IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecpoli/v16y2001i32p128-166..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications of ethnic diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Collier

Abstract

Summary Ethnic diversity An econamic analysisEthnically differentiated societies are often regarded as dysfunctional, with poor economic performance and a high risk of violent civil conflict. I argue that this is not well founded. I distinguish between ‘dominance’, in which one group constitutes a majority, and ‘fractionalization’, in which there are many small groups. In terms of overall economic performance, I show that both theoretically and empirically, fractionalization is normally unproblematic in democracies, although it can be damaging in dictatorships. Fractionalized societies have worse public sector performance, but this is offset by better private sector performance. Societies characterized by dominance are in principle likely to have worse economic performance, but empirically the effect is weak. In terms of the risk of civil war, I show that both theoretically and empirically fractionalization actually makes societies safer, while dominance increases the risk of conflict. A policy implication is that fractionalized societies are viable and secession should be discouraged.— Paul Collier

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Collier, 2001. "Implications of ethnic diversity," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 16(32), pages 128-166.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecpoli:v:16:y:2001:i:32:p:128-166.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1468-0327.00072
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecpoli:v:16:y:2001:i:32:p:128-166.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebruuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.