “Reconciliation: The Role of Truth Commissions and Alternative Ways of Healing.” Development in Practice 7(4): 483–86. Chua, Amy. 2003. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. New York: Doubleday. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2003. “The World Factbook 2003.” Washington, DC. [ factbook/]. February 2004. Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: TwentiethCentury Ethnography, Literature and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. CNN. 2003. “U.S. Court Rebukes Bush Over Gitmo.” 18 December. [ court.gitmo/index.html]. February 2004. Cohen, Abner. 1974. Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Cohn, B. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler. 2001. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” World Bank, Washington, DC. [http://www. 23oct.pdf]. February 2004.

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. 2002. “Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy: Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights.” London. [ final_report.htm]. February 2004. Congleton, Roger D. 2000. “A Political Efficiency Case for Federalism in Multinational States: Controlling Ethnic RentSeeking.” In G. Galeotti, P. Slamon, and R. Wintrobe, eds. Competition and Structure: The Political Economyof Collective Decisions: Essays in Honor of Albert Breton. New York: Cambridge University Press. Congleton, Roger D., Andreas Kyriacou, and Jordi Bacaria. 1999. “Political and Economic Origins of Asymmetric Federalism: A Model of Endogenous Centralization.” [http://]. March 2004. Conner, Walker. 1986. “The Impact of Homelands Upon Diasporas.” In Gabriel Sheffer, ed. Modern Diaspora in International Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Conversi, Daniele, ed. 2002. Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary Word: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. London: Routledge. Coombe, Rosemary J. 1998. “Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Sovereignty: New Dilemmas in International Law Posed by the Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge and the Conservation of Biodiversity.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 6(1): 59–115. Corbridge, Stuart, and John Harriss. 2000. Reinventing India. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cornell, Svante E., and Regine A. Spector. 2002. “Central Asia: More than Islamic Extremists.” The Washington Quarterly 25(1): 193–206. Council of Europe. 2000. “Conference on Diversity and Cohesion: New Challenges for the Integration of Immigrants and Minorities.” [ Migration/Documentation/Publications_and_reports/ Reports_and_proceedings/20001201_CDMG(2000)35_ ProceedingsNamur.asp]. March 2004. Coussey, Mary. 2000. “Framework of Integration Policies.” Directorate General III–Social Cohesion, Directorate of Social Affairs and Health. Council of Europe, Brussels. CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). 2002. “Racist Incident Monitoring Annual Report 2001–2002.” London. [ Home/CPSPublications/Scheme/reports.htm]. January 2004. CRIP (Curriculum Reform Implementation Project). 2004. “Curriculum Reform in Papua New Guinea.” Port Moresby. [ CURRICULUM%20REFORM%20IN%20PAPUA%20 NEW%20GUINEA.pdf]. February 2004. Crowley, B. 1987. The Self, the Individual and the Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus) and ICC (Inuit Circumpolar Conference). 2002. “Dialogue Paper by Indigenous People.” Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development First Substantive Session, New York. [http://www.treaty]. March 2004. Cummings, S. M., and S. Tamayo. 1994. “Language and Education in Latin America: An Overview.” Human Resources Development and Operations Policy Working Papers. World Bank, Washington, DC. Davenport, Christian. 2004. “Minorities At Risk: Dataset Users Manual 030703.” The Minorities At Risk (MAR) Project. Center for International Development and Conflict Management. University of Maryland, Baltimore. [http://www. 040903.doc]. February 2004. De Ferranti, David, Guillermo Perry, Francisco H. G. Ferreira, and Michael Walton. 2003. “Inequality in Latin America



and the Caribbean: Breaking with History?” World Bank, Washington, DC. De Varennes, F. 1996. “Law, Language and the Multiethnic State.” Language and Communication 16(3): 291–300. Delgado-Moreira, Juan M. 2000. Multicultural Citizenship of the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate. Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Australia. 2003. “Multicultural Australia: United in Diversity.” Canberra. [ australian/index.htm]. February 2004. D’Ercole, Marco Mira, and Andrea Salvini. 2003. “Towards Sustainable Development: The Role of Social Protection.” Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Geneva. []. February 2004. Directorate of Social Affairs and Health. 2000. “Diversity and Cohesion: New Challenges for the Integration of Immigrants and Minorities.” Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. [ migrants/EDéfis.pdf]. February 2004. Discover France. 2000. “French National Holidays, Festivals, Religious Celebrations.” Paris. [ France/DF_holidays.shtml]. March 2004. Donders, Yvonne. 2003. Towards a Right to Cultural Identity? Antwerpen and Oxford: Intersentia. Doomernik, Jeroen. 2001. “Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Nation State in Western Europe.” Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban, South Africa. [ projects.nsf/(httpProjectsForResearchHome-en)/CE2B1BCD4 B5F5D3A80256B4900530E39?OpenDocument]. February 2004. Douglas, W. A. 1988. “A Critique of Recent Trends in the Analysis of Ethnonationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 11(2): 192–206. Dragoljub, Ackovic. 2000. “Roma in Serbia: Introducing Romany Language and Culture into Primary Schools.” Minority Rights Group International, London. Droege, Susanne, and Birgit Soete. 2001. “Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, North-South Trade, and Biological Diversity.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2): 149–63. DUMC (Dutch Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). 2002. “Racial Violence and Violence Incited by the Extreme Right 2001 and 2002.” Rotterdam, The Netherlands. [ _violence2001.pdf]. January 2004. Duncan, T., K. Jefferis, and P. Molutsi. 2000. “Botswana: Social Development in a Resource-Rich Country.” In Santosh Mehrotra and Jolly Richard, eds. Development with a Human Face: Experiences in Social Achievement and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunleavy, Patrick, and Brendan O’Leary. 1987. Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy. Basingstoke: MacMillan Education. During, A. T. 1992. “Guardians of the Land: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth.” Worldwatch Paper 112. Worldwatch Institute. Washington, DC. [http://www.worldwatch. org/pubs/paper/112.html/]. February 2004. ———. 1993. Supporting Indigenous Peoples in State of the World 1993: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton. Dutcher, N. 1982. “The Use of First and Second Languages in Primary Education.” Working Paper. World Bank, Education Department Washington, DC. Eades, D. 2004. “Participation in a Second Language and Second Dialect Speakers in the Legal System.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 113–33.

Easterley, William, and Ross Levine. 1997. “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1203–250. Eatwell, Roger. 2000. “The Rebirth of the ‘Extreme Right’ in Western Europe?” Parliamentary Affairs 53(3): 407–25. The Economist. 2000. “Sri Lanka Backs Away from Devolution.” 10 August. ———. 2002a. “Survey on Migration.” 2 November. ———. 2002b. “The Best of Reasons.” 31 October. ———. 2003a. “Ends, Means and Barbarity: Special Report on Torture.” 11 January. ———. 2003b. “Religion, Politics and Moderation.” 17 May. ———. 2004a. “Africa’s Engine.” Survey: Sub-Saharan Africa. 15 January. ———. 2004b. “The War of the Headscarves.” 7 February. Edgerton, Susan Huddleston. 1996. Translating the Curriculum: Multiculturalism into Cultural Studies. New York and London: Routledge. Elazar, Daniel. 1998. Constitutionalizing Globalization. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. 2004. “Elections Around the World.” []. February 2004. Engineer, Asghar Ali. 2003. “Uniform Civil Code or Legal Pluralism.” Institute of Islamic Studies and Center for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. [ csss114.htm]. February 2004. ———. 2004. Communal Riots After Independence: A Comprehensive Account. New Delhi: Shipra. Entelis, John P. 2002. “Morocco: Democracy Denied.” Le Monde Diplomatique. 1 October. [ 10/13morocco]. February 2004. Entzinger, Han. 2003. “Nationale Identiteit en burgerschap.” Civis Mundi 42(1): 22–26. Esman, Milton J. 1986. “Diasporas and International Relations.” In Gabriel Sheffer, ed. Modern Diaspora in International Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Etounga-Manguelle, Daniel. 2000. “Does Africa Need a Cultural Adjustment Program?” In Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. Culture Matters. New York: Basic Books. EUMC (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). 2002. “Racism and Xenophobia in the EU Member States: Trends, Developments and Good Practice in 2002.” Annual Report 2002, Part 2. Vienna. [ eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid= 3fb38ad3e22bb]. January 2004. European Union. 2003. “The Doha Development Agenda: Outcome of the WTO Ministerial, European Parliament Resolution on the 5th Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Cancun.” [ newround/doha_da/epr250903_en.htm]. March 2004. ———. 2004. “The Commissioner of Foreign Affairs of the Berlin Senate (Die Auslanderbeauftagte des Senats von Berlin).” Berlin. [ fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/mslegln/de_berlin_en.pdf]. March 2004. Fafunwa, B. 1990. “Using National Languages in Education: A Challenge to African Educators.” In African Thoughts on the Prospects of Education for All. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Fahmy, Ninette S. 1998. “The Performance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian Syndicates: An Alternative Formula for Reform?” The Middle East Journal 52(4): 551–62. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). 1999. “Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines.” Washington, DC. [ ucr/ucr.htm#hate]. April 2004. ———. 2002. “Hate Crime Statistics 2002.” Washington, DC. [ ucr.htm#hate]. January 2004. ———. 2004. “Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics.” Washington, DC. []. February 2004.



Feldman, Leonard C. 2002. “Redistribution, Recognition and the State: The Irreducibly Political Dimension of Injustice.” Political Theory 30(3): 410–40. Fermin, Alfons. 2001. “The Justification of Mandatory Integration Programmes for New Immigrants.” European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht. Financial Times. 2004. “French Filmmakers Fear for L’Exception Culturelle.” 9 January. Fleiner, Thomas, ed. 2003. Multicultural Federalism: The Swiss Case. Fribourg, Switzerland: The Institute of Federalism. Florida, Richard, and Gary Gates. 2002. “Technology and Tolerance: Diversity and High Tech Growth.” The Brookings Review 20(1): 32–35. Forero, Juan. 2003. “Seeking Balance: Growth vs. Culture in Amazon.” The New York Times. 10 December. Fossas, Enric. 1999. “Asymmetry and Pluriantionality in Spain.” Working Paper, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. []. March 2004. Fraenkel, Jon. 2003. “Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Public Sector Governance in the Fiji Islands.” Ethnic Conflict, Inequality and Public Sector Governance Country Studies. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. France, Ministère de Jeunesse, Éducation et Recherche. 2004. “Bulletin Officiel: Calendrier des Fêtes Légales.” [http://www.]. March 2004. Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso Books. Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity. ———. 1995. “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Postsocialist’ Age.” New Left Review 212: 68–93. ———. 1997. Justice Interrupts: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. New York: Routledge. Front National. 2004. “Nos Propositions: Identite.” [http://www.]. March 2004. Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko. 2001. “In Search of Indicators of Culture and Development: Review of Progress and Proposals for Next Steps.” Text for the World Culture Report. New York. [ pdf]. February 2004. Funke, Hajo. 2001. “Europe at the Threshold: Fairness or Fortress? Racism, Public Policy and Anti-racist Concepts.” Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban. [ website/projects.nsf/(httpProjectsForResearchHome-en)/ CE2B1BCD4B5F5D3A80256B4900530E39?OpenDocument]. February 2004. Gandhi, Mohandas. 1921. “English Learning.” Young India. 1 June. Garson, Jean-Pierre, and Anais Loizillon. 2003. “Changes and Challenges, Europe and Migration from 1950 to Present.” Paper presented at the conference jointly organized by the European Commision and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develoment, “The Economic and Social Aspects of Migration”, 21–22 January, Brussels. [http://www.]. February 2004. Geddes, Andrew. 2002. “Europe’s Ageing Workforce.” BBC Online. 20 June. [ 2053581.stm]. February 2004. Gerges, Fawaz A. 2000. “The End of the Islamist Insurgency in Egypt?: Costs and Prospects.” The Middle East Journal 54(4): 592–612. Ghosh, Bimal. 2003. “Elusive Protection, Uncertain Lands: Migrants’ Access to Human Rights.” International Organization for Migration, Geneva.

Gill, Emily R. 2001. Becoming Free: Autonomy and Diversity in the Liberal Polity. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Giovarelli, Renée, and Cholpon Akmatova. 2002. “Local Institutions that Enforce Customary Law in the Kyrgyz Republic and their Impact on Women’s Rights.” Agriculture and Rural Development E-Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC. Godmer, Laurent, and Laurent Kestel. 2001. “Extremism and Democratic Coalitions: The Institutional Integration of Extreme Right Parties in the Regional Parliaments of Germany, Austria and France.” Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Conference, 6 April, Grenoble, France. [ jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble.asp?section=14]. February 2004. Goldstone, Leo. 1998. “Cultural Statistics.” In Ruth Towse, ed. A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. [ TOWSE+EBOOK_pages0189-0194.pdf]. February 2004. Goodman, Diane J. 2004. Promoting Diversity and Social Justice: Educating People From Privileged Groups. Thousand Oaks, Calif. and London: Sage. Goody, Jack. 1996. The East in the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graeme, Hugo. 2003. “Circular Migration: Keeping Development Rolling.” Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC. [ ?ID=129]. February 2004. Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510. Greif, Avner. 1994. “Cultural Beliefs and Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies.” Journal of Political Economy 102: 912–50. Griffiths, Ann L., and Karl Nerenberg, eds. 2002. Handbook of Federal Countries, 2002. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. Grillo, R. D. 1998. Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grin, Francois. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Grove, A. K., and N. A. Carter. 1999. “Not All Blarney is Cast in Stone: International Cultural Conflict in Northern Ireland.” Political Psychology 20(4): 725–65. The Guardian. 2001. “The Truth of Multicultural Britain.” 25 November. Gurr, Ted Robert. 1993. Minorities At Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press. ———. 2000. People Versus States. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gutmann, Amy, ed. 1994. Multiculturalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gutmann, Amy. 1995. “Challenges of Multiculturalism in Democratic Education.” Princeton. [ EPS/PES-Yearbook/95_docs/gutmann.html. February 2004. Habermas, Juergen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press. ———. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hafez, Mohammed M. 2000. “Armed Islamist Movements and Political Violence in Algeria.” The Middle East Journal 54(4): 572–91. Haffajee, Ferial. 1999. "South Africa: Blending Tradition and Change." UNESCO Courier. November. [http://www.].



Halfin, Igal, ed. 2002. Language and Revolution: Making Modern Political Identities. London and Portland: Frank Cass. Hammer, Juliane, and Helena Lindholm Schulz. 2003. The Palestinian Diaspora: Formation of Identities and Politics of Homeland. London: Routledge. Hansen, Thomas Blom. 2001. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harding, Sandra, and Uma Narayan, eds. 2000. Decentering the Center: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial and Feminist World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Harris, Peter, and Ben Reilly. 1998. “Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm. Harrison, Lawrence E., and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. 2000. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books. Hart, H. L. A. 1955. “Are There Any Natural Rights?” The Philosophical Review 64: 175–91. Hastrup, Kirsten, ed. 2001. Legal Cultures and Human Rights: The Challenge of Diversity. The Hague and London: Kluwer Law Interantional. Haubrich, Dirk. 2003. “September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared.” Government and Opposition 38(1): 1–28. Helwege, Ann. 1995. “Poverty in Latin America: Back to the Abyss?” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 37(3): 99–123. 2004. “ Promoting and Supporting the Ideals of the Bajrang Dal—V.H.P., Youth Wing Bharat.” []. April 2004. Hoffman, Bruce. 1998–99. “Revival of Religious Terrorism Begs for Broad U.S. Policy.” Rand Review 22(2). [http://www. methods.html. December 2003. Honwana, Alcinda. 1999. “Non-Western Concepts of Mental Health.” [ student/nonwest/toc.htm]. March 2004. Hoodfar, Homa, and Nelofer Pazira. 2003. “Building Civil Societies: A Guide for Social and Political Activism.” Santa Cruz, Calif. [ .pdf]. February 2004. Human Rights Watch. 2002. “Human Rights Watch Statement: Freedom of Religion—On the Occasion of the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation.” New York. [http://www.hrw. org/press/2002/09/osce-religion0912.htm]. February 2004. ———. 2003. “Nationality and Statelessness.” New York. []. February 2004. Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster. Iganski, Paul. 2002. “Hate Crimes Hurt More, But Should They Be More Harshly Punished.” In Paul Iganski, ed. The Hate Debate: Should Hate Be Punished as a Crime? London: Profile Books. Ignazi, Piero. 2003. Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe. New York: Oxford University Press. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2001. “Vietnam Desk Review.” Project to Promote ILO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Convention 169), Geneva. ———. 2003. ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: A Manual. Geneva. Independent Commission on Migration to Germany. 2001. “Structuring Immigration, Fostering Integration.” Berlin. [ Download_Summary.pdf]. February 2004. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2004. “Aboriginal Customary Law.” Ottawa. [ matr/acl_e.html]. February 2004.

India, Ministry of Education. 2004. Personal communication on human resource development. March. New Delhi. India, Ministry of Personnel. 2002. “Holidays to be Observed in Government Offices During the Year 2002.” Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. [ circular/jcm3.html#6]. February 2004. India, Office of the Registrar General. 2004. “Census of India.” New Delhi. []. March 2004. Indigenous Australia. 2003. “What is Cultural Heritage?” []. February 2004. Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne Baker. 2000. “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values.” American Sociological Review 65: 19–51. Inglis, Christine. 2004. “Multiculturalism: New Policy Responses to Diversity.” Policy Paper No. 4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. International Council on Metals and the Environment. 1999. “Mining and Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies.” Ottawa. International Federation of Human Rights. 2003. “Discrimination Against Religious Minorities in Iran.” Paris. [http://www.fidh. org/asie/rapport/2003/ir0108a.pdf]. February 2004. The Internet Movie Database. 2004. “International All-Time Box Office Chart.” []. March 2004. IOE (International Organisation of Employers). 2003. “Migration in Europe: Political, Social and Economic Dimensions.” Background Document. London. [ ioe_emp/pdf/migration_IOE_Moscow.pdf]. February 2004. IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2003a. “Integration of Migrants: The IOM Approach.” Geneva. []. February 2004. ———. 2003b. “Migration in a World of Global Change. New Strategies and Policies for New Realities.” IOM Migration Policy and Research. Geneva. ———. 2003c. “World Migration Report 2003: Managing Migration Challenges and Responses for People on the Move.” Geneva. ———. 2004. “Assisted Returns Service.” [ main%5Fservice%5Fareas%5Fassisted.shtml]. March 2004. IRR (Institute of Race Relations). 2003. “Norway: Progress Party (FrP).” []. December 2003. Jackman, Robert W., and Karin Volpert. 1996. “Conditions Favouring Parties of the Extreme Right in Western Europe.” British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 501–21. Jacobs, Dirk. 2003. “The Arab European League: The Rapid Growth of a Radical Immigrant Movement.” Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Conference, 18 September, Marburg, Germany. [http://www. papers/21/5/Jacobs.pdf]. February 2004. Jarkko, Lars, and Tom W. Smith. 2001. “National Pride in CrossNational Perspective.” National Opinion Research Center. University of Chicago, Chicago. [ web/iric/papers/pap1e1.doc]. February 2004. Jeness, Valerie. 2002. “Contours of Hate Crime Politics and Law in the United States.” In Paul Iganski, ed. The Hate Debate: Should Hate be Punished as a Crime? London: Profile Books. Jureidini, Ray. 2001. “Migrant Workers and Xenophobia in the Middle East.” Keynote address at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban. [ 80256B3C005BCCF9/httpNetITFrame?ReadForm&parent unid=8EAB85CCEBB1C65480256B6D00578762&parent



doctype=paper&netitpath= specialevents_/djureidi/content.htm]. February 2004. Justiniano, Freddy. 2004. “Correspondence on the Political Situation in Bolivia and Ecuador.” United Nations Development Programme, Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, New York. March 2004. Justino, Patricia, and Julie Litchfield. 2003. “Economic Exclusion and Discrimination: The Experience of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples.” Minority Rights Group International, London. [ IP_EconomicExclusion_JustinoLitchfield.pdf]. February 2004. Kaldor, Mary, and Diego Muro. 2003. “Religious and Nationalist Militant Groups.” In H. Anheier, M. Glasius, and M. Kaldor, eds. Global Civil Society 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kanbur, Ravi. 2001. “Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: Nature of Disagreements.” Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. [ Disagreements.pdf]. February 2004. Kanyinga, Karuti. 2003. “Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector in Kenya.” Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Public Sector Governance Country Studies. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. Kapur, Devesh, and John McHale. 2003. “Migration’s New Payoff.” Foreign Policy 139: 48–57. Kaviraj, Sudipto. 1992. “The Imaginary Institution of India.” In Partha Chatterjee and Gyanendra Pandey, eds. Subaltern Studies VII. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kearns, Thomas R., and Austin Sarat. 1997. Identities, Politics and Rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1999. Cultural Pluralism, Identity Politics and the Law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Keating, Michael. 2002. “Plurinational Democracy in a PostSovereign Order.” Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation. Institute of European Studies. Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast. []. February 2004. Kelso, Paul, and Jeevan Vasagar. 2002. “Muslims Reject Image of Separate Society.” The Guardian. 17 June. Kertzer, David I., and Dominique Arel, eds. 2002. Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiernan, Ben. 1999. “Sur La Notion de Génocide.” Le Débat. 1 March. Klaus, David. 2003. “The Use of Indigenous Languages in Early Basic Education in Papua New Guinea: A Model for Elsewhere?” Language and Education: An International Journal 17(2). Knop, Karen. 2002. Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knowles, Caroline, and Vered Amit-Talai. 1996. Re-situating Identities: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Culture. Orchard Park, New York: Broadview Press. Kogacioglu, Dicle. 2003. “Dissolution of Political Parties by the Constitutional Court in Turkey: Judicial Delimitation of the Political Domain.” International Sociology 18(1): 258–76. Koh, Harold Hongju. 2002. “The Case against Military Commissions.” The American Journal of International Law 96(2): 337–44. Kongolo, Tshimanga. 2001. “Towards a More Balanced Coexistence of Traditional Knowledge and Pharmaceuticals Protection in Africa.” Journal of World Trade 35(2): 349–61. Koopmans, Ruud. 2002. “Good Intentions Sometimes Make Bad Policies: A Comparison of Dutch and German Integration Policies.” Migrantenstudies 18: 87–92. Kuruk, Paul. 2002. “African Customary Law and the Protection of Folklore.” Bulletin Volume XXXVI Number 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman, eds. 2000. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, Will. 1990. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto and Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. “Immigration, Citizenship, Multiculturalism: Exploring the Links.” The Political Quarterly 74(1): 195–208. Lavery, David. 2004. “Universal Language: American Film and Monoculture at Century’s End.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the South Central Modern Language Association, 31 October, Dallas. [ Writing/Universal%20Language.htm]. February 2004. Lega Nord. 2004. “Stop Ai Clandestini.” [http://www.]. March 2004. Leibfried, Stephan, and Elmar Rieger. 2003. Limits of Globalization: Welfare States and the World Economy. Cambridge: Polity. Lenoir, Rene. 1989. Les Exclus: Un Francais sur Dix. Paris: Editions de Seuil. Leone, Richard C., and Greg Angrig Jr., eds. 2003. The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. New York: Century Foundation and Public Affairs Books. Levin, Brian. 2001. “Extremism and the Constitution: How America’s Legal Evolution Affects the Response to Extremism.” The American Behavioral Scientist 45(4): 714–55. Levin, Jack, and Jack McDevitt. 1999. “Hate Crimes.” In Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict. San Diego: Academic Press. []. January 2004. Lewis, Bernard. 1998. The Multiple Identities of the Middle East. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Lewis, Justin, and Toby Miller, eds. 2003. Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader. Malden, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell. Lewis, Peter. 2003. “Nigeria: Elections in a Fragile Regime.” Journal of Democracy 14(3). Libanio, José Carlos. 2004. Correspondence on the Share of AfroBrazilian Cabinet Members. March. Sao Paolo. Licha, Isabel. 2002. “Citizen Participation and Local Government in Latin America: Advances, Challenges and Best Practices.” Paper presented at the Citizenship Participation in the Context of Fiscal Decentralization Conference, 2 September, Kobe. [ Citizen_Participation/Overview_LAC.pdf]. February 2004. Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan, eds. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Ljiphart, Arend. 1984. “Proportionality by Non-PR Methods: Ethnic Representation in Belgium, Cyprus, Lebanon, New Zealand, West Gemany and Zimbabwe.” In A. Ljiphart and B. Grofman, eds. Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives. New York: Praeger. Lott, Juanita Tamayo. 1998. Asian Americans: From Racial Category to Multiple Identities. Walnut Creek, Calif., and London: Altamira Press. Loury, Glenn. 2001. “Racial Justice and Affirmative Action Policies: The Superficial Morality of Colour-Blindness in the United States.” Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban. [http://www. ReadForm&parentunid=0A3B836D101A5A4580256B6D005



78931&parentdoctype=paper&netitpath=http://www.]. February 2004. Lukes, Steven, and Christian Joppke. 1999. Multicultural Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Luter, Kurt Richard, and Kris Deschouwer, eds. 1999. Party Elites in Divided Societies: Political Parties in Consociational Democracy. London: Routledge. Luttmer, E. 1997. “Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution.” Journal of Political Economy 109(3): 500–28. Mabry, Tristan James. 1998. “Modernization, Nationalism and Islam: An Examination of Ernest Gellner’s Writings on Muslim Society with Reference to Indonesia and Malaysia.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(1): 64–88. Macan-Markar, Marwaan. 2004. “Thailand: Amid Violence, Final Bell Tolls for Islamic Schools.” Inter Press Service. 20 February. Macedo, Stephen. 2000. Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press. Malhotra, Anshu. 2002. Gender, Caste and Religious Identities: Restructuring Class in Colonial Punjab. Oxford and New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2001. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mandela, Nelson. 1994. A Long Walk to Freedom. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Mansbridge, Jane. 1998. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: Chigaco University Press. Marshall, Monty G., and Ted Robert Gurr. 2003. Peace and Conflict: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements and Democracy. Baltimore: Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Marshall, Paul, ed. 2000. Religious Freedom in the World: A Global Report on Freedom and Persecution. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Martínez-Herrera, Enric. 2002. “Nationalist Extremism and Outcomes of State Policies in the Basque Country, 1979–2001.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4(1): 1–22. Marty, Martin E., and R. Scott Appleby, eds. 1991. Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1993. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1995. Fundamentalisms Comprehended. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Matiki, A. J. 2003. “Linguistic Exclusion and the Opinions of Malawian Legislators.” Language Policy 2(2): 133–52. Mayer, Jean-François. 2001. “Cults, Violence and Religious Terrorism: An International Perspective.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24(5): 361–76. Mazrui, A. 1996. “Perspectives: The Muse of Modernity and the Quest for Development.” In P. Altbach and S. Hassan, eds. The Muse of Modernity: Essays on Culture as Development in Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press. McPhail, Kathryn. 2000. “How Oil, Gas, and Mining Projects Can Contribute to Development.” Finance and Development 37(4): 46–49. McRae, Kenneth D., ed. 1974. Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Medrano, Juan Díez. 2002. “Thematic Introduction.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4(1). [http://www.unesco. org/most/vl4n1intro.htm]. February 2004. Mehrotra, Santosh, and Enrique Delamonica. Forthcoming. Public Spending for the Poor: Getting the Fundamentals Right. In Social and Macroeconomic Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, Thomas. 2001. Identity Mania. Fundamentalism and the Politicization of Cultural Differences. London and New York: Zed Books. Mexico, Ministry of Health. 2004. “Mexico National Health Programme, 2001–2006.” Mexico City. [ wb2/egobierno/egob_Programa_Nacional_de_Salud ]. February 2004. Mgbeoji, Ikechi. 2001. “Patents and Traditional Knowledge of the Uses of Plants: Is a Communal Patent Regime Part of the Solution to the Scourge of Biopiracy?” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 9(1): 163–86. Middle East Institute. 2003. “Algeria.” [ countries/countries.php?name=algeria]. March 2004. Migration Information Source. 2003. “Canada: Policy Legacies, New Directions and Future Challenges.” Washington, DC. [ ?ID=20]. February 2004. Miguel. T. 1999. “Ethnic Diversity and School Funding in Kenya.” Economics Working Papers Archive. Washington University, St. Louis. The Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project. 2003. MARGene: Minorities At Risk Data Generation and Management Program. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, Baltimore. [http://www.]. February 2004. Minority Rights Group International. 2003. “Indigenous Peoples and Poverty: The Cases of Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.” Executive Summary. London. [http://www. mrg_dev_title12_LatinAmerica_8.htm]. February 2004. Mishra, Pankaj. 2003. “Hurray for Bollywood.” The New York Times. 28 February. Modood, Tariq, and Pnina Werbner, eds. 1997. The Politics of Multiculturalism in the New Europe: Racism, Identity and Community. London: Zed Books. Mody, Anjali. 2003. “It Is About Equality, Not Uniformity.” The Hindu. 10 August. Moeketsi, R. 1999. Discourse in a Multilingual and Multicultural Courtroom: A Court Interpreter’s Guide. Pretoria: J. L. Van Schaik. Mokyr, Joel. 1983. Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800–1850. London: Allen and Unwin. Moody, R. 2000. “The Decade of Destruction: How the Mining Companies Betrayed their Promised Greening.” [http://www.mines]. March 2004. Moreau, Ron, Sami Yousafzai, and Zahid Hussain, with Michael Hirsh. 2003. “Holy War 101.” Newsweek. 1 December. Moya, Paula M. 2002. Learning From Experience: Minority Identities, Multicultural Struggles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Myerson, Roger B. 1991. “Proportional Representation, Approval Voting and Coalitionally Straightforward Elections.” Discussion Paper 928. Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. Northwestern University, Chicago. [ 928.pdf]. February 2004. Nagel, Jack H. 2004. “Stormy Passage to a Safe Harbour? Proportional Representation in New Zealand.” In Henry Miller, ed. Making Every Vote Count: Reassessing Canada’s Electoral System. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. NARAL Pro Choice. 2004. “Clinic Violence and Intimidation.” []. February 2004. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2004a. “Latest News.” Manila. [ php?articleid=66]. February 2004.



———. 2004b. “Republic Act 8371.” Manila. [http://www.ncip.]. February 2004. Ndoye, Mamadou. 2003. “Bilingualism, Language Policies and Educational Strategies in Africa.” International Institute for Education Planning. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Neville, Alexander. 2001. “Language, Education and Race Relations.” Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute on Sustainable Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban. [http://www. ?OpenDocument]]. February 2004. The New York Times. 2003. “Just As Mexican Movies Become Chic Again, the Government Pulls Its Support.” 11 December. Nicaragua Network. 2004. “CAFTA: A Shotgun Wedding?” []. February 2004. Niessen Jan. 2000. “Diversity and Cohesion: New Challenges for the Integration of Immigrants and Minorities.” Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Norchi, Charles H. 2000. “Indigenous Knowledge as Intellectual Property.” Policy Sciences 33(3/4): 387–98. Nussbaum, Martha. 1995. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, Martha, and Jonathan Glover, eds. 1995. Women, Culture and Development. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ocampo, José Antonio. 2001. “Rethinking the Development Agenda.” Paper presented at the American Economic Associations Annual Meeting, 5 January, New Orleans. [ rethinking_dev_agenda.pdf]. February 2004. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 2003 Edition. Paris: SOPEMI. [ document/17/0,2340,en_2649_33931_28703185_1_1_1_1,00. html]. February 2004. Office of Personnel Management. 2003. “2003 Federal Holidays.” Washington, DC. []. February 2004. Okin, Susan Moller, ed. 1999. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O’Leary, Brendan. Forthcoming. “Multi-National Federalism, PowerSharing, Federacy and the Kurds of Iraq.” In Brendan O’Leary, John McGarry, and Khaled Salih, eds. The Future of Iraq and Kurdistan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Olwig, Karen Fog, and Kirsten Hastrup, eds. 1997. Siting Culture. The Shifting Anthropological Object. New York: Routledge. Opondo, Abiero. 2004. “Ethnicity: A Cause of Political Instability in Africa?” []. February 2004. Ostergard Jr., Robert L., Matthew Tubin, and Jordan Altman. 2001. “Stealing from the Past: Globalisation, Strategic Formation and the Use of Indigenous Intellectual Property in the Biotechnology Industry.” Third World Quarterly 22(4): 643–56. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. The Comparative Study of Public Economies. Memphis: P.K. Seidman Foundation. Papademetriou, Demetrios. 2003. “Policy Considerations for Immigrant Integration.” Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC. February 2004. Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Patrinos, H., and E. Velez. 1996. “Costs and Benefits of Bilingual Education in Guatemala: A Partial Analysis.” Human Capital

Development Working Paper 74. World Bank, Washington, DC. Pattanaik, Prasanta. 1998. “Cultural Indicators of Well-Being: Some Conceptual Issues.” In World Culture Report: Culture, Creativity and Markets. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Patterson, Thomas C., and Ida Susser, eds. 2001. Cultural Diversity in the United States: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Pehdazur, Ami. 2001. “Struggling with the Challenges of RightWing Extremism and Terrorism within Democratic Boundaries: A Comparative Analysis.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24(5): 339–59. The Pew Research Center. 2003. “Globalization With Few Discontents.” Washington, DC. [ globaliz/cultural/2003/0603globalopinion.htm]. February 2004. Phillips, Anne. 2001. “Multiculturalism, Universalism and the Claims of Democracy.” Programme Paper Number 7. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. [ (httpProjectsForResearchHome-en)/CE2B1BCD4B5F5D3A 80256B4900530E39?OpenDocument]. February 2004. Platteau, Jean-philippe. 2000. Institutions, Social Norms and Economic Development. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. The Polity IV Project. 2003. Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2002. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, Baltimore. []. February 2004. Ponzio, Richard. 2004. “Solomon Island’s Ethnic Difference Not the Cause of Conflict.” United Nations Development Programme, Solomon Islands, Honiara. Prah, Kwesi Kwaa. 2000. African Languages for the Mass Education of Africans. Cape Town: CASAS. Prashad, Vijay. 2001. “Cataracts of Silence: Race on the Edge of Indian Thought.” Paper presented at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Conference on Racism and Public Policy, 3 September, Durban. [http://www. ResearchHome-en)/CE2B1BCD4B5F5D3A80256B4900530E39 ?OpenDocument]. February 2004. Preis, Ann-Belinda. 2004. “Culture—Paradigm Shift in Anthropology.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Premdas, Ralph. 2003. “Ethnic Conflict, Inequality and Public Sector Governance in A Multi-Ethnic State: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago.” Ethnic Conflict, Inequality and Public Sector Governance Country Studies. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. Psacharopoulos, G., and H. Patrinos. 1994. “Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America.” In G. Psacharopoulos and H. Patrinos, eds. Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank. Public Citizen. 2004. “Global Trade Watch: Promoting Democracy by Challenging Corporate Globalization.” [http://www.]. March 2004. Putnam, Robert, R. Leonardi, and R. Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Putnam, Robert. 1993. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life.” American Prospect 13: 35–42. RAND Corporation. 2004. Correspondence on Terrorist Groups 1996–2003. March. Arlington. Ranger, T. 1983. “The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa.” In E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Canto. Reilly, Benjamin. 2002. “Internal Conflict and Regional Security in Asia and the Pacific.” Pacific Review 14 (1): 10–11.



Reiss, Timothy. 2002. Against Autonomy: Global Dialectics of Cultural Exchange. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Renshon, Stanley A., ed. 2001. One America? Political Leadership, National Identity and the Dilemmas of Diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Requejo, Ferran. 2001. “Federalism and the Quality of Democracy in Plurinational Contexts: Present Shortcomings and Possible Improvements.” Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Science Research Conference, 6 April, Grenoble, France. [ paperarchive/grenoble/ws4/requejo.pdf]. February 2004. Richey, W. 2003. “Affirmative Action’s Evaluation: How the Debate has Changed Since the 1970s.” The Christian Science Monitor. 28 March. Riding, Alan. 2003. “Filmmakers Seek Protection from U.S. Dominance.” The New York Times. 5 February. Roberts, Adam. 2002. “Counter-Terrorism. Armed Force and the Laws of War.” Survival 44(1): 7–32. Rodgers, Gerry, Charles Gore, and Jose B. Figueirdo, eds. 1995. Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality, Responses. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies. Rodwin, Victor G. 2002. “World Cities Project.” New York University, International Longevity Center, New York [http://]. March 2004. Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press. Rotar’, Igor’. 2002. “Under the Green Banner: Islamic Radicals in Russia and the Former Soviet Union.” Religion, State & Society 30(2): 89–153. Rotimi, Suberu. 2001. Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Rudolph, Susanne H. 2001. “Living With Difference in India: Legal Pluralism and Legal Universalism in Historical Context.” In Gerald James Larson, ed. Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Runciman, W. G. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. London: Routledge. Russell, Cheryl. 2002. Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Whites. Ithaca: New Strategist Publications. Rutter, Terri L. 1998. “Study Finds ‘Life Gap’ in the United States.” Harvard Public Health Review Fall 1998. [http://www.hsph.]. February 2004. Salomon, Margot E., and Arjun Sengupta. 2003. “The Right to Development: Obligations of States and the Rights of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples.” Minority Rights Group International, London. []. February 2004. Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sands, David R. 2003. “Effort to Rein in Madrassas Begun; Educator Predicts 10 Years of Work.” The Washington Times. 7 November. Sarat, Austin, and Jonathan Simon, eds. 2003. Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies and the Law: Moving Beyond Legal Realism. Durham: Duke University Press. SATP (South Asia Terrorism Portal). 2004. “Sectarian Violence in Pakistan.” [ pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm]. March 2004. Schacher, Ayelet. 2001. Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schoorl, J. J., and Friesen, W. 2000. “Restoration of Law and Order by Regional Intervention Force Allows for the Return of the Displaced.” [ idpSurvey.nsf/wViewSingleEnv/Solomon+IslandsProfile+ Summary]. February 2004.

Schultz, Paul T., and Germano Mwabo. 1998. “Labor Unions and the Distribution of Wages and Employment in South Africa.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51(4). Schulze, Karl. 1999. The Constitution, Multiculturalism and Our Changing Form of Government: A Guide for the Future. London: Minerva. Schwenken, Helen. 2003. “RESPECT for All: The Political SelfOrganization of Female Migrant Domestic Workers in the European Union.” Refuge 21(3): 45–52. [http://www _2003.pdf]. February 2004. Scott, Rachel. 2003. “An ‘Official’ Islamic Response to the Egyptian Al-Jihad Movement.” Journal of Political Ideologies 8(1): 39–61. Sen, Amartya. 1984. Resources, Values and Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ———. 1999. Reason Before Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. “Other People.” The New Republic. 18 December. ———. 2002. “Civilizational Imprisonments: How to Misunderstand Everybody in the World.” The New Republic. 10 June. ———. 2003. “Democracy and its Global Roots.” The New Republic. 6 October. ———. 2004a. “Cultural Freedom and Human Development.” ———. 2004b. “How Does Culture Matter?” In Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton, eds. Culture and Public Action: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on Development Policy. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ———. 2004c. “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 32(Fall). ———. Forthcoming. Identity and Innocence. New York: Norton. Sepúlveda, Magdalena M. 2003. The Nature of Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Antwerpen and Oxford: Intersentia. Shain, Yossi, and Aharon Barth. 2003. “Diasporas and International Relations Theory.” International Organization 57(3): 449–79. Shain, Yossi. 1994–95. “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 109(5): 811–41. Sheffer, Gabriel. 1986. “A New Field of Study: Modern Diasporas in International Politics.” In Gabriel Sheffer, ed. Modern Diaspora in International Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ———. 1993. “Ethnic Diasporas: A Threat to their Hosts?” In Myron Weiner, ed. International Migration and Security. Boulder: Westview Press. SIL International. 2004a. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Houston. ———. 2004b. “HDR2004 Comments and Contributions from SIL International.” Washington, DC and Houston. []. February 2004. Silver, Hilary. 1995. “Reconceptualizing Social Disadvantage: Three Paradigms of Social Exclusion.” In Gerry Rodgers, Charles Gore, and Jose B. Figueirdo, eds. Social Exclusion; Rhetoric, Reality, Responses. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies. Sivan, Emmanuel. 2003. “The Clash Within Islam.” Survival 45(1): 25–44. Smith, Adam. 1976 [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, eds. Campbell, R. H. and A. S. Skinner. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, Anthony. 1986. The Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1991. “The Nation: Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 20: 353–68. Snodgrass, Donald R. 1995. “Successful Economic Development in a Multi-ethnic Society: The Malaysian Case.” The Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. [http://]. February 2004.



Snyder, Jack. 2000. From Voting to Violence: Democraticization and Nationalist Conflict. New York: W.W. Norton. South Africa, Ministry of Labour. 2004. “South Africa Employment Equity Act.” No. 55, Section 20(5). Pretoria. [http://www]. February 2004. South Asia Monitor. 2003. “Musharraf Bans Resurfacing Militant Groups, Orders Crackdown.” [http://www.southasiamonitor .org/pak/2003/nov/16head4.htm]. April 2004. SSS (Swedish Security Service). 2002. “Offences Related to National Internal Security.” Stockholm. [http://www.sakerhetspolisen .se/Publikationer/brott_2002.pdf]. January 2004. Stalker, Peter. 2002. “Migration Trends and Migration Policy in Europe.” International Migration 40(5): 151–79. Stamatopoulou, Elsa. 2002. “Cultural Politics or Cultural Rights: UN Human Rights Responses.” Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, New York. Statistics Canada. 2004. Proportion of Foreign-Born Population, Census Metropolitan Areas. Ottawa. [http://www.statcan .ca/english/Pgdb/demo46b.htm]. February 2004. Statistics Sweden. 2004. Population Statistics. Stockholm. [http://www]. February 2004. Stepan, Alfred. 2001. Arguing Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stepan, Alfred, and Graeme Robertson. 2003. “An ‘Arab’ More than a ‘Muslim’ Electoral Gap.” Journal of Democracy 14(3): 30–44. Stepanov, Valery. 2004. “Russian Experience in the North Indigenous Statistics.” PFII/2004/WS.1/5. Department of Social and Economic Affairs. United Nations, New York. Stern, Jessica. 2000. “Pakistan’s Jihad Culture.” Foreign Affairs 79(6): 115–26. ———. 2003. “The Protean Enemy.” Foreign Affairs 82(4): 27–40. Stewart, Frances. 2002. “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper S81, Oxford. [ research/wpaction.html?jor_id=239]. February 2004. ———. 2003. “Conflict and the Millennium Development Goals.” Background Paper for Human Development Report 2003. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Stiefel, Leanna, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Dylan Conger. 2003. “Language Proficiency and Home Languages of Students in New York City Elementary and Middle Schools.” New York University, Taub Urban Research Center, New York. [http://urban]. February 2004. Subirats, Joan. 2003. “Nations Without States in Europe.” Paper presented at the King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center at New York University, 8 April, New York. [ kjc/lectures/nations_without_states3.doc]. February 2004. 2004. “Ny demokrati.” [ demokrati]. March 2004. Swedish Election Authority. 2002. “Resultat Övriga Riksdagsval— en Komplettering.” [ ovriga.pdf]. March 2004. Symonds, Peter. 2003. “The Political Origins and Outlook of Jemaah Islamiyah, Part I.” [ 2003/nov2003/jis1-n12.shtml]. March 2004. Tauli-Corpus, Victoria. 2004. “Land Rights in the Philippines.” Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba), Baguio City, Philippines. Taylor, Charles. 1992. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Multiculturalism and the “Politics of Recognition.” Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tebtebba and Forest Peoples Programme. 2003. Extracting Promises: Indigenous Peoples, Extractive Industries & the World Bank. Baguio City, Philippines. Tebtebba and International Forum on Globalization. 2003. “Globalization: Effects on Indigenous Peoples.” [http://www.]. March 2004. Temu, A. 2000. “The Development of National Language: A Survey of Kiswahili in Tanzania.” In Kwesi Kwaa Prah, ed. Between

Distinction and Extinction: The Harmonization and Standardization of African Languages. Cape Town: CASAS. Testas, Abdelaziz. 2002. “The Roots of Algeria’s Religious and Ethnic Violence.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25(3): 161–83. Tetley, William Q. C. 1999. “Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law Versus Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified).” International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Rome. [ articles/1999–3.htm]. February 2004. Third World Network. 2003. “More than 200 Organizations from 35 Nations Challenge US Patent on Neem.” [http://www.]. February 2004. Thompson, Charles D. 2001. Maya Identities and the Violence of Place: Borders Bleed. Aldershot: Ashgate. Throsby, David. 1999. “Cultural Capital.” Journal of Cultural Economics 23: 3–12. Townsend, Peter. 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Penguin Books. Tran, Luan-Vu N. 2000. Human Rights and Federalism: A Comparative Study on Freedom, Democracy and Cultural Diversity. The Hague and London: Martinus Nijhoff. Tremlett, Giles. 2002. “Death and Dissent as Algeria Goes to the Polls.” The Guardian. 31 May. Turton, D. 1997. “War and Ethnicity: Global Connections and Local Violence in North East Africa and Former Yugoslavia.” Oxford Development Studies 25: 77–94. UN (United Nations). 1994. “General Comment No. 23 (50) (Article 27).” United Nations Document CCPR/C/21/ Rev.1/Add.5. Adopted at the 50th Session of the Human Rights Committee, 6 April, New York. ———. 2000a. “Millennium Declaration.” A/RES/55/2, 18 September. New York. [ declaration/ares552e.pdf]. March 2003. ———. 2000b. “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. New York. [ migration.htm]. March 2004. ———. 2002a. “International Migration Report 2002.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. New York. [ ittmig2002/2002ITTMIGTEXT22–11.pdf]. February 2004. ———. 2002b. “International Migration Report Website.” [ ittmigrep2002.htm ]. March 2004. ———. 2003a. “Trends in Total Migrant Stock by Sex. 1960–2000.” 2003 Revision to the International Migration Report 2002. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. New York. ———. 2003b. World Population Prospects 1950–2050: The 2002 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York ———. 2004. “Data Collection Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Challenges.” PFII/2004/WA.1/13. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 1999. World Investment Report. Geneva. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1999. Human Development Report 1999: Globalization with a Human Face. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2000a. Human Development Report 2000: Human Rights and Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2000b. “Namibia Human Development Report 2000/2001: Gender and Violence in Namibia.” Windhoek. ———. 2000c. “South Africa Human Development Report 2000: Transformation for Human Development.” Pretoria. []. February 2004.



———. 2002a. Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2002b. “Situacíon Del Desarrollo Human En Las Comarcas Indígenas.” Panama City. ———. 2003a. Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society. Amman. ———. 2003b. Human Development Report 2003: Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2003c. “Indonesia.” Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit. Jakarta. ———. 2003d. “Report of the United Nations Development Programme to the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.” E/CN.4/2003/128. New York. [http://www]. February 2004. ———. 2003e. “Roma Human Development Report: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe: Avoiding the Dependency Trap.” Bratislava. []. February 2004. ———. 2004a. “About Indigenous Peoples: A Definition.” New York. [ paboutdef.html]. February 2004. ———. 2004b. “UNDP and Indigenous Peoples: A Policy of Engagement.” Civil Society Organization, Bureau for Resources and Strategic Partnerships. New York. [ cso/policies.html]. February 2004. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 1998. World Culture Report: Culture, Creativity and Markets. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. ———. 2000a. “A Survey on National Cinematography.” Culture Sector, Division of Creativity, Cultural Industries and Copyright. Paris. ———. 2000b. “Study of International Flows of Cultural Goods between 1980 and 1998.” Paris. ———. 2000c. World Culture Report: Cultural Diversity, Conflict and Pluralism. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. ———. 2001. “Synthesis of Reports by Member States in the Context of the Permanent System of Reporting on Education for Peace, Human Rights, Democracy, International Understanding and Tolerance, General Conference 31st Session.” 31 C/INF.5. Paris. ———. 2002. “Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.” Cultural Diversity Series No. 1. Paris. ———. 2003a. “Desirability of Drawing Up an International Standard-Setting Instrument on Cultural Diversity, General Conference 32nd Session.” 32 C/52. Paris. ———-. 2003b. “Language Vitality and Endangerment.” Paper presented at the “International Expert Meeting on the UNESCO Programme: Safeguarding Languages,” 10 March, Paris. [ ID=9105&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201 .html]. February 2004. ———. 2003c. “Preliminary Draft International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, General Conference 32nd Session.” 32 C/26. Paris. ———. 2004a. “Culture, Trade and Globalization.” Paris. [ .shtml]. March 2004. ———. 2004b. “What Was the Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI)?” [ /trade/html_eng/question20.shtml#20]. March 2004. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)–UIS (Institute of Statistics). 2001. “Fast Facts: Did You Know? International Trade in Cultural Goods.” Paris. []. February 2004. UN HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). Forthcoming. State of the World’s Cities Report 2004. Draft chapter on transnational migration. Nairobi.

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2001. State of the World’s Children 2001. New York. ———. 2004. “Ensuring the Rights of Indigenous Children.” Innocenti Digest 11. Innocenti Research Center, Rome. []. February 2004. United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2004. “Help For Brazil’s Indians.” London and New York. []. February 2004. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004a. “Adding Diversity From Abroad: The Foreign-Born Population 2000.” Washington, DC. [ chap17.pdf]. February 2004. ———. 2004b. “United States Census 2000.” [http://www.census .gov/]. March 2004. U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. “Hate Crime: The Violence of Intolerance.” [ pubs/htecrm.htm]. April 2004. U.S. Department of Labor. 2004. “Latest Numbers.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. []. March 2004. Valdés, Julio Carranza. 2002. “Cultural Development Indicators: Towards a New Dimension of Human Well-Being.” Paper presented at the International Symposium for Cultural Statistics, 21 October, Montréal. [http://www.colloque2002]. February 2004. Van Beetz, Freek. 2000. “The Legal Instruments Required in the Strategy for a Successful Integration Policy in the Netherlands.” Paper presented at the Strategies for Implementing Integration Policies Conference, 4 May, Prague. Van der Westhuizen, Janis. 2002. Adapting to Globalization: Malaysia, South Africa, and the Challenges of Ethnic Redistribution with Growth. Westport: Praeger. Van Holsteyn, Joop J. M. 2003. “Beating a Dead Horse? The Dutch State and the Defense of Democracy Against Right-Wing Extremism.” Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Conference, 28 March, Edinburgh. [ paperarchive/edinburgh.asp?section=4]. February 2004. Vogel, H. L. 2001. Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vuchelen, Jef. 2003. “Electoral Systems and the Effects of Political Events on the Stock Market: The Belgian Case.” Economics and Politics 15(1): 85–102. Wahlbeck, Osten. 2002. “The Concept of Diaspora as an Analytical Tool in the Study of Refugee Communities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28(2): 221–38. Walden, Bello. 2000. “2000: A Year of Global Protest Against Globalization.” New York. []. February 2004. Wanandi, Jusuf. 2002. “Islam in Indonesia: Its History, Development and Future Challenges.” Asia-Pacific Review 9(2): 104–12. Wanner, Philippe. 2002. “Migration Trends in Europe.” European Population Papers Series No. 7. European Population Committee. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. [http://www.coe .int/t/e/social_cohesion/population/No_7_Migration_trends_ in_Europe.pdf]. February 2004. Watts, Ronald L. 1998. “Federal Systems and Accommodation of Distinct Groups: A Comparative Survey of International Arrangements for Aboriginal Peoples.” Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. [ and_Acco.pdf]. February 2004. ———. 1999. Comparing Federal Systems. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. ———-. 2002. “The Relevance Today of the Federal Idea.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Federalism, 27 August, St. Gallen. [ Watts.asp?lang=en]. February 2004.



Weatherall, Kimberlee. 2001. “Culture, Autonomy and Djulibinyamurr: Individual and Community in the Construction of Rights to Traditional Designs.” Modern Law Review 64(2): 215–42. Weber, Max. 1976 [1930]. The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, republished with a new introduction by Anthony Giddens. London: Allen and Unwin. Wedgwood, Ruth. 2002. “Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions.” The American Journal of International Law 96(2): 328–37. WHO (World Health Organization). 2001. “International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People.” Report by the Secretariat. Geneva. [ ea5433.pdf]. February 2004. Widfeldt, Anders. 2001. “Responses to the Extreme Right in Sweden: The Diversified Approach.” Working Paper 10. Keele European Parties Research Unit, Keele. [http://www.keele Working%20papers.htm]. February 2004. ———. 2004. Correspondence on the vote shares of European extreme right parties between 1990 and 2003. February. Aberdeen. Wikipedia. 2004. “Religious Persecution.” Tampa. [http://en.]. February 2004. Willett, Cynthia, ed. 1998. Theorizing Multiculturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate. Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2003a. “Composite Study on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge.” WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/8. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Geneva. ———. 2003b. “Consolidated Analysis of the Legal Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions.” WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/3. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Geneva. ———. 2003c. “Information on National Experiences with the Intellectual Property Protection of Traditional Knowledge.” WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/INF/2. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Geneva. ———. 2003d. “Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and

Folklore Fifth Session Report.” WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/15. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Geneva. ———. 2004. “Revised Version of Traditional Knowledge: Policy and Legal Options.” WIPO/GRTKF/IC/6/4 Rev. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Geneva. World Bank. 2002. World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. World Development Indicators 2003. Washington, DC. ———. 2004. “Striking a Better Balance: Extractive Industries Review Final Report.” Washington, DC. World Commission on Culture and Development. 1995. “Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development.” Paris. World Values Survey. 2004. “World Values Survey.” []. February 2004. Wright, Sue. 2001. “Language and Power: Background to the Debate on Linguistic Rights.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 3(1). [ l3n1wri.htm]. February 2004. Young, Crawford, ed. 1999. The Accommodation of Cultural Diversity: Case Studies. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press. Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zelkina, Anna. 1999. “Islam and Security in the New States of Central Asia: How Genuine is the Islamic Threat?” Religion, State & Society 27(3/4): 355–72. Zhao, Susheng. 1998. “A State-Led Nationalism: The Patriotic Education Campaign in Post-Tiananmen China.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 31(3): 287–302. Zolberg, Aristide. 2001. “Introduction.” In Aristide Zolberg and Peter Benda, eds. Global Migrants, Global Refugees. New York: Berghahn Books. Zorzi, Christine. 2002. “The ‘Irrecognition’ of Aboriginal Customary Law.” Lawyers Information Network, Melbourne. [ p_in_09.pdf]. February 2004.




Statistical feature 1: The state of human development

127 137

Statistical feature 2: Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index

I. MONITORING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: ENLARGING PEOPLE’S CHOICES . . . 1 Human development index 139 143 147 150

2 Human development index trends

3 Human and income poverty: developing countries

4 Human and income poverty: OECD, Central & Eastern Europe & CIS II. . . . TO LEAD A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE . . . 5 Demographic trends 152 156 160 164

6 Commitment to health: resources, access and services 7 Water, sanitation and nutritional status 8 Leading global health crises and risks 9 Survival: progress and setbacks III. . . . TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE . . . 10 Commitment to education: public spending 11 Literacy and enrolment 176 180 12 Technology: diffusion and creation 172 168

IV. . . . TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES NEEDED FOR A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING . . . 13 Economic performance 15 Structure of trade 192 196 197 198 206 184 188

14 Inequality in income or consumption 16 Rich country responsibilities: aid

17 Rich country responsibilities: debt relief and trade 18 Flows of aid, private capital and debt 19 Priorities in public spending 202 20 Unemployment in OECD countries

V. . . . WHILE PRESERVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS . . . 21 Energy and the environment 207

VI. . . . PROTECTING PERSONAL SECURITY . . . 22 Refugees and armaments 23 Victims of crime 215 211

VII. . . . AND ACHIEVING EQUALITY FOR ALL WOMEN AND MEN 24 Gender-related development index 25 Gender empowerment measure 26 Gender inequality in education 225 229 233 217 221

27 Gender inequality in economic activity 28 Gender, work burden and time allocation 29 Women’s political participation 234

VIII. HUMAN AND LABOUR RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS 30 Status of major international human rights instruments 31 Status of fundamental labour rights conventions 242 238

32 Human development indices: a regional perspective 33 Basic indicators for other UN member countries 250


Note on statistics in the Human Development Report

251 258 265

Technical note 1: Calculating the human development indices Definitions of statistical terms Statistical references Index to indicators 277 279 283 Classification of countries 268

Technical note 2: Identifying top priority and high priority countries for the Millennium Development Goals

Statistical feature 1 The state of human development
People are the real wealth of nations. Indeed, the basic purpose of development is to enlarge human freedoms. The process of development can expand human capabilities by expanding the choices that people have to live full and creative lives. And people are both the beneficiaries of such development and the agents of the progress and change that bring it about. This process must benefit all individuals equitably and build on the participation of each of them. This approach to development—human development—has been advocated by every Human Development Report since the first in 1990. The range of capabilities that individuals can have, and the choices that can help to expand them, are potentially infinite and vary by individual. However, public policy is about setting priorities, and two criteria are helpful in identifying the most important capabilities for assessing meaningful global progress in achieving human well-being, the purpose of this Report. First, these capabilities must be universally valued. Second, they must be basic to life, in the sense that their absence would foreclose many other choices. For these reasons Human Development Report focuses on four important capabilities: to lead a long and healthy life, to be knowledgeable, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living and to participate in the life of the community.

The ideas behind this development paradigm are not new—they are at least as old as Aristotle. Aristotle argued that “wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else.” Immanuel Kant similarly asserted that human beings should be seen as ends in themselves, rather than as a means to other ends. And parallel ideas are reflected in the writings of Adam Smith, Robert Malthus and John Stuart Mill—to name just a few. But for a long time development policy debates seemed to forget this simple, yet profound truth. Caught up with the rise and fall of national incomes, economists often lost sight of the real end of development—people’s wellbeing. Economic growth is merely a means— albeit an important one—for achieving this end. Measuring human development It is easier to measure national incomes than human development. And many economists would argue that national income is a good indicator of human well-being. While there is evidently a strong relationship, since economic growth is an important means to human development, human outcomes do not depend on economic growth and levels of national income alone. They also depend on how these resources are used—whether for developing weapons or producing food, building palaces or providing clean water. And human outcomes such as

democratic participation in decision-making or equal rights for men and women do not depend on incomes. For these reasons the Report presents an extensive set of indicators (33 tables and almost 200 indicators) on important human outcomes achieved in countries around the world, such as life expectancy at birth or under-five mortality rates, which reflect the capability to survive, or literacy rates, which reflect the capability to learn. They also include indicators on important means for achieving these capabilities, such as access to clean water, and on equity in achievement, such as the gaps between men and women in schooling or political participation. While this rich array of indicators provides measures for evaluating progress in human development in its many dimensions, policymakers also need a summary measure to evaluate progress, particularly one that focuses more sharply on human well-being than on income. For this purpose Human Development Reports have since their inception published the human development index, later complemented by indices looking specifically at gender (gender-related development index and gender empowerment measure) and poverty (human poverty index; table 1). These indices give an overview of some basic dimensions of human development, but they must be complemented by looking at their underlying data and other indicators.

HDI, HPI-1, HPI-2, GDI—same components, different measurements Index Human development index (HDI) Human poverty index for developing countries (HPI-1) Longevity Life expectancy at birth Knowledge • Adult literacy rate • Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools Adult literacy rate Decent standard of living GDP per capita (PPP US$) Participation or exclusion —

Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40

Deprivation in economic provisioning, measured by: • Percentage of people without sustainable access to an improved water source • Percentage of children under five underweight for age Percentage of people living below the income poverty line (50% of median adjusted disposable household income) Estimated female and male earned income

Human poverty index for highincome OECD countries (HPI-2) Gender-related development index (GDI)

Probability at birth of not surviving to age 60

Percentage of adults lacking functional literacy skills

Long-term unemployment rate (12 months or more)

Female and male life expectancy at birth

• Female and male adult literacy rates • Female and male combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools



Human development index The human development index (HDI) focuses on three measurable dimensions of human development: living a long and healthy life, being educated and having a decent standard of living (see Technical note 1). Thus it combines measures of life expectancy, school enrolment, literacy and income to allow a broader view of a country’s development than does income alone. Although the HDI is a useful starting point, it is important to remember that the concept of human development is much broader and more complex than any summary measure can capture, even when supplemented by other indices. The HDI is not a comprehensive measure. It does not include important aspects of human development, notably the ability to participate in the decisions that affect one’s life and to enjoy the respect of others in the community. A person can be rich, healthy and well educated, but without this ability human development is impeded. The omission of this dimension of human development from the HDI has been highlighted since the first Human Development Reports—and drove the creation of a human freedom index in 1991 and a political freedom index in 1992. Neither measure survived past its first year, a testament to the difficulty of adequately quantifying such complex aspects of human development. This difficulty does not make the many aspects of participation, such as political freedom and equal respect in the community, any less important to human development than the dimensions included in the HDI. In fact, these issues have been explored extensively in Human Development Reports. Human Development Report 2002 dealt with democracy and its importance to human development. This year’s report introduces a related and vitally important aspect of human development: cultural liberty. Leading a full life includes being free to follow different cultural practices and traditions without facing discrimination or disadvantage in participating politically, economically or socially. The HDI clearly illustrates the distinction between income and human well-being. By measuring average achievements in health, education and income, the HDI can give a more complete picture of the state of a country’s development than can incomes alone. Bolivia, with a much lower GDP per capita than

Guatemala, has achieved a higher HDI because it has done more to translate that income into human development (figure 1). Tanzania, one of the world’s poorest countries, has an HDI comparable to that of Guinea, a country almost four times richer. Conversely, countries at the same level of income have large differences in HDI—Viet Nam has roughly the same income as Pakistan but a much higher HDI, due to its higher life expectancy and literacy (figure 2). Indicator table 1 highlights these differences in another way by comparing HDI ranks with ranks in GDP per capita (last column). Sri Lanka ranks 96 of 177 countries in HDI, much higher than its GDP rank of 112. These examples highlight the importance of policies that translate wealth into human development. In particular, well designed public policy and provision of services by governments, local communities and civil society can advance human development even without high levels of income or economic growth. This does not mean, however, that economic growth is unimportant. Economic growth is an important means to human development, and when growth stagnates over a prolonged

period, it becomes difficult to sustain progress in human development. Gender-related development index The HDI measures average achievements in a country, but it does not incorporate the degree of gender imbalance in these achievements. Two countries with the same average level of adult literacy (say 30%) may have different disparities in rates between men and women (one could have a rate of 28% for women and 32% for men while the other could have a rate of 20% for women and 40% for men). Such differences in disparities would not be reflected in the HDI for the two countries. The gender-related development index (GDI), introduced in Human Development Report 1995, measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men. It is simply the HDI adjusted downward for gender inequality. The greater the gender disparity in basic human development, the lower is a country’s GDI relative to its HDI. The countries with the worst disparities between their GDI and HDI values are Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan,


Same HDI, different income
Income GDP per capita (PPP US$) 2002


Same income, different HDI
Human development index 2002

Human development index 2002

Income GDP per capita (PPP US$) 2002

4000 4000








2000 0.50

Viet Nam

2000 1000 0.50


0.40 Source: Indicator table 1.



1000 Source: Indicator table 1.




Yemen and India, indicating a need for greater attention to gender equality. Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Latvia and Bulgaria have the closest correspondence between HDI and GDI. Full results and ranks are in indicator table 24. Gender empowerment measure The HDI does not include a measure of participation, an aspect of human development that is central to gender equity. The gender empowerment measure (GEM) reveals whether women take an active part in economic and political life. It focuses on gender inequality in key areas of economic and political participation and decision-making. It tracks the share of seats in parliament held by women; of female legislators, senior officials and managers; and of female professional and technical workers— and the gender disparity in earned income, reflecting economic independence. Differing from the GDI, the GEM exposes inequality in opportunities in selected areas. It has been calculated for 78 countries (for full results and ranking, see indicator table 25). The top three countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which have opened significant opportunities for women to participate in economic and political life. But all countries can do more to expand the opportunities for women: only nine countries have GEM values higher than 0.8 (out of 1)—most have a long way to go to achieve full empowerment of women. Human poverty index The HDI measures the average progress of a country in human development. Human Development Report 1997 introduced the human poverty index (HPI), which focuses on the proportion of people below a threshold level in basic dimensions of human development, much as the poverty headcount measures the proportion of people below an income threshold. The human poverty index for developing countries (HPI-1) uses different variables than the index for high-income OECD countries (HPI-2), as shown in table 1. Indicator tables 3 and 4, respectively, give the full results and rankings of these indices. As with the HDI, these indices provide a more complete view of poverty because they go beyond measures of income poverty. For developing countries Barbados, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica and Cuba rank highest, with human poverty levels of 5% or lower. Burkina Faso, Niger,

Mali, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe have the highest human poverty levels of the countries in the index—all above 50%. For high-income OECD countries HPI-2 shows a different picture from that shown by the HDI. These countries tend to have very similar HDI values, because of their high overall levels of development. But when variables and dimensions of deprivation are used that are specifically adapted to the situation in these countries and to the different meaning of poverty there (such as social exclusion), there are substantial differences. For the 17 countries with data, human poverty as measured by HPI-2 varies from 6.5% in Sweden to 15.8% in the United States. And there are large differences between HDI and HPI-2 ranks: Australia ranks 3rd in the HDI but 14th in the HPI-2. Luxembourg ranks 15th in the HDI but 7th in the HPI-2, reflecting differences in how well these countries have distributed the overall human development achieved. Trends in human development Progress in human development during the 20th century was dramatic and unprecedented. Between 1960 and 2000 life expectancy in developing countries increased from 46 to 63 years.1 Mortality rates for children under five were more than halved.2 Between 1975, when one of every two adults could not read, and 2000 the

share of illiterate people was almost halved.3 Real per capita incomes more than doubled, from $2,000 to $4,200.4 But despite this impressive progress, massive human deprivation remains. More than 800 million people suffer from undernourishment (table 2). Some 100 million children who should be in school are not, 60 million of them girls. More than a billion people survive on less than $1 a day. Some 1.8 billion people live in countries where political regimes do not fully accommodate democratic, political and civil freedoms.5 And about 900 million people belong to ethnic, religious, racial or linguistic groups that face discrimination.6 The Millennium Development Goals Recognizing these problems, world leaders at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000 expressed an unprecedented determination to end world poverty. They declared their commitment not only to the people of their own countries but to the people of the world. The 189 countries at the summit adopted the Millennium Declaration, committing themselves to do their utmost to achieve key objectives of humanity in the 21st century, including eradicating poverty, promoting human dignity and achieving peace, democracy and environmental sustainability. Stemming from the Declaration were the Millennium Development Goals—a set of 8 goals,

Eliminating poverty: massive deprivation remains, 2000 (Millions) Living on less than $1 (PPP US$) a day 323 8 261 432 Total Children population Primary age Primary age under age underchildren not girls not five dying nourished a in school in school each year 185 34 212 312 44 7 14 32 23 4 7 21 5 1 1 4 People without access improved water sources 273 42 453 225 People without access to adequate sanitation 299 51 1,004 944

Region Sub-Saharan Africa Arab States East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Central & Eastern Europe & CIS World

56 21 1,100

53 33 831

2 3 104

1 1 59

0 0 11

72 29 1,197

121 .. 2,742

a. 1998–2000. Source: World Bank 2003a, 2004f; UNESCO 2003; UN 2003.





Not enough progress toward the Millennium Development Goals Poverty: Proportion of people living on less than $1 a day (%)


60 45 30 15 0 1990


Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of population living on less than $1 a day, 2000 (% of total) Latin America and Central and Eastern the Caribbean 5.1 Europe and the CISa 1.9 Sub-Saharan Africa 29.3 South Asia 39.2



2015 1990


2015 1990


2015 1990




60 45 30 15 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Central and Eastern Europe and the CISa

Arab States 0.7 East Asia and the Pacific 23.7




2015 1990


2015 1990



Global total: 1,100 million in 2000

Hunger: Undernourished people (as % of total population)
Percent 40 30 20 10 0 1990-92 1999-2001 2015 1990-92 1999-2001 2015 1990-92 1999-2001 2015 1990-92 1999-2001 2015

Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of population undernourished, 1998–2000 (% of total) Latin America and the Caribbean 6.4 Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS 4.0 Sub-Saharan Africa 22.2 South Asia 37.6 Arab States 4.1 East Asia and the Pacific 25.6 Global total: 831 million in 2000


40 30 20 10 0

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean


1990-92 1999-2001

2015 1990-92 1999-2001


Primary education: Net primary enrolment ratio (%)
Percent 100 75 50 25 0 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015


Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of primary age children not in school, 2000 (% of total) Latin America and Central and Eastern the Caribbean 1.9 Europe and the CIS 2.5 Sub-Saharan Africa 43.0


100 75 50 25 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS

South Asia 31.7

East Asia and the Pacific 13.7
2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015

Arab States 7.2

Global total: 104 million in 2000

Gender equality: Ratio of girls to boys in primary school (%)
Percent 100 75 50 25 0 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015


Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of primary age girls not in school, 2000 (% of total) Latin America and Central and Eastern the Caribbean 1.9 Europe and the CIS 2.2


100 75 50 25 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS

South Asia 36.6

Sub-Saharan Africa 39.9

East Asia and the Pacific 11.9
2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015

Arab States 7.6

Global total: 59 million in 2000





Not enough progress towards the Millennium Development Goals Child mortality: Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)

Per 1,000 live births

200 150 100 50 0 1990


Sub-Saharan Africa

Arab States

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of children dying each year under age five, 2002 (% of total) Latin America and Central and Eastern the Caribbean 3.7 Europe and the CIS 1.5





2015 1990


2015 1990


2015 1990



Per 1,000 live births

200 150 100 50 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS

Sub-Saharan Africa 42.8 South Asia 33.4 East Asia and the Pacific 12.2



Arab States 5.8


2015 1990


2015 1990



Global total: 11 million in 2002

Access to water: People with access to an improved water source (%)
Percent 100 75 50 25 0 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015


Sub-Saharan Africa

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of people without access to improved water source, 2000 (% of total) Latin America and the Caribbean 6.6 South Asia 20.6 Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS 2.7 Sub-Saharan Africa 24.9



100 75 50 25 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Arab States 3.9 East Asia and the Pacific 41.4


2015 1990



Global total: 1,197 million in 2000

Access to sanitation: People with access to improved sanitation (%)
Percent 100 75 50 25 0 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015 1990 2000 2015


Sub-Saharan Africa

East Asia and the Pacific

Regional distribution of people without access to adequate sanitation, 2000 (% of total) Latin America and the Caribbean 5.0 Sub-Saharan Africa 12.4 Arab States 2.1


100 75 50 25 0 1990

South Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

South Asia 39.0 East Asia and the Pacific 41.5 Global total: 2,742 million in 2000



2015 1990



a: Refers to population living on less than $2 a day. Sources: World Bank 2003a (income); FAO 2003, World Bank 2004f (hunger); UNESCO 2003 (primary education); UNESCO 2003 (gender equality); UN 2003, World Bank 2004f (child mortality); World Bank 2004f (access to water); World Bank 2004f (access to sanitation).



18 targets and 48 indicators—that establish concrete, time-bound targets for advancing development and reducing poverty by 2015 or earlier (see Index to Millennium Development Goal indicators at the end of this feature). As Human Development Report 2003 argued, human development and the Millennium Development Goals share a common motivation and vital commitment to promoting human well-being. The progress of countries and regions on the Millennium Development Goals since 1990 highlights a key aspect of development over the past decade: rapid progress for some, but reversals for an unprecedented number of other countries (figure 3). The picture that emerges is increasingly one of two very different groups of countries: those that have benefited from development, and those that have been left behind (tables 3–5). An examination of regional progress on selected Millennium Development Goals reveals several noteworthy trends (see figure 3). East Asia and the Pacific stands out as being on track for all the goals for which trend data are available. The number of people living on less than $1 a day in the region was almost halved during the 1990s. South Asia is also making rapid progress on a number of goals. But despite the impressive pace of these two regions, which together account for almost half the world’s population, human development is proceeding too slowly. Only two of the goals, halving income poverty and halving the proportion of people without access to safe water, will be met at the pace of progress of the last decade, and progress on the others, hunger reduction and access to sanitation, is nearly on track (figure 4). But even progress on these goals is driven mainly by the rapid development of China and India. Other regions, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, are performing much less well. At the current pace Sub-Saharan Africa will not meet the goal for universal primary education until 2129 or the goal for reducing child mortality by two-thirds until 2106—100 years away, rather than the 11 called for by the goals. In three of the goals—hunger, income poverty and access to sanitation—no date can be set because the situation in the region is worsening, not improving.



Progress and setbacks: child mortality (Per 1,000 live births) Country 1990 2002 Change Best performers Bhutan Guinea Bangladesh Egypt Lao, PDR Eritrea Worst performers Iraq Botswana Zimbabwe Swaziland Cameroon Kenya
Source: UNICEF 2003b. TABLE 5

Progress and setbacks: primary education (Net primary enrolment ratio, percent) Country 1990/91 2001/02 Change Best performers Dominican Republic Guinea Kuwait Morocco Mauritania Malawi Worst performers Angola Azerbaijan Congo, Dem. Rep. United Arab Emirates Myanmar Nepal
Source: Indicator table 11.

166 240 144 104 163 147 50 58 80 110 139 97

94 169 77 41 100 89 125 110 123 149 166 122

–72 –71 –67 –63 –63 –58 75 52 43 39 27 25

58 25 49 57 35 50 58 101 54 100 99 85

97 61 85 88 67 81 30 80 35 81 82 70

39 36 36 32 31 31 –28 –21 –20 –19 –18 –14

Progress and setbacks: income poverty (People living under the national poverty line, percent) Country Good performers Azerbaijan Uganda India Jordan Cambodia Guatemala Bangladesh Poor performers Zimbabwe Morocco Pakistan Hungary Year 1995 1993 1993–94 1991 1993–94 1989 1995–96 1990–91 1990–91 1993 1993 Share 68.1 55.0 36.0 15.0 39.0 57.9 51.0 25.8 13.1 28.6 14.5 Year 2001 1997 1999–2000 1997 1997 2000 2000 1995–96 1998–99 1998–99 1997 Share 49.6 44.0 28.6 11.7 36.1 56.2 49.8 34.9 19.0 32.6 17.3 Change a (percentage points) –18.5 –11.0 –7.4 –3.3 –2.9 –1.7 –1.2 9.1 5.9 4.0 2.8

Note: Comparisons should not be made across countries because national poverty lines vary considerably. a. A minus sign indicates an improvement—less poverty. Source: World Bank 2004f. TABLE 6

The unprecedented reversals of the 1990s Looking beyond regional averages reveals many tragic reversals. An unprecedented number of countries saw development slide backwards in the 1990s. In 46 countries people are poorer today than in 1990. In 25 countries more people go hungry today than a decade ago. These reversals can also be seen clearly in the HDI. This is particularly troubling—in previous decades, virtually no country experienced a decline in the HDI. The index has moved steadily upward, though usually slowly because three of its key components—literacy, school enrolment and life expectancy—take time to change. So when the HDI falls, that indicates crisis. Countries are depleting their

Countries experiencing a drop in the human development index, 1980s and 1990s Period Number Countries 1980–90 1990–2002 3 20 Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Zambia Bahamas, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan,a Kenya, Lesotho, Moldova,a Russian Federation,a South Africa, Swaziland, Tajikistan,a Tanzania,a Ukraine,a Zambia, Zimbabwe

a. Country does not have HDI data for 1980–90, so drop may have begun before 1990. Source: Indicator table 2.





Timeline: when will the Millennium Development Goals be achieved if progress does not accelerate?
Achieved Arab Statesa East Asia & the Pacific


Primary education
East Asia & the Pacific Latin America & the Caribbeana Central & Eastern Europe & the CISa

Gender equality
East Asia & the Pacific Latin America & the Caribbeana Central & Eastern Europe & the CISa Worlda

Child mortality

Access to water
Central & Eastern Europe & the CISa

Access to sanitation



South Asia World

East Asia & the Pacific Latin America & the Caribbean Arab States World South Asia

South Asia Arab States Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America & the Caribbean East Asia & the Pacific South Asia Arab States World

South Asia World Latin America & the Caribbean East Asia & the Pacific Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia & the Pacific World South Asia Latin America & the Caribbean


World South Asia


Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa Central & Eastern Europe & the CIS



Latin America & the Caribbean Reversal Sub-Saharan Africa Central & Eastern Europe & the CIS Arab States Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africa

a. Region is considered achieved as it has low human poverty (below 10%) in most recent year for the relevant goal (See technical note 2) Source: Calculated on the basis of figure 3.

basis for development—their people, who are their real wealth. Since 1990, 20 countries have suffered a reversal in the HDI. By contrast, only 3 (of 113 countries with available data) saw their HDI decline in the 1980s (table 6). The reversals in these countries, together with stagnation in others, do much to explain the overall deceleration in HDI progress in the last decade (figure 5). Of the 20 countries experiencing reversals, 13 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Much of this is due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and its massive impact on life expectancy. The other reversals are mainly in countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), many of which started on a downward trend in the mid-1980s, reflected in the data as a drop in incomes and HDI between 1990 and 1995. The region’s HDI started to improve again in the later half of the 1990s. The drop in many countries’ HDI signals a problem; looking at key indicators of progress

towards the Millennium Development Goals reveals its depth. Without significant changes, countries experiencing reversals or stagnation have little chance of achieving the goals. Priority countries For each goal there are countries where the situation is particularly urgent—where failed progress is combined with brutally low starting levels. These top priority countries are in greatest need of the world’s attention, resources and commitments (see Technical note 2). In high priority countries the situation is less desperate, but progress is still insufficient. These countries are either making progress from low levels of development or achieving slow (or negative) progress from higher levels. There are 27 top priority countries that are failing in several goals: 21 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 3 in the Arab States and 1 each in East Asia and Pacific, South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean (figure 6). In these countries

development is failing across the board. They require the world’s attention and resources if they are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Another 27 high priority countries face serious challenges across the goals. Again, Sub-Saharan Africa has the greatest number, at 17, and Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS and the Arab States have 3 each, East Asia and the Pacific has 2, and South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean have 1 each. Grouping countries into top priority, high priority and other categories is useful, but such efforts should be viewed with caution. The underlying data for individual goals are often measured imprecisely, and some country classifications will change as the data improve. Moreover, many countries are missing too much data for individual goals to be given proper overall classifications. Thus some of the 30 countries in the “other” category would be top or high priority countries if the underlying data were more complete. (Examples



No single factor can explain the predicaments of the top and high priority countries. But 24 of these 54 countries also saw incomes fall during the decade. And the countries from Sub-Saharan Africa tend to share common features. Many are landlocked or have a large portion of their populations living far from a coast. In addition, most are small—only four have more than 40 million people. Being far from world markets and having a small economy make it much harder to diversify from primary commodities to less volatile exports with more value added. Indeed, primary commodities account for more than two-thirds of exports in 16 of the 23 top or high priority Sub-Saharan countries with data. Many of the region’s priority countries also have other serious concerns: in 22 countries more than 5% of the population has HIV/AIDS, and in 9 countries there were violent conflicts in the 1990s. In other regions top priority countries face other challenges. Many countries in the CIS, for example—while also facing some of the structural problems affecting Sub-Saharan Africa—are trying to make the transition to a market economy, a process that has been much more successful in Central and Eastern Europe. In the Arab States constraints are unrelated to income, deriving instead from a failure to convert income into human development and progress towards the goals. So what needs to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals? No matter how that question is answered, the top priority and high priority countries must be front and centre. The issues they face and ways to resolve them were considered in detail in Human Development Report 2003.
1. Calculated on the basis of life expectancy data from UN 2003. 2. UNICEF 2003b. 3. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003a. 4. Calculated on the basis of GDP per capita (PPP US$) data from World Bank 2004f. 5. Polity IV 2002. 6. Chapter 2.

Human Development Index

include Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan.) In addition, the classification criteria used here are plausible but only one among many reasonable choices.



Global disparities in HDI
Human development index

High-income OECD

Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS

Latin America and the Caribbean

East Asia and the Pacific

Arab States

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa







Source: Calculated on the basis of data on life expectancy from UN 2003; data on adult literacy rates from UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003a; data on combined gross enrolment ratios from UNESCO 1999 and UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2004c; and data on GDP per capita (1995 PPP US$) and GDP per capita (current PPP US$) from World Bank 2004f.



Top and high priority countries
Top priority High priority No data

Region Arab States East Asia & the Pacific Latin America and Caribbean South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS

Top priority countries 3 1 1 1 21 0

High priority countries 3 2 1 1 17 3

Level of human poverty (in goal)


High Priority Top Priority Slow or reversing High Priority Moderate Fast


Source: See Technical note 2.

Progress towards the goal



Index to Millennium Development Goal indicators in the indicator tables

Goals and targets Goal 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1 Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day Target 2 Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

Indicators for monitoring progress

Indicator table

1. Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) a day 2. Poverty gap ratio (incidence ✕ depth of poverty) 3. Share of poorest quintile in national consumption 4. Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age 5. Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption

3 14 3, 7 7 1, 33 1

Goal 2 Achieve universal primary education Target 3 6. Net enrolment ratio in primary education Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, 7. Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling 8. Literacy rate of 15- to 24-year-olds Goal 3 Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4 Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and to all levels of education no later than 2015 Goal 4 Reduce child mortality Target 5 Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate Goal 5 Improve maternal health Target 6 Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Goal 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target 7 Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS

11, 33 11 11

9. Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education 10. Ratio of literate women to men ages 15–24 11. Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector 4 12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments

26 2 26 3 25, 29

13. Under-five mortality rate 14. Infant mortality rate 15. Proportion of one-year-old children immunized against measles

9, 33 9 6

16. Maternal mortality ratio 17. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel

9 6

18. HIV prevalence among pregnant women ages 15–24 5 19. Condom use rate of the contraceptive prevalence rate 19a. Condom use at last high-risk sex 19b. Percentage of 15- to 24-year-olds with comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS 20. Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans ages 10–14 21. Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria 22. Proportion of population in malaria-risk areas using effective malaria prevention and treatment measures 23. Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis 24. Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly observed treatment, short course (DOTS)


Target 8 Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

86 87 88 8

Goal 7 Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9 Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

25. Proportion of land area covered by forest 26. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 27. Energy use (kilograms of oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP)




Goals and targets Goal 7, continued Target 9, continued

Indicators for monitoring progress 28. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita and consumption of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (ODP tons) 29. Proportion of population using solid fuels 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural 31. Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation, urban and rural 32. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure

Indicator table 21 10

Target 10 Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation

7 11, 33 11 7 12

Target 11 By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers Goal 8 Develop a global partnership for development Target 12 Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction—both nationally and internationally

Official development assistance 33. Net ODA, total and to least developed countries, as a percentage of OECD/DAC donors’ gross national income GNI 16 13 34. Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) 16 35. Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied 16 Target 13 36. ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their gross Address the special needs of the least developed countries national incomes Includes: tariff and quota-free access for least-developed 37. ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their countries’ exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for gross national incomes HIPCs and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more Market access generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction 38. Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and from the least developed countries, Target 14 admitted free of duties Address the special needs of landlocked countries and small 39. Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural island developing States products and textiles and clothing from developing countries 40. Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as a percentage Target 15 of their gross domestic product 17 Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing 41. Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity countries through national and international measures in Debt sustainability order to make debt sustainable in the long term 42. Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) 43. Debt relief committed under HIPC Debt Initiative 14 44. Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services 18 Target 16 45. Unemployment rate of 15- to 24-year-olds, male and female and total In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth Target 17 46. Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access a sustainable basis to affordable essential drugs in developing countries Target 18 In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications 47. Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 people 48a. Personal computers in use per 100 people 48b. Internet users per 100 people 20 15


12 16 12

Note: Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicators are identified in the indicator tables by the symbol MDG in orange above the relevant columns. 1. Tables 7 and 33 present this indicator as undernourished people as percent of total population. 2. Table presents female enrolment ratio as percent of male ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary education levels separately. 3. Table presents data on female youth literacy rate as percent of male rate. 4. Table 27 includes data on female employment by economic activity. 5. Table 8 presents HIV prevalence among people ages 15–49. 6. Table includes data on malaria cases per 100,000 people. 7. Table includes data on children under age five with insecticide-treated bed nets and children under age five with fever treated with anti-malarial drugs. 8. Table includes data on tuberculosis cases per 100,000 people. 9. Table presents this indicator as GDP per unit of energy use (1995 PPP US$ per kilogram of oil equivalent). 10. Table includes data on carbon dioxide emissions per capita. 11. Tables 7 and 33 include data on population with sustainable access to an improved water source for urban and rural combined. 12. Table includes data on population with sustainable access to improved sanitation for urban and rural combined. 13. Table includes data on official development assistance (ODA) to least developed countries as percent of total ODA. 14. Table 17 includes data on bilateral debt relief pledges to the HIPC trust fund and gross bilateral debt forgiveness. 15. Table includes data on unemployment rate of 15- to 24-year-olds as total and female rate as percent of male rate for OECD countries only. 16. Table presents telephone lines and cellular subscribers separately.



Statistical feature 2 Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index
The human development index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate and the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools; and a decent standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) US dollars. The index is constructed using indicators that are currently available globally, and a methodology that is simple and transparent (see Technical note 1). While the concept of human development is much broader than any single composite index can measure, the HDI offers a powerful alternative to income as a summary measure of human well-being. It provides a useful entry point into the rich information contained in the subsequent indicator tables on different aspects of human development. Country coverage The HDI in this Report, presented in indicator table 1, refers to 2002. It covers 175 UN member countries, along with Hong Kong, China (SAR) and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As a result of improvements in data availability, two countries—Timor-Leste and Tonga—are included in the HDI table for the first time. Data availability affects the HDI country coverage. To enable cross-country comparisons, the HDI is, to the extent possible, calculated based on data from leading international data agencies available when the Report was prepared (see Data sources below). But for a number of countries data are missing for one or more of the four HDI components. In response to the desire of countries to be included in the HDI table, and striving to include as many UN member countries as possible, the Human Development Report Office has made special efforts in a number of cases to obtain an estimate from other international, regional or national sources when data are lacking from the primary international data agencies for one or two of the HDI components for a country. In a very few cases, the Human Development Report Office has produced an estimate. These estimates from sources other than the primary international agencies (see descriptions below) are documented in the footnotes to indicator table 1. They are often of varying quality and reliability and are not presented in other indicator tables showing similar data. Owing to a lack of comparable data, 16 UN member countries cannot be included in the HDI. For these countries basic human development indicators are presented in table 33. Data sources Life expectancy at birth. The life expectancy estimates are from the 2002 Revision of World Population Prospects (UN 2003). They are prepared biannually by the United Nations Population Division on the basis of data from national population censuses and surveys. In the 2002 Revision, the United Nations Population Division made significant adjustments to further incorporate the demographic impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It anticipates a more serious and prolonged impact of the epidemic in the most affected countries than previous revisions did. The impact of the disease is explicitly modeled for 53 countries, up from the 45 considered in the 2000 Revision (UN 2001). The life expectancy estimates published by the United Nations Population Division are fiveyear averages. The life expectancy estimates for 2002 shown in indicator table 1 and those underlying indicator table 2 are obtained through linear interpolation based on these five-year averages. Adult literacy rate. The adult literacy rate is defined as the percentage of people ages 15 and above who can, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement related to their everyday life. Literacy data using this definition are usually collected during national population censuses, generally conducted every 5 or 10 years, or from household surveys. This report uses data on adult literacy rates from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics (UIS) March 2004 Assessment (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2004a), which combines direct national estimates with UIS estimates. The national estimates, made available to UIS only recently, are obtained from national censuses or surveys between 1995 and 2004. The UIS estimates, produced in July 2002, were based on national data collected before 1995. Many high-income OECD countries, having attained universal primary schooling for their populations, no longer collect literacy statistics in national population censuses or household surveys and thus are not included in the UNESCO data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is applied for those countries. In collecting literacy data, many countries estimate the number of literate people based on self-reported data. Some use educational attainment data as a proxy, but measures of school attendance or grade completion may differ. Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution (UNDP 2000, box 2, p. 143). The UIS, in collaboration with other partners, is actively pursuing an alternative methodology for measuring literacy, the Literacy Assessment and Monitoring Programme (LAMP; see box 5 in Note on statistics). LAMP seeks to go beyond the current simple categories of literate and illiterate by providing information on a continuum of literacy skills. For details on both the 2002 UIS estimation methods and the new literacy data collection methodology, see Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools. Gross enrolment ratios are produced by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics based on enrolment data collected from national governments (usually from administrative sources) and population data from the United Nations Population Division’s 2002 Revision of World Population Prospects (UN 2003). The ratios are calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled in all levels of schooling by the total population in the official age group corresponding to these levels. The tertiary age group is set to five cohorts immediately following on the end of upper secondary school in all countries. Countries are usually asked to report numbers of students enrolled at the beginning of the academic year in each level of education as defined by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). A revised version of ISCED was introduced in 1997, which led to some changes in the classifications of national programmes of education. These changes, however, have less impact on the estimation of combined gross enrolment ratios for primary, secondary and tertiary schools. Though intended as a proxy for educational attainment, the combined gross enrolment ratio does not reflect the quality of education outcomes. Even when used to capture access to education opportunities, it can hide important differences among countries because of differences in the age range corresponding to a level



of education and in the duration of education programmes. Such factors as grade repetition can also create distortions in the data. Measures such as mean years of schooling of a population or school life expectancy more adequately capture education outcomes and ideally would replace gross enrolment ratios in the HDI. However, such data are not yet regularly available for a sufficient number of countries. Expanding the coverage and quality of such data should be a priority for the international statistical community. As currently defined, the combined gross enrolment ratio does not take into account students enrolled in other countries. Current data for many smaller countries, such as Luxembourg and Seychelles, where many people pursue tertiary education abroad, could significantly underrepresent actual access to education or the educational attainment of a population and thus lead to a lower HDI value. For instance, the combined gross enrolment ratio for Luxembourg is estimated at 75% but rises to 85% when students enrolled abroad are taken into account.1 Though the differences in the resulting HDI values are small (0.933 and 0.944, respectively), the HDI ranking of Luxembourg would change from 15 to 4 due to the small differences in the HDI values among the high human development countries. However, data on such a revised gross enrolment ratio are not widely available for other countries and so cannot yet be used in the HDI. GDP per capita (PPP US$). To compare standards of living across countries GDP per capita needs to be converted into purchasing power parity (PPP) terms that eliminate differences in national price levels. The GDP per capita (PPP US$) data for the HDI are provided for 163 countries by the World Bank based on price data from the latest International Comparison Program (ICP) surveys and GDP in local currency from national accounts data. The ICP survey covered 118 countries for which PPPs have been estimated directly by extrapolating from the latest benchmark results. For countries not included in the benchmark

surveys, estimates are made using econometric regression. For countries not covered by the World Bank, PPP estimates provided by the Penn World Tables of the University of Pennsylvania are used.2 In a limited number of cases where reliable PPP estimates are not available from the two international sources, the Human Development Report Office has worked with regional and national agencies to obtain a PPP estimate for a country. For example, in the case of Cuba, a technical team of national and international experts has been formed to explore different methodologies for obtaining a better PPP estimate. The results of this effort will be reflected in future Reports. Though much progress has been made in recent decades, the current PPP data set suffers a number of deficiencies, including lack of universal coverage, of timeliness of the data and of uniformity in the quality of results from different regions and countries. Filling gaps in country coverage using econometric regression requires strong assumptions, and extrapolation over time means that the results become increasingly weak as the distance lengthens between the reference survey year and the current year. The importance of PPPs in economic analysis underlines the need for improvement in PPP data. A new Millennium Round of the ICP has been established and promises much improved PPP data for economic policy analysis, including international poverty assessment (Note on statistics, box 6). Comparisons over time and across editions of the Report The HDI is an important tool for monitoring long-term trends in human development. To facilitate trend analysis across countries, the HDI is calculated at five-year intervals for the period 1975–2002. These estimates, presented in indicator table 2, are based on a consistent methodology and on comparable trend data available when the Report is prepared. As international data agencies continually improve their data series, including updating

historical data periodically, the year-to-year changes in the HDI values and rankings across editions of the Human Development Report often reflect revisions to data—both specific to a country and relative to other countries—rather than real changes in a country. In addition, occasional changes in country coverage could also affect the HDI ranking of a country, even when a consistent methodology is used to calculate the HDI. As a result, a country’s HDI rank could drop considerably between two consecutive Reports, but when comparable, revised data are used to reconstruct the HDI for recent years, the HDI rank and value may actually show an improvement. For these reasons HDI trend analyses should not be based on data from different editions of the Report. Indicator table 2 provides up-to-date HDI trend data based on consistent data and methodology. For HDI values and ranks recalculated for 2001 (the reference year of the HDI in Human Development Report 2003) based on data and country coverage comparable to this year’s Report, see HDI for high human development countries The HDI in this Report is constructed to compare country achievements across all levels of human development. The indicators currently used in the HDI yield very small differences among the top HDI countries, and thus the top of the HDI rankings often reflects only the very small differences in these underlying indicators. For these high-income countries an alternative index—the human poverty index (shown in indicator table 4 and discussed in Statistical feature 1, The state of human development)—can better reflect the extent of human deprivation that still exists among these populations and help direct the focus of public policies. For further discussions on the use and limitations of the HDI, see Statistical feature 1, The state of human development.

1. Statec 2004. 2. Aten, Heston and Summers 2001, 2002.



1 Human development index

Combined gross enrolment Adult ratio for primary, literacy secondary rate and tertiary GDP (% ages 15 schools per capita and above) (%) (PPP US$) 2002 b 2001/02 c 2002

HDI rank a High human development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Norway Sweden Australia Canada Netherlands Belgium Iceland United States Japan Ireland Switzerland United Kingdom Finland Austria Luxembourg France Denmark New Zealand Germany Spain Italy Israel Hong Kong, China (SAR) Greece Singapore Portugal Slovenia Korea, Rep. of Barbados Cyprus Malta Czech Republic Brunei Darussalam Argentina Seychelles Estonia Poland Hungary Saint Kitts and Nevis Bahrain Lithuania Slovakia Chile Kuwait Costa Rica Uruguay Qatar Croatia United Arab Emirates Latvia

Life expectancy at birth (years) 2002

Life expectancy index

Education index

GDP index

Human development index (HDI) value 2002

GDP per capita (PPP US$) rank minus HDI rank d

78.9 80.0 79.1 79.3 78.3 78.7 79.7 77.0 81.5 76.9 79.1 78.1 77.9 78.5 78.3 78.9 76.6 78.2 78.2 79.2 78.7 79.1 79.9 78.2 78.0 76.1 76.2 75.4 77.1 78.2 78.3 75.3 76.2 74.1 72.7 71.6 73.8 71.7 70.0 73.9 72.5 73.6 76.0 76.5 78.0 75.2 72.0 74.1 74.6 70.9

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 97.7 98.5 95.3 93.5 97.3 92.5 92.5 99.7 97.9 99.7 96.8 92.6 .. 93.9 97.0 91.9 99.8 99.7 99.3 97.8 88.5 99.6 99.7 95.7 82.9 95.8 97.7 84.2 98.1 77.3 99.7

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e, f, k e, f, k

98 114 113 95 99 111 90 92 84 90 88 113 106 91 75 91 96 101 88 92 82 92 72 86 87 93 90 92 88 74 77 78 73 94 85 96 90 86 97 79 90 74 79 76 69 85 82 73 68 87

f g, h g, h f f f, g f h h f f f, g f, g f f, i f f g, h h h f

36,600 26,050 28,260 29,480 29,100 27,570 29,750 35,750 26,940 36,360 30,010 26,150 26,190 29,220 61,190 26,920 30,940 21,740 27,100 21,460 26,430 19,530 26,910 18,720 24,040 18,280 18,540 16,950 15,290 18,360 17,640 15,780 19,210 10,880 18,232 12,260 10,560 13,400 12,420 17,170 10,320 12,840 9,820 16,240 8,840 7,830 19,844 10,240 22,420 9,210

0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.87 0.94 0.86 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.76

0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.89 0.87 0.92 0.87 0.96 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.96 0.91 0.90 0.81 0.87 0.94 0.83 0.90 0.74 0.95

0.99 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.87 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.78 0.87 0.80 0.78 0.82 0.80 0.86 0.77 0.81 0.77 0.85 0.75 0.73 0.88 0.77 0.90 0.75

0.956 0.946 0.946 0.943 0.942 0.942 0.941 0.939 0.938 0.936 0.936 0.936 0.935 0.934 0.933 0.932 0.932 0.926 0.925 0.922 0.920 0.908 0.903 0.902 0.902 0.897 0.895 0.888 0.888 0.883 0.875 0.868 0.867 0.853 0.853 0.853 0.850 0.848 0.844 0.843 0.842 0.842 0.839 0.838 0.834 0.833 0.833 0.830 0.824 0.823

1 19 9 5 6 7 1 -4 6 -7 -4 8 6 -4 -14 0 -12 6 -5 5 -3 5 -6 5 -3 6 3 9 11 1 3 7 -5 14 -2 10 13 3 6 -4 10 1 11 -6 14 16 -21 4 -26 6


f, k e, f, k l e, f, k e e, f, k f, n l

f m f f h f f f h


e l

f, o



l e, l e, f, k e, f, k r

p, q

f h h f


e, l e, l l

f h f f

q q


f, l l

f, s

f, q

e, l




1 Human development index
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2002 67.1 76.7 73.3 71.4 73.9 70.9 66.7 72.6 73.0 73.5 74.6 69.9 68.4 71.9 73.6 74.0 71.0 73.6 70.5 69.5 72.4 68.0 72.1 72.3 69.8 69.1 72.1 66.2 75.6 73.5 69.6 72.3 69.8 67.2 69.7 66.9 74.0 70.4 70.7 70.9 72.1 72.7 65.3 70.9 73.1 72.5 73.5 66.7 71.5 70.7

HDI rank a 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Bahamas Cuba Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Antigua and Barbuda Bulgaria Russian Federation Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Malaysia Macedonia, TFYR Panama Belarus Tonga Mauritius Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Suriname Venezuela Romania Ukraine Saint Lucia Brazil Colombia Oman Samoa (Western) Thailand Saudi Arabia Kazakhstan Jamaica Lebanon Fiji Armenia Philippines Maldives Peru Turkmenistan St. Vincent & the Grenadines Turkey Paraguay Jordan Azerbaijan Tunisia Grenada China Dominica Sri Lanka Georgia Dominican Republic Belize Ecuador

Combined gross enrolment Adult ratio for primary, literacy secondary rate and tertiary GDP (% ages 15 schools per capita and above) (%) (PPP US$) 2002 b 2001/02 c 2002 95.5 96.9 90.5 98.5 85.8 98.6 99.6 81.7 88.7 96.0 92.3 99.7 98.8 84.3 98.7 94.6 94.0 93.1 97.3 99.6 94.8 86.4 92.1 74.4 98.7 92.6 77.9 99.4 87.6 86.5 92.9 99.4 92.6 97.2 85.0 98.8 83.1 86.5 91.6 90.9 97.0 73.2 94.4 90.9 76.4 92.1 100.0 84.4 76.9 91.0 f, k

Life expectancy index 0.70 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.82 0.77 0.69 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.75 0.72 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.77 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.79 0.72 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.74 0.79 0.69 0.84 0.81 0.74 0.79 0.75 0.70 0.74 0.70 0.82 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.67 0.76 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.70 0.78 0.76

Education index 0.88 0.91 0.85 0.87 0.80 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.86 0.95 0.93 0.79 0.89 0.84 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.71 0.89 0.86 0.71 0.93 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.77 0.80 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.74 0.85 0.83 0.76 0.83 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.85

GDP index 0.86 0.66 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.71 0.74 0.72 0.75 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.71 0.78 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.70 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.69 0.82 0.67 0.71 0.81 0.68 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.57 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.70 0.72 0.64 0.67 0.60 0.52 0.70 0.69 0.60

Human development index (HDI) value 2002 0.815 0.809 0.802 0.801 0.800 0.796 0.795 0.794 0.793 0.793 0.791 0.790 0.787 0.785 0.781 0.781 0.780 0.778 0.778 0.777 0.777 0.775 0.773 0.770 0.769 0.768 0.768 0.766 0.764 0.758 0.758 0.754 0.753 0.752 0.752 0.752 0.751 0.751 0.751 0.750 0.746 0.745 0.745 0.745 0.743 0.740 0.739 0.738 0.737 0.735

GDP per capita (PPP US$) rank minus HDI rank d -16 39 5 1 -8 10 3 6 -2 15 18 24 5 -15 31 15 6 21 5 25 19 -9 4 -32 10 -9 -33 4 28 21 7 33 22 13 7 16 0 -12 9 14 23 -23 -28 5 -11 16 29 -27 -19 11



f, n

74 78 74 64 69 76 88 97 70 70 73 88 82 69 69 64 74 71 68 84 74 92 68 63 69 73 57 81 75 78 73 72 81 78 88 81 64 68 72 77 69 75 65 68 74 65 69 77 71 72

f, t



17,280 5,259 8,970 9,430 10,920 7,130 8,230 7,570 9,120 6,470 6,170 5,520 6,850 10,810 4,830 5,970 6,590 5,380 6,560 4,870 5,300 7,770 6,370 13,340 5,600 7,010 12,650 5,870 3,980 4,360 5,440 3,120 4,170 4,798 5,010 4,300 5,460 6,390 4,610 4,220 3,210 6,760 7,280 4,580 5,640 3,570 2,260 6,640 6,080 3,580

f f, s, u

Medium human development f h h h f f e


l w, x

e l l l


f y h

f, o p, q

w, x

l e f, n l








e f, n f, k f, l e, l l




f, p, q

z f, l f, n l z

h f, t


h h h


w, x

h f f f h

f, n

f, n l f, n


e, w, x

h f f, aa


l l



1 Human development index
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2002 70.1 72.3 70.6 63.2 70.0 71.7 69.5 69.5 49.1 68.4 66.6 69.0 68.8 63.7 68.8 68.6 63.7 69.4 48.8 68.6 65.7 56.6 69.7 69.0 68.5 45.3 63.7 41.4 68.6 57.4 57.8 57.2 57.4 63.0 54.3 60.6 35.7 61.1 55.5 59.6 46.8 60.8 49.9 48.3 36.3 45.7 33.9 45.2 59.8 53.4 51.6

HDI rank a 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Iran, Islamic Rep. of Occupied Palestinian Territories El Salvador Guyana Cape Verde Syrian Arab Republic Uzbekistan Algeria Equatorial Guinea Kyrgyzstan Indonesia Viet Nam Moldova, Rep. of Bolivia Honduras Tajikistan Mongolia Nicaragua South Africa Egypt Guatemala Gabon São Tomé and Principe Solomon Islands Morocco Namibia India Botswana Vanuatu Cambodia Ghana Myanmar Papua New Guinea Bhutan Lao People’s Dem. Rep. Comoros Swaziland Bangladesh Sudan ae Nepal Cameroon Pakistan Togo Congo Lesotho Uganda Zimbabwe Kenya Yemen Madagascar Nigeria

Combined gross enrolment Adult ratio for primary, literacy secondary rate and tertiary GDP (% ages 15 schools per capita and above) (%) (PPP US$) 2002 b 2001/02 c 2002 77.1 90.2 79.7 96.5 75.7 82.9 99.3 68.9 84.2 97.0 87.9 90.3 99.0 86.7 80.0 99.5 97.8 76.7 86.0 55.6 69.9 71.0 83.1 76.6 50.7 83.3 61.3 78.9 34.0 69.4 73.8 85.3 64.6 47.0 66.4 56.2 80.9 41.1 59.9 44.0 67.9 41.5 59.6 82.8 81.4 68.9 90.0 84.3 49.0 67.3 66.8 f, k,z m

Life expectancy index 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.64 0.75 0.78 0.74 0.74 0.40 0.72 0.69 0.73 0.73 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.64 0.74 0.40 0.73 0.68 0.53 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.34 0.64 0.27 0.73 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.63 0.49 0.59 0.18 0.60 0.51 0.58 0.36 0.60 0.41 0.39 0.19 0.34 0.15 0.34 0.58 0.47 0.44

Education index 0.74 0.86 0.75 0.89 0.75 0.75 0.91 0.69 0.76 0.92 0.80 0.82 0.87 0.86 0.74 0.90 0.89 0.73 0.83 0.62 0.65 0.72 0.76 0.68 0.53 0.79 0.59 0.76 0.42 0.66 0.65 0.73 0.57 0.48 0.64 0.53 0.74 0.45 0.52 0.50 0.64 0.40 0.62 0.71 0.76 0.70 0.79 0.74 0.50 0.60 0.59

GDP index 0.70 0.52 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.60 0.47 0.68 0.95 0.46 0.58 0.52 0.45 0.53 0.54 0.38 0.47 0.54 0.77 0.61 0.62 0.70 0.43 0.46 0.61 0.69 0.55 0.73 0.56 0.50 0.51 0.39 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.47 0.64 0.47 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.45 0.38 0.53 0.44 0.53 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.36

Human development index (HDI) value 2002 0.732 0.726 0.720 0.719 0.717 0.710 0.709 0.704 0.703 0.701 0.692 0.691 0.681 0.681 0.672 0.671 0.668 0.667 0.666 0.653 0.649 0.648 0.645 0.624 0.620 0.607 0.595 0.589 0.570 0.568 0.568 0.551 0.542 0.536 0.534 0.530 0.519 0.509 0.505 0.504 0.501 0.497 0.495 0.494 0.493 0.493 0.491 0.488 0.482 0.469 0.466

GDP per capita (PPP US$) rank minus HDI rank d -31 21 -9 -1 -12 4 35 -25 -103 33 2 12 36 6 3 45 21 1 -66 -12 -15 -50 29 21 -17 -48 -10 -67 -13 1 -3 26 -8 0 2 4 -37 1 -3 11 -9 -7 5 17 -24 4 -25 11 16 20 15

f, n

69 79 66 75 73 59 76 70 58 81 65 64 62 86 62 73 70 65 77 76 56 74 62 50 57 71 55 70 59 59 46 48 41 .. 59 45 61 54 36 61 56 37 67 48 65 71 58 53 53 45 45

f h

6,690 .. 4,890 4,260 5,000 3,620 1,670 5,760 30,130 1,620 3,230 2,300 1,470 2,460 2,600 980 1,710 2,470 10,070 3,810 4,080 6,590 1,317 1,590 3,810 6,210 2,670 8,170 2,890 2,060 2,130 1,027 2,270 1,969 1,720 1,690 4,550 1,700 1,820 1,370 2,000 1,940 1,480 980 2,420 1,390 2,400 1,020 870 740 860

ab q q q



q f,q

f, k w, ac


f, l e l l e, l l z

h f, aa



q q

f, l

f, t h h


w, x m m

f,s q


q q




q q q v q f,s

f, k w, x






Low human development f, l f q



q q f



f, k

f, t



1 Human development index
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2002 52.3 49.4 45.8 53.9 52.7 52.7 49.3 38.9 48.9 50.7 43.5 41.2 32.7 37.8 40.1 44.7 41.4 39.8 45.5 38.5 45.2 40.8 48.5 45.8 46.0 34.3 64.6 50.6 66.3 69.8 70.5 63.2 46.3 69.5 77.1 78.3 77.4 67.2 49.1 78.3 70.0 59.1 66.9

HDI rank a 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 Mauritania Haiti Djibouti Gambia Eritrea Senegal Timor-Leste Rwanda Guinea Benin Tanzania, U. Rep. of Côte d’Ivoire Zambia Malawi Angola Chad Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Central African Republic Ethiopia Mozambique Guinea-Bissau Burundi Mali Burkina Faso Niger Sierra Leone

Combined gross enrolment Adult ratio for primary, literacy secondary rate and tertiary GDP (% ages 15 schools per capita and above) (%) (PPP US$) 2002 b 2001/02 c 2002 41.2 51.9 65.5 37.8 56.7 39.3 58.6 69.2 41.0 39.8 77.1 49.7 79.9 61.8 42.0 45.8 62.7 48.6 41.5 46.5 39.6 50.4 19.0 12.8 17.1 36.0 76.7 52.5 63.3 90.3 88.6 57.6 63.2 99.3 .. .. .. 80.4 54.3 .. 89.7 63.6 .. 44 52 24 45 33 38 75 53 29 52 31 42 45 74 30 35 27 31 34 41 37 33 26 22 19 45 60 43 60 65 81 54 44 79 87 93 89 64 40 92 71 51 64 f, t

Life expectancy index 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.23 0.40 0.43 0.31 0.27 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.27 0.25 0.34 0.22 0.34 0.26 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.66 0.43 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.64 0.35 0.74 0.87 0.89 0.87 0.70 0.40 0.89 0.75 0.57 0.70

Education index 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.49 0.39 0.64 0.64 0.37 0.44 0.62 0.47 0.68 0.66 0.38 0.42 0.51 0.43 0.39 0.45 0.39 0.45 0.21 0.16 0.18 0.39 0.71 0.49 0.61 0.83 0.86 0.57 0.56 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.95 0.75 0.50 0.97 0.84 0.59 0.76

GDP index 0.52 0.46 0.50 0.47 0.36 0.46 0.26 0.42 0.51 0.40 0.29 0.45 0.36 0.29 0.51 0.39 0.31 0.41 0.34 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.28 0.62 0.42 0.65 0.64 0.72 0.55 0.48 0.72 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.63 0.41 0.94 0.68 0.51 0.73

Human development index (HDI) value 2002 0.465 0.463 0.454 0.452 0.439 0.437 0.436 0.431 0.425 0.421 0.407 0.399 0.389 0.388 0.381 0.379 0.365 0.361 0.359 0.354 0.350 0.339 0.326 0.302 0.292 0.273 0.663 0.446 0.651 0.740 0.777 0.584 0.465 0.796 0.911 0.935 0.915 0.695 0.438 0.933 0.756 0.557 0.729

GDP per capita (PPP US$) rank minus HDI rank d -25 -9 -21 -15 8 -11 19 -6 -30 -5 12 -16 3 9 -38 -8 4 -15 -1 -14 -1 0 -11 -20 -8 -1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

f, k f, k f, k


2,220 1,610 1,990 1,690 890 1,580 .. 1,270 2,100 1,070 580 1,520 840 580 2,130 1,020 650 1,170 780 1,050 710 630 930 1,100 800 520 4,054 1,307 5,069 4,768 7,223 2,658 1,790 7,192 24,904 29,000 24,806 4,269 1,184 28,741 5,908 2,149 7,804

q q q q q


f, m

af q

w, x

f h f

f, k

h f f f, aa

w, ac

q q q q q q q q

f, k z

f, k


f, l f, l

f h

q q

w, x


Developing countries Least developed countries Arab States East Asia and the Pacific Latin America and the Caribbean South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Central & Eastern Europe & CIS OECD High-income OECD High human development Medium human development Low human development High income Middle income Low income World

Note: Aggregates for columns 5-8 are based on all data in the table. For detailed notes on the data, see Statistical feature 2, Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index. a. The HDI rank is determined using HDI values to the fifth decimal point. b. Data refer to estimates produced by UNESCO Institute for Statistics in July 2002, unless otherwise specified. Due to differences in methodology and timeliness of underlying data, comparisons across countries and over time should be made with caution. c. Data refer to the 2001/02 school year, unless otherwise specified. Data for some countries may refer to national or UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimates. For details, see Because data are from different sources, comparisons across countries should be made with caution. d. A positive figure indicates that the HDI rank is higher than the GDP per capita (PPP US$) rank, a negative the opposite. e. For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of 99.0% was applied. f. Data refer to a year other than that specified. g. For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of 100% was applied. h. Preliminary UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimate, subject to further revision. i. The ratio is an underestimate, as many secondary and tertiary students pursue their studies in nearby countries (see Statistical feature 2, Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index). j. For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of $40,000 (PPP US$) was applied. k. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003a. Data are subject to further revision. l. Census data. m. Data are from national sources. n. Data are from the Secretariat of the Caribbean Community, based on national sources. o. World Bank 2003b. p. Preliminary World Bank estimate, subject to further revision. q. Estimate based on regression. r. Data are from the Secretariat of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, based on national sources. s. Aten, Heston, and Summers 2002. Data differ from the standard definition. t. Data refer to the 1999/2000 school year. They were provided by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics for Human Development Report 2001 (see UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2001). u. Efforts to produce a more accurate and recent estimate are ongoing (see Statistical feature 2, Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index). v. Aten, Heston, and Summers 2001. Data differ from the standard definition. w. Data refer to a year or period other than that specified, differ from the standard definition or refer to only part of a country. x. UNICEF 2003b. y. UNDP 2002a. z. Survey data. aa. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003b. ab. In the absence of an estimate of GDP per capita (PPP US$), the Human Development Report Office estimate of $2,302, derived using the value of GDP in US dollars and the weighted average ratio of PPP US dollars to US dollars in the Arab States, was used. ac. UNICEF 2000. ad. Because the combined gross enrolment ratio was unavailable, the Human Development Report Office estimate of 49% was used. ae. Estimates are based primarily on information for northern Sudan. af. The estimated value of $478 was used (UNDP 2002b). Source: Column 1: UN 2003, unless otherwise noted; column 2: UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2004a, unless otherwise noted; column 3: UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2004c, unless otherwise noted; column 4: World Bank 2004f, unless otherwise noted; aggregates calculated for the Human Development Report Office by the World Bank; column 5: calculated on the basis of data in column 1; column 6: calculated on the basis of data in columns 2 and 3; column 7: calculated on the basis of data in column 4; column 8: calculated on the basis of data in columns 5-7; see technical note 1 for details; column 9: calculated on the basis of data in columns 4 and 8.



2 Human development index trends


HDI rank High human development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Norway Sweden Australia Canada Netherlands Belgium Iceland United States Japan Ireland Switzerland United Kingdom Finland Austria Luxembourg France Denmark New Zealand Germany Spain Italy Israel Hong Kong, China (SAR) Greece Singapore Portugal Slovenia Korea, Rep. of Barbados Cyprus Malta Czech Republic Brunei Darussalam Argentina Seychelles Estonia Poland Hungary Saint Kitts and Nevis Bahrain Lithuania Slovakia Chile Kuwait Costa Rica Uruguay Qatar Croatia United Arab Emirates Latvia








0.866 0.863 0.847 0.869 0.865 0.845 0.862 0.866 0.854 0.810 0.878 0.845 0.839 0.842 0.838 0.852 0.872 0.847 .. 0.836 0.841 0.794 0.760 0.832 0.724 0.785 .. 0.705 0.804 .. 0.726 .. .. 0.784 .. .. .. 0.777 .. .. .. .. 0.703 0.761 0.745 0.759 .. .. 0.744 ..

0.886 0.873 0.864 0.885 0.877 0.862 0.885 0.886 0.879 0.825 0.889 0.853 0.859 0.856 0.850 0.867 0.881 0.853 0.860 0.853 0.856 0.818 0.799 0.847 0.761 0.800 .. 0.741 0.827 0.791 0.763 .. .. 0.799 .. .. .. 0.793 .. 0.746 .. .. 0.738 0.776 0.770 0.779 .. .. 0.777 0.795

0.897 0.885 0.877 0.908 0.891 0.876 0.895 0.899 0.894 0.844 0.895 0.862 0.876 0.870 0.856 0.880 0.889 0.867 0.868 0.867 0.865 0.839 0.826 0.860 0.784 0.823 .. 0.779 0.837 0.812 0.789 .. .. 0.808 .. .. .. 0.807 .. 0.779 .. .. 0.761 0.778 0.774 0.785 .. .. 0.785 0.807

0.911 0.895 0.892 0.928 0.907 0.897 0.913 0.914 0.910 0.869 0.909 0.883 0.899 0.893 0.882 0.902 0.897 0.874 0.887 0.885 0.887 0.857 0.862 0.870 0.821 0.847 .. 0.817 0.851 0.835 0.824 .. .. 0.810 .. 0.817 0.802 0.807 .. 0.808 0.823 .. 0.784 .. 0.791 0.803 .. 0.806 0.805 0.807

0.935 0.928 0.932 0.933 0.927 0.927 0.919 0.926 0.924 0.893 0.918 0.921 0.913 0.913 0.908 0.919 0.912 0.904 0.911 0.903 0.904 0.880 0.879 0.875 0.859 0.876 0.852 0.852 0.859 0.855 0.850 0.843 .. 0.832 .. 0.796 0.816 0.810 .. 0.825 0.789 .. 0.814 0.810 0.810 0.816 .. 0.798 0.803 0.765

0.954 0.943 0.942 0.939 0.938 0.940 0.939 0.935 0.934 0.926 0.932 0.932 0.933 0.931 0.928 0.929 0.929 0.921 .. 0.917 0.915 0.907 .. 0.894 .. 0.892 0.883 0.878 0.888 0.880 0.873 0.856 .. 0.854 .. 0.839 0.843 0.837 .. 0.835 0.829 .. 0.835 0.834 0.829 .. .. 0.823 .. 0.808

0.956 0.946 0.946 0.943 0.942 0.942 0.941 0.939 0.938 0.936 0.936 0.936 0.935 0.934 0.933 0.932 0.932 0.926 0.925 0.922 0.920 0.908 0.903 0.902 0.902 0.897 0.895 0.888 0.888 0.883 0.875 0.868 0.867 0.853 0.853 0.853 0.850 0.848 0.844 0.843 0.842 0.842 0.839 0.838 0.834 0.833 0.833 0.830 0.824 0.823



2 Human development index trends

HDI rank 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Bahamas Cuba Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Antigua and Barbuda Bulgaria Russian Federation Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Malaysia Macedonia, TFYR Panama Belarus Tonga Mauritius Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Suriname Venezuela Romania Ukraine Saint Lucia Brazil Colombia Oman Samoa (Western) Thailand Saudi Arabia Kazakhstan Jamaica Lebanon Fiji Armenia Philippines Maldives Peru Turkmenistan St. Vincent & the Grenadines Turkey Paraguay Jordan Azerbaijan Tunisia Grenada China Dominica Sri Lanka Georgia Dominican Republic Belize Ecuador

1975 .. .. 0.688 0.735 .. .. .. .. 0.614 .. 0.708 .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.716 .. .. .. 0.644 0.661 0.493 .. 0.613 0.602 .. 0.687 .. 0.659 .. 0.653 .. 0.642 .. .. 0.590 0.667 .. .. 0.516 .. 0.523 .. 0.613 .. 0.617 .. 0.630

1980 0.809 .. 0.734 0.768 .. 0.768 .. .. 0.657 .. 0.735 .. .. 0.658 .. .. .. 0.730 .. .. .. 0.680 0.689 0.546 .. 0.651 0.656 .. 0.695 .. 0.683 .. 0.686 .. 0.672 .. .. 0.614 0.701 0.639 .. 0.574 .. 0.557 .. 0.648 .. 0.648 0.707 0.674

1985 0.820 .. 0.753 0.786 .. 0.788 .. .. 0.693 .. 0.746 .. .. 0.689 0.691 .. .. 0.739 .. .. .. 0.695 0.706 0.640 .. 0.676 0.671 .. 0.699 .. 0.698 .. 0.692 .. 0.696 .. .. 0.651 0.708 0.663 .. 0.623 .. 0.593 .. 0.674 .. 0.670 0.717 0.696

1990 0.825 .. 0.761 0.791 .. 0.795 0.813 .. 0.720 .. 0.748 0.785 .. 0.723 0.702 .. .. 0.759 0.771 0.798 .. 0.714 0.727 0.696 .. 0.707 0.707 0.767 0.726 0.673 0.722 0.751 0.719 .. 0.706 .. .. 0.683 0.719 0.682 .. 0.656 .. 0.627 .. 0.698 .. 0.678 0.747 0.710

1995 0.812 .. 0.776 0.793 .. 0.784 0.771 .. 0.759 .. 0.771 0.752 .. 0.747 0.702 .. .. 0.768 0.769 0.751 .. 0.739 0.751 0.733 0.741 0.742 0.741 0.725 0.737 0.732 0.744 0.708 0.735 .. 0.733 .. .. 0.713 0.738 0.707 .. 0.696 .. 0.683 .. 0.719 .. 0.699 0.768 0.719

2000 .. .. 0.800 0.806 .. 0.791 .. .. 0.789 .. 0.791 0.775 .. 0.775 0.740 .. .. 0.776 0.773 0.762 .. 0.771 0.771 0.761 0.762 .. 0.764 0.744 0.752 0.752 0.751 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.751 0.741 .. 0.734 .. 0.721 .. .. .. 0.731 0.773 ..

2002 0.815 0.809 0.802 0.801 0.800 0.796 0.795 0.794 0.793 0.793 0.791 0.790 0.787 0.785 0.781 0.781 0.780 0.778 0.778 0.777 0.777 0.775 0.773 0.770 0.769 0.768 0.768 0.766 0.764 0.758 0.758 0.754 0.753 0.752 0.752 0.752 0.751 0.751 0.751 0.750 0.746 0.745 0.745 0.745 0.743 0.740 0.739 0.738 0.737 0.735

Medium human development



2 Human development index trends

HDI rank 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Iran, Islamic Rep. of Occupied Palestinian Territories El Salvador Guyana Cape Verde Syrian Arab Republic Uzbekistan Algeria Equatorial Guinea Kyrgyzstan Indonesia Viet Nam Moldova, Rep. of Bolivia Honduras Tajikistan Mongolia Nicaragua South Africa Egypt Guatemala Gabon São Tomé and Principe Solomon Islands Morocco Namibia India Botswana Vanuatu Cambodia Ghana Myanmar Papua New Guinea Bhutan Lao People’s Dem. Rep. Comoros Swaziland Bangladesh Sudan Nepal Cameroon Pakistan Togo Congo Lesotho Uganda Zimbabwe Kenya Yemen Madagascar Nigeria

1975 0.565 .. 0.590 0.677 .. 0.534 .. 0.504 .. .. 0.467 .. .. 0.512 0.517 .. .. 0.565 0.655 0.438 0.510 .. .. .. 0.429 .. 0.411 0.503 .. .. 0.439 .. 0.423 .. .. .. 0.516 0.345 0.344 0.291 0.415 0.346 0.396 0.451 0.457 .. 0.547 0.445 .. 0.400 0.324

1980 0.569 .. 0.590 0.683 .. 0.576 .. 0.554 .. .. 0.529 .. .. 0.548 0.568 .. .. 0.576 0.672 0.487 0.546 .. .. .. 0.474 .. 0.437 0.574 .. .. 0.467 .. 0.444 .. .. 0.479 0.544 0.363 0.372 0.330 0.462 0.373 0.445 0.497 0.499 .. 0.572 0.490 .. 0.433 0.385

1985 0.610 .. 0.610 0.679 .. 0.611 .. 0.603 0.483 .. 0.582 .. .. 0.580 0.599 0.719 0.650 0.584 0.697 0.539 0.559 .. .. .. 0.510 .. 0.476 0.633 .. .. 0.481 .. 0.465 .. 0.422 0.498 0.565 0.388 0.394 0.372 0.504 0.405 0.445 0.541 0.517 0.395 0.629 0.515 .. 0.429 0.401

1990 0.649 .. 0.648 0.697 0.623 0.635 .. 0.642 0.504 .. 0.623 0.610 0.736 0.603 0.624 0.719 0.656 0.589 0.729 0.577 0.583 .. .. .. 0.542 .. 0.514 0.675 .. .. 0.511 .. 0.482 .. 0.449 0.501 0.611 0.417 0.427 0.418 0.519 0.444 0.474 0.532 0.544 0.395 0.617 0.540 0.392 0.436 0.430

1995 0.693 .. 0.686 0.706 0.675 0.663 0.687 0.664 0.528 .. 0.662 0.649 0.684 0.635 0.646 0.651 0.629 0.624 0.735 0.608 0.613 .. .. .. 0.571 0.667 0.548 0.666 .. 0.540 0.532 .. 0.522 .. 0.485 0.509 0.606 0.445 0.465 0.455 0.508 0.473 0.486 0.530 0.549 0.404 0.571 0.524 0.435 0.443 0.455

2000 0.723 .. 0.713 0.724 .. 0.683 .. 0.693 0.670 .. 0.680 0.686 0.673 0.670 .. 0.655 0.658 0.643 0.690 .. 0.642 .. .. .. 0.603 0.625 0.579 0.620 .. 0.551 0.560 .. 0.540 .. 0.520 0.521 0.548 0.497 0.492 0.488 .. .. 0.491 0.487 0.513 .. 0.511 0.496 0.469 0.469 ..

2002 0.732 0.726 0.720 0.719 0.717 0.710 0.709 0.704 0.703 0.701 0.692 0.691 0.681 0.681 0.672 0.671 0.668 0.667 0.666 0.653 0.649 0.648 0.645 0.624 0.620 0.607 0.595 0.589 0.570 0.568 0.568 0.551 0.542 0.536 0.534 0.530 0.519 0.509 0.505 0.504 0.501 0.497 0.495 0.494 0.493 0.493 0.491 0.488 0.482 0.469 0.466

Low human development



2 Human development index trends

HDI rank 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 Mauritania Haiti Djibouti Gambia Eritrea Senegal Timor-Leste Rwanda Guinea Benin Tanzania, U. Rep. of Côte d’Ivoire Zambia Malawi Angola Chad Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Central African Republic Ethiopia Mozambique Guinea-Bissau Burundi Mali Burkina Faso Niger Sierra Leone

1975 0.339 .. .. 0.283 .. 0.315 .. 0.341 .. 0.288 .. 0.382 0.466 0.315 .. 0.260 0.410 0.334 .. .. 0.254 0.282 0.232 0.239 0.237 ..

1980 0.362 0.443 .. .. .. 0.332 .. 0.386 .. 0.324 .. 0.416 0.474 0.347 .. 0.260 0.418 0.351 .. 0.298 0.262 0.306 0.262 0.262 0.257 ..

1985 0.382 0.459 .. .. .. 0.359 .. 0.397 .. 0.351 .. 0.428 0.485 0.360 .. 0.301 0.425 0.373 0.281 0.286 0.282 0.332 0.269 0.287 0.250 ..

1990 0.387 0.455 .. .. .. 0.382 .. 0.351 .. 0.356 0.413 0.429 0.466 0.368 .. 0.326 0.414 0.375 0.305 0.310 0.311 0.338 0.288 0.302 0.259 ..

1995 0.423 0.448 0.450 0.418 0.410 0.398 .. 0.341 .. 0.381 0.406 0.410 0.418 0.408 .. 0.335 0.380 0.366 0.319 0.318 0.339 0.311 0.309 0.312 0.265 ..

2000 0.449 .. 0.452 0.448 0.430 0.425 .. 0.413 .. 0.406 0.403 0.402 0.389 0.395 .. 0.363 .. .. 0.345 0.342 0.354 0.325 .. 0.323 0.279 ..

2002 0.465 0.463 0.454 0.452 0.439 0.437 0.436 0.431 0.425 0.421 0.407 0.399 0.389 0.388 0.381 0.379 0.365 0.361 0.359 0.354 0.350 0.339 0.326 0.302 0.292 0.273

Note: The human development index values in this table were calculated using a consistent methodology and data series. They are not strictly comparable with those in earlier Human Development Reports. For detailed discussion, see Statistical feature 2, Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index. Source: Columns 1-6: calculated on the basis of data on life expectancy from UN 2003; data on adult literacy rates from UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2003a; data on combined gross enrolment ratios from UNESCO 1999 and UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2004c; and data on GDP per capita (1995 PPP US$) and GDP per capita (current PPP US$) from World Bank 2004f; column 7: column 8 of table 1.



3 Human and income poverty
Developing countries

Population MDG Probability without Children MDG at birth Adult sustainable under Population below of not illiteracy access to an weight income poverty line Human poverty index surviving rate b, † improved for age † (%) (HPI-1) to age 40 a, † (% ages 15 water source † (% under National Value (% of cohort) and above) (%) age 5) $1 a day d $2 a day e poverty line Rank (%) 2000-05 2002 2000 1995-2002 c 1990-2002 c 1990-2002 c 1990-2001 c

HDI rank High human development 23 25 28 29 30 33 34 35 39 40 43 44 45 46 47 49 51 52 53 54 55 58 59 61 63 64 67 68 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 98 Hong Kong, China (SAR) Singapore Korea, Rep. of Barbados Cyprus Brunei Darussalam Argentina Seychelles Saint Kitts and Nevis Bahrain Chile Kuwait Costa Rica Uruguay Qatar United Arab Emirates Bahamas Cuba Mexico Trinidad and Tobago Antigua and Barbuda Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Malaysia Panama Tonga Mauritius Suriname Venezuela Saint Lucia Brazil Colombia Oman Samoa (Western) Thailand Saudi Arabia Jamaica Lebanon Fiji Philippines Maldives Peru St. Vincent & the Grenadines Turkey Paraguay Jordan Tunisia Grenada China Dominica Sri Lanka Dominican Republic

HPI-1 rank minus income poverty rank f

.. 6 .. 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 .. 4 2 .. .. .. 5 12 8 .. 29 .. 9 .. 16 .. 11 .. 18 10 50 .. 22 30 13 14 42 28 17 23 .. 19 15 7 39 .. 24 .. 36 26

.. 6.3 .. 2.5 .. .. .. .. .. .. 4.1 .. 4.4 3.6 .. .. .. 5.0 9.1 7.7 .. 15.3 .. 7.7 .. 11.3 .. 8.5 .. 11.8 8.1 31.5 .. 13.1 15.8 9.2 9.5 21.3 15.0 11.4 13.2 .. 12.0 10.6 7.2 19.2 .. 13.2 .. 18.2 13.7

1.8 1.9 3.4 2.6 2.9 2.8 5.1 .. .. 4.0 4.1 2.6 3.7 4.4 5.1 3.4 16.0 4.1 7.6 9.1 .. 4.5 4.2 6.8 8.9 4.6 6.5 5.9 5.7 11.5 8.4 5.0 6.6 10.2 5.2 4.9 4.3 5.4 7.4 10.2 10.2 3.9 8.0 8.0 6.6 4.9 .. 7.1 .. 5.1 14.6

6.5 7.5 2.1 0.3 3.2 6.1 3.0 8.1 .. 11.5 4.3 17.1 4.2 2.3 15.8 22.7 4.5 3.1 9.5 1.5 .. 18.3 11.3 7.7 1.2 15.7 .. 6.9 .. 13.6 7.9 25.6 1.3 7.4 22.1 12.4 13.5 7.1 7.4 2.8 15.0 .. 13.5 8.4 9.1 26.8 .. 9.1 .. 7.9 15.6

g h g

h h

.. 0 8 0 0 .. .. .. 2 .. 7 .. 5 2 .. .. 3 9 12 10 9 28 .. 10 0 0 18 17 2 13 9 61 1 16 5 8 0 53 14 0 20 7 18 22 4 20 5 25 3 23 14

.. 14 .. 6 .. .. 5 6 .. 9 1 10 5 5 6 14 .. 4 8 7 10 5 12 7 .. 15 13 5 14 6 7 24 .. 19 14 6 3 8 28 30 7 .. 8 5 5 4 .. 11 5 29 5



.. ..

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Business Process Mgt

...BUSINESS AND MEDIA SCHOOL ISSUE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN SOCIAL WORKS Master Thesis Master thesis Supervisor: Vilnius, 2015 CONTENTS LIST OF USED ABBREVIATIONS AND CONCEPTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION 1. HIGHLIGHTING LITERATURE ON THE PROBLEM OF MULTICULTURALISM IN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 1.1 ------------------------------------------------- Meaning and concept of social work and multiculturalism 1.2 ------------------------------------------------- Social work theories 1.3 ------------------------------------------------- Characteristics of social work 1.4 ------------------------------------------------- Social work in a multicultural society 1.5 ------------------------------------------------- Social change goals in multiculturalism 1.6 ------------------------------------------------- conclusion INTRODUCTION Multiculturalism is one of the biggest issues in Nigeria where the population is over 150 million with multi-faceted ethnic and cultural differences which pose major constraints on the socio-economic development of the nation. Wong (2006 cited in Udebunu, 2011) asserts that multiculturalism appreciates and recognizes, without ignoring or turning blind side to the presence of variety of cultural groups coexisting in a particular society. Rather than conjuring a common identity for widely dispersed groups, multiculturalism describes the coexistence of......

Words: 6975 - Pages: 28

Premium Essay


...declare that no material contained in the thesis has been used in any other submission for an academic award and is solely my own work Signature of Candidate Type of Award School ___PhD_________________________________ ___Centre for Professional Ethics___________ 1   Abstract It was long assumed that both multiculturalism and feminism are connected to progressive movements and hence have comparable and compatible goals. However, both in academia and in popular media the critique on multiculturalism has grown and is often accompanied with arguments related to gender equality and/or feminism. According to political scientist Susan Moller Okin for example there are fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equality and the desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions. If we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, she argues, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices. Okin’s claims led to a complex and highly important debate both in academia and in public debates. The main aim of this thesis is to explore in depth the different discourses about multiculturalism and feminism and develop a more inclusive and nuanced...

Words: 97145 - Pages: 389

Premium Essay


...Canada From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Canada (disambiguation). Page semi-protected Canada Vertical triband (red, white, red) with a red maple leaf in the centre A shield divided into four rectangles over a triangle. The first rectangle contains three lions passant guardant in gold on red; the second, a red lion rampant on gold; the third, a gold harp on blue; the fourth, three gold fleurs-de-lis on blue. The triangle contains three red maple leaves on a white background. A gold helmet sits on top of the shield, upon which is a crowned lion holding a red maple leaf. On the right is a lion rampant flying the Union Flag. On the left is a unicorn flying a fleurs-de-lis flag. A red ribbon around the shield says "desiderantes meliorem patriam". Below is a blue scroll inscribed "A mari usque ad mare" on a wreath of flowers. Flag Coat of arms Motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin) "From Sea to Sea" Anthem: "O Canada" Royal anthem: "God Save the Queen"[1][2] Projection of North America with Canada in green Capital Ottawa 45°24′N 75°40′W Largest city Toronto Official language(s) English and French Recognised regional languages Chipewyan, Cree, Gwich’in, Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuvialuktun, Slavey (North and South) and Tłįchǫ[3] Demonym Canadian Government Federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy[4] - Monarch Elizabeth II - Governor General David Johnston - Prime Minister......

Words: 14190 - Pages: 57

Premium Essay

Religion, Fundamentalism and Ethnicity Global Perspective

...Policy Critical Perspectives on Multiculturalism David Bromell Institute of Policy Studies Ethnicity, Identity and Public Policy Critical Perspectives on Multiculturalism David Bromell Institute of Policy Studies First printed in 2008 Institute of Policy Studies School of Government Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington © Institute of Policy Studies ISBN 158 IPS/Pub/978-1-877347-26-9 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced without the permission of the Institute of Policy Studies. Copy editor: Belinda Hill Cover design: Milne Printers Ltd Printed by Milne Printers Ltd Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures iv List of Boxes iv Foreword v Acknowledgments and Disclaimer ix Part One: Introduction and Context of Inquiry 1 Introduction 2 New Zealand Context 3 21 Part Two: Communitarian Responses to Liberalism Introduction to Part Two 61 3 Civic Republicanism: Michael Sandel 63 4 The Politics of Recognition: Charles Taylor 83 Part Three: Multiculturalism Introduction to Part Three 105 5 Multicultural Citizenship: Will Kymlicka 107 6 Common Citizenship in a Multicultural Society: Bhikhu Parekh 151 Part Four: Critical Responses to Multiculturalism Introduction to Part......

Words: 135228 - Pages: 541

Premium Essay

Human Rights

....F’;.CV0C=Universality of human rights has always been a extensively challenged and debated topic, especially in the recent decades. In recent decades, a widely contested debate over the universality of human rights has emerged.  Rights are certainly not universally-applied today, with oppression, torture and various atrocities committed in many parts of the world. This paper will focus on the notion that both in the Third-World and the West, states have used human rights discussion as a political tool, which has weakened arguments for its universality. This perspective will be utilised to break down arguments made against universal human rights before presenting alternative conceptions of universal human rights and identifying developments which may ensure they can be universally applied and respected. It is important to first define the theoretical basis of ‘universal’ human rights. Universal conceptions argue human rights are inalienable, self-evident and applicable to all human beings (Donnelly, 2003, 10). These arguments are often linked to origins in Western philosophy and natural law, developed from philosophers such as John Locke (Langlois, 2009, 12). Many scholars maintain that human rights are ‘pre-political’, thus unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation. Donnelly identifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis in establishing the “contemporary consensus on internationally recognised human rights” (2003, 22). Human rights...

Words: 2646 - Pages: 11

Free Essay

Sport Et Masculinité

...masculinités ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Avertissement Le contenu de ce site relève de la législation française sur la propriété intellectuelle et est la propriété exclusive de l'éditeur. Les œuvres figurant sur ce site peuvent être consultées et reproduites sur un support papier ou numérique sous réserve qu'elles soient strictement réservées à un usage soit personnel, soit scientifique ou pédagogique excluant toute exploitation commerciale. La reproduction devra obligatoirement mentionner l'éditeur, le nom de la revue, l'auteur et la référence du document. Toute autre reproduction est interdite sauf accord préalable de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. est un portail de revues en sciences humaines et sociales développé par le CLEO, Centre pour l'édition électronique ouverte (CNRS, EHESS, UP, UAPV). ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Référence électronique Jim McKay et Suzanne Laberge, « Sport et...

Words: 9822 - Pages: 40

Free Essay


...restructuring, neoliberalism, social justice L’urbain ` une ´poque fragile, incertaine et a e n´olib´rale: vers de nouvelles g´ographies de la e e e justice sociale? ` Les villes canadiennes sont a la crois´e des chemins. e Alors que l’´conomie mondiale traverse une p´riode e e de transformation, la situation des villes au Canada se pr´carise avec les effets de la restructuration e ` n´olib´rale de la gouvernance a multiples niveaux, e e l’insuffisance du r´investissement dans les e infrastructures urbaines, la d´pendance accrue des e ´changes commerciaux internationaux, ainsi que la e restructuration de l’´conomie de l’espace. Dans les e conditions actuelles, la recherche canadienne en ` g´ographie urbaine a beaucoup a offrir et continue e de fournir un apport significatif dans les domaines d’importance...

Words: 8534 - Pages: 35

Free Essay


...8 Creolization in Anthropological Theory and in Mauritius Thomas Hylland Eriksen A great amount of intellectual energy has been invested in cultural mixing during the last decades. Reacting against an idea of boundedness, internal homogeneity, and stability that has been associated with mainstream twentieth-century anthropology, hundreds—possibly thousands—of anthropologists have tried to redefine, reform, revolutionize, or even relinquish that abhorred “C” word—”culture.” The range of engagement is suggested in the apparent congruence between postmodernist American anthropologists (for example, Clifford & Marcus 1986) and their now classic critique of the Geertzian notion of cultural integration, and the older European critique of the structural-functionalist idea of social integration, which was led by people such as Barth (1966), whose rationalism and naturalism is everything but postmodernist. In both cases, presuppositions of integrated wholes, cultures or social structures, have been debunked. From being a discipline concentrating its efforts on understanding nonliterate societies, often implicitly positing the uncontaminated aborigine as its hero, anthropology increasingly studies cultural impurity and hybridity, and the dominant normative discourse in the field has shifted from defending the cultural rights of small peoples to combating essentialism and reifying identity politics. While this development has been important and necessary for a variety of reasons,...

Words: 10217 - Pages: 41

Premium Essay

Cross Cultural Management

...Cross-Cultural Communication Theory and Practice Barry Tomalin; Brian J. Hurn ISBN: 9780230391147 DOI: 10.1057/9780230391147 Palgrave Macmillan Please respect intellectual property rights This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site license terms and conditions (see If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format, including, for the avoidance of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan. To request permission please contact Cross-Cultural Communication 10.1057/9780230391147 - Cross-Cultural Communication, Brian J. Hurn and Barry Tomalin Copyright material from - licensed to Griffith University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-04-12 This page intentionally left blank 10.1057/9780230391147 - Cross-Cultural Communication, Brian J. Hurn and Barry Tomalin Copyright material from - licensed to Griffith University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-04-12 Cross-Cultural Communication Theory and Practice Brian J. Hurn and Barry Tomalin Copyright material from - licensed to Griffith University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-04-12 10.1057/9780230391147 - Cross-Cultural Communication, Brian J. Hurn and Barry Tomalin © Brian J. Hurn and Barry Tomalin 2013 Foreword © Jack Spence 2013 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of......

Words: 129836 - Pages: 520

Free Essay

Baba Nyonya Culture

...The Peranakan Baba Nyonya Culture:(2008) 161 - or Disappearance? Sari 26 Resurgence 170 161 The Peranakan Baba Nyonya Culture: Resurgence or Disappearance? LEE SU KIM ABSTRAK Kacukan budaya boleh terjadi dalam banyak bentuk dan pilih atur, termasuk peminjaman kata-kata dan pengambilan amalan sosial dan kepercayaan dan juga penyesuaian pakaian dan makanan. Corak penghijrahan dan pengaliran kebudayaan di Asia Tenggara telah menjana perkembangan yang tersebut dan lain-lain pada masa dan di tempat yang berlainan. Di bawah keadaan yang tertentu, suatu kumpulan etnik yang baru atau yang dikesan sebagai yang berbeza daripada kumpulan etnik yang ada mungkin muncul. Kumpulan etnik yang dimaksudkan adalah Peranakan Baba Nyonya. Ia terjadi pada abad ke 15 ketika orang Cina tiba di Melaka dan berkahwin campur dengan wanita tempatan. Kebudayaan peranakan adalah gabungan unik antara kebudayaan Cina dan Melayu dengan campuran daripada penyintesisan unsur kebudayaan Java, Batak, Thai dan British, melambangkan faham pelbagai budaya dan pelakuran lama sebelum terciptanya istilah-istilah itu..Kini, dunia peranakan sudah menghilang. Kata kunci: Peranakan, Baba, Nyonya, kebangkitan semula, keunikan ABSTRACT Hybridity of cultures can take many forms and permutations, including the borrowing of words and the adoption of social practices and beliefs, and the adaptation of dress and food. Patterns of migration and cultural flows in Southeast Asia have generated at different times and...

Words: 3704 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay


...f e a t u r e a r t I C Le   647 Interaction Effects of Globalization and Institutional Forces on International HRM Practice: Illuminating the ConvergenceDivergence Debate By Yongsun Paik Irene Hau-Siu Chow Charles M. Vance In the face of globalization, scholars continue to debate about whether a convergence in human resources practices will prevail, or a trend of divergence perspective will persist. Building on institution theory, this article helps to explicate this debate by examining how globalization may interact with different dimensions of local institutional forces to lead to convergence, divergence, or crossvergence Correspondence to: Yongsun Paik, PhD, Professor of International Business & Management, Department of Management, Hilton Center for Business, Loyola Marymount university, One LMu Dr., Los angeles, Ca 90045-2659, 310.338.7402 (phone), 310.338.3000 (fax), Published online in Wiley Online Library ( © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • DOI: 10.1002/tie.20440 648 f e a t u r e a r tI C l e in international HRM practices for enhanced performance. We also present useful propositions for guiding future empirical research and theory development on the interaction between globalization and different forms of local institutional forces, which in turn influence the formation of successful international HRM practices. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int r o d u c t i o n N otwithstanding the current......

Words: 9037 - Pages: 37

Premium Essay

Sst Tutorial Sample

...SSC1 - General Education Social Science Course of Study Theories and Methods What is the role of science and the scientific method in the social sciences? The purpose of the social sciences is to study systematically all aspects of the human condition and of human behavior, using a methodology borrowed from the physical sciences wherever possible. This insistence on systematic and methodical study is what distinguishes the social sciences from philosophy, art, and literature, which also comment and reflect on all facets of the human condition. In fact, insights into the nature of human behavior and the characteristics of societies have been expressed by artists, poets, and philosophers since time immemorial. How do the social sciences differ from natural and physical science? Competencies covered by this subject 113.1.1 - Social Science Theory and Methodology Scientific Method in Social Science To prepare for further study in this domain, you will want to familiarize yourself with ways in which the scientific method is applied in the social sciences. Keep in mind the crucial comparison between social and natural science. Consider the following questions: What is the scientific method? Scientific Method for Sociology An area of inquiry is a scientific discipline if its investigators use the scientific method, which is a systematic approach to researching questions and problems through objective and accurate observation, collection and analysis of data, direct......

Words: 17871 - Pages: 72

Free Essay

Research on Challenges Facing Sport in the Country Still Doing Litereature Review.

...Richard Attias Become a fan Email The Development Factor: The Challenge of Sport in the 21st Century Posted: 10/21/2014 8:39 am EDT Updated: 10/29/2014 9:59 Sport occupies a peculiar place in world dynamics in that it surpasses the limitations of geographical boundaries and social classes. Still, a gap remains between developed and developing nations when it comes to sport. In the industrialized world, sport as an economic sector represents approximately 2% of GDP. For developing economies, though, the challenge remains making sport a factor of economic development, and a driver for social change, so it benefits all citizens in the long term. UNESCO's 1978 International Charter of Physical Education and Sport classified sport as "a fundamental right for all." But the low place sport occupies in the developing world's priorities shows that its importance as an educational and social tool is not yet universal. Everyone agrees that sport contributes to economic development by creating jobs and stimulating business activity. The organization of a major sporting event, for example, is a great opportunity for the local economy. The thousands of people who attend will spend money on food, lodging, transportation and other, related tourist activities. However, in recent years, we see these economic benefits are obvious only the short term. If we take the example of South Africa in 2010, the positive impact of the World Cup was, in terms of job creation and reduced......

Words: 17283 - Pages: 70

Premium Essay

Universal Adult Suffrage

...The campaign for suffrage - a historical background Today, all British citizens over the age of eighteen share a fundamental human right: the right to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process. But this right is only the result of a hard fought battle. The suffrage campaigners of the nineteenth and early twentieth century struggled against opposition from both parliament and the general public to eventually gain the vote for the entire British population in 1928. ------------------------------------------------- Who took part in the campaign? The first women's suffrage bill came before parliament in 1870. Soon after its defeat, in 1897, various local and national suffrage organisations came together under the banner of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) specifically to campaign for the vote for women on the same terms 'it is or may be granted to men'. The NUWSS was constitutional in its approach, preferring to lobby parliament with petitions and hold public meetings. In contrast, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), formed in 1903, took a more militant view. Almost immediately, it characterised its campaign with violent and disruptive actions and events. Together, these two organisations dominated the campaign for women's suffrage and were run by key figures such as the Pankhurstsand Millicent Fawcett. However, there were other organisations prominent in the campaign, including the Women's Freedom League (WFL). These groups were......

Words: 16345 - Pages: 66

Free Essay


...TRADE JURNAL Leisure Arts in Bookstore Push Milliot, Jim. Publishers Weekly255.41 (Oct 13, 2008): n/a. 1. ------------------------------------------------- Full text 2. ------------------------------------------------- Abstract/Details Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button Hide highlighting Abstract TranslateAbstract Craft book publisher Leisure Arts has signed on with Midpoint Trade Books as part of its effort to expand its presence among booksellers. Throughout its history, Leisure Arts has focused its sales operation on crafts stores. Details Subject Book industry; Bookstores; Distributors; Agreements; Distribution channels Company / organization Name: Leisure Arts NAICS: 511120; Name: Midpoint Trade Books Inc NAICS: 422920, 511130 Title Leisure Arts in Bookstore Push Author Milliot, Jim Publication title Publishers Weekly Volume 255 Issue 41 Pages n/a Number of pages 1 Publication year 2008 Publication date Oct 13, 2008 Year 2008 Section Foreword; New Channel Publisher PWxyz, LLC Place of publication New York Country of publication United States Publication subject Publishing And Book Trade, Library And Information Sciences ISSN 00000019 CODEN PWEEAD Source type Trade Journals Language of publication English Document type News ProQuest document ID 197101688 Document......

Words: 28118 - Pages: 113