Constraint Democracy

Identity concerns are important dimension of social stability with economic and political consequences which can have negative impact on social well being. People can be divided into groups in many ways – geographical, behavioural, language, physical characteristics and so on. If group differences are to provide a useful basis for policy, group boundaries must be relatively clearly defined and have some continuity over time. We are concerned here with those divisions which have social significance – i.e. such meaning for their members and for others in society that they influence behaviour and well-being in a significant way. Meaningful group identities are then dependent on individuals’ perceptions of identity with a particular group – self-perceptions of those ‘in’ the group, and perceptions of those outside the group. The question then is why and when some differences are perceived as being socially significant, and others are not.
It is agreed that diversity is to be accepted and ‘recognised’ but how much, when, and where, and how such recognition might be negotiated, are important issues that remain to be resolved.

Taking the reduction of group inequalities and differences can be an important societal objective for policy makers. In our increasingly pluralistic societies, implementing inclusive social policies need proper approach to avoid marginalization by loudest voice or constraint belief that use democratic tools to scheme conflicts. Restricted boundaries of identities where it is ill defined can turn into major cause of violent conflicts and unsatisfactory social issues. At present taking measure of inequality is not well incorporated in economic and social analysis, except where events or social demands force it onto the agenda.

Yet the fluidity of group boundaries is important since if group identities can readily be chosen, the group is likely to be a much less important constraint on individual well-being and behaviour – indeed rather than a constraint, choice of group identity could constitute an extension of capabilities. If group boundaries were all open, fluid, and changing - measurement of exclusion would make little sense. It is because of the continuities, which go along with the limited choices most people have to change identities, that inequalities among groups becomes a source of unhappiness and resentment, and a cause of social instability.

Generally speaking, it is where choosing is difficult that group inequalities become relevant to social stability. In any particular case, history and social context will determine the possibilities. For example, in Britain today a change in religion is relatively easy, but this was much less so in earlier centuries when religious divisions were a major cause of conflict. Where the distinction between groups carries no political or economic baggage – i.e. does not impede opportunities – a group classification may remain but its salience becomes much less.

Conclusively, the impact of group inequalities on social stability is undeniable for instrumental reasons. If group inequality persists, then individuals within the depressed group may be handicapped and therefore not make the contribution to their own and society’s prosperity that they might have. Networking is often group based, so that every member of a relatively backward group has a networking disadvantage with economic and social implications that can only be overcome by group policies.

Further selfselection for cultural reasons may also lead to unequal access - for example, if cultural factors mean that children only attend certain types of school, or there is gender discrimination within the group, or health practices that limit access to certain resources. Policies that simply addressed deprived individuals may therefore fail unless accompanied by policies directed towards group inequalities.

Limited mobility between groups enhances such effects. If people can readily move between groups, then groups matter much less both instrumentally and for their direct impact on welfare, since if the effects of group membership are adverse, people can shift; and groups also become ineffective targeting devices since people can readily move into any group to which benefits are targeted thereby causing targeting errors.

Multiple group identities have implications for data and measurement as well as for policy. On the data side, information needs to be collected by cultural categories. This can present problems, where cultural categories are not-defined and fluid: in the UK, for example, recently statistics have begun to be collected by cultural categories, although boundaries are fuzzy. The data on this issue needs to be multidimensional where income is only one of many important categories.

On the economic side, policies involve a range of actions including: public investment designed to reduce exclusion and public sector employment policies to do the same; group distribution requirements imposed on the private sector (e.g. shares of different groups in employment; credit allocation and so on).

In any particular situation, the appropriate policies will depend on the main types and sources of exclusion. General laws should mark down social changes and identify new forms of exclusion, which necessarily might not be the stereotyped groups of earlier social fabrics, supported by a strong judicial system with legal aid for deprived groups. Policies towards housing are an important component of correcting imbalances especially in developed countries.


The growth policies that are advocated basically argue for reduced intervention of the state in economic matters, allowing the market to determine resource allocation. In this respect, policies towards inequalities impose constraints on the market, and tolerance of low standard as well as requirements on the public sector, which may not be strictly consistent with ‘efficiency’ requirements. Nor are the policies the same as poverty-reducing policies, although they are likely to contribute to the poverty-reduction objective. When some of the policies help the richer sections of the deprived groups (e.g. public service employment targets) there can be adjustment within the groups to smooth out imbalances since individual welfare depends not just on a person’s own circumstances but the prestige and well being of the group with which they identify.

An individual’s aims in taking part in a group (cooperative venture) need not be egoistic. An important case is that in which the individual’s satisfaction from the group necessarily implies the success of the group - for instance, because what he wanted was the group to succeed, not what he could get out of the situation if it did not succeed. If all the participants want that kind of satisfaction, then indeed they all ‘depend’ on each other. The existence of a society involves there being many situations of that kind.

Social policies include policies towards correcting inequalities but also mobilize competency in education, training and health services. Such policies may sometimes be inconsistent with economic efficiency considerations; rather the economic return is directed toward correcting imbalances. More often correcting these imbalances will raise economic returns, since systematic impediments are likely to contain many talented people who have been held back. “What system really needs: is rigour………………. with pupils being allowed to 'discover' rather than being taught; With the "all must have prizes" philosophy destroying any notion of genuine achievement; with our children let down by low expectations and lame excuses. This ……. has replaced excellence with mediocrity, clarity with fudge and rigour with a never ending woolliness.” (Cameron D. 2005)


On the political side, there is a need for inclusivity. Monopolisation of political power by one group or another is often responsible for many sort of unresponsiveness and for violent reactions when the system fails to manage the pressure. Yet achieving political inclusivity is among the most difficult changes to bring about. It is not an automatic result of democracy, defined as rule with the support of the majority, as majority rule generally leads to permanent domination by one group in situations in which one group is in a strong numerical majority. However, there is a strong tendency for political parties in divided societies to represent and argue for particular ethnicities. Ethnicity has been used by groups and their leaders in order to achieve political or economic goals. In conflict, the use of ethnic symbols and the enhancement of ethnic identities, often by reworking historical memories, is frequently used as a powerful mechanism for the mobilisation of support. Hence, there should be caution about consequences where political system moderate tendencies were undermined by democratic competition which led to the ethnicization of politics and too many unfounded claims of differentiations that weakens social cooperation.

There are negative externalities of belonging to certain groups. Membership of deprived groups can cause resentment among individuals on behalf of the group, as well as negative externalities which affect them directly. This tendency of ethnic sensitization can lead to election rigging and civil war therefore driving politicians to avoid multiparty democracy. Democracy in strongly divided countries needs to be a form of constrained democracy, designed to ensure an inclusive system. Triggering group differences raise the level of social expectations, which declines the sense of social well being where educational system is not responsive, groups are imperfectly informed and limitations are imperfectly understood. Indeed, individuals who had had some disappointing experiences might come to reject, for egoistic reasons that are not simply egoistic: by appealing to a right of self-defence. Since they all need assurance of recognition, therefore the prospect of social stability might be how the assurance was secured or indeed measured. As a result constrains on social cooperation and social well being is likely.
The question for social theory is: What kinds of motivation might serve to stabilize the possibility of cooperation?

One possible answer to the question is that the only way to produce practices of cooperation is by confining them to persons whose dispositions and character are individually known to one another relying on what are called ‘thick trust’. Although this is a discouraging answer for modern life, however, social integrity has its roots in two values: trust and shared responsibility - the more you trust people, the stronger they and society become.




References:

Williams, Bernard (2000) ‘Formal Structures and Social Reality’, in Gambetta,
Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 1, pp. 3-13

David Cameron’s speech on the need for Public Service Reform, Portsmouth, Friday, September 9, 2005

David Cameron’s speech on Improving our NHS, The King’s Fund, Wednesday, January 4, 2006

Grillo, Ralph, Backlash Against Diversity? Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 14, University of Oxford, 2005

Good, David (2000) ‘Individuals, Interpersonal Relations, and Trust’, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 3, pp. 31-48,


Heyer, J., F. Stewart, et al. (2002). Group Behaviour and Development: is the Market
Destroying Cooperation? Oxford, OUP.

Cabinet, O. (2001). Improving labour market achievements for ethnic minorities in British
society: scoping note. London, UK Government

Akerlof, G. A. and R. E. Kranton (2000). "Economics and Identity." The Quarterly Journal of Economics (3)

Frances Stewart, (2002), Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE, QEH, University of Oxford