| Abstract: | This article uses empirical data to discuss the links between ethnicity, inequality and governance in a framework that divides countries according to their levels of ethnic polarization. It makes three main arguments. First, types of diversity, not the existence of diversity per se, explain potentials for conflict or cohesion in multiethnic societies. Ethnic cleavages are configured differently in different social structures and are less conflictual in some countries than in others. Second, relative balance has been achieved in the public sectors of countries that are highly fragmented or those with ethnicity‐sensitive policies, but not in those with ethnicity‐blind policies. Third, the article is critical of institutional approaches to conflict management that underplay background conditions in shaping choices. Consociational arrangements may not be relevant in unipolar ethnic settings or fragmented multiethnic societies, where governments may be ethnically inclusive under democratic conditions. They seem unavoidable in ethnic settings with two or three main groups or in settings with strong ethnic/regional clusters. |
