1

Targets, affirmative action and development goals

By

Frances Stewart

2

Affirmative action

• Is action to improve the relative position of some groups, relative to others.

• Groups defined by cultural or locational characteristics (e.g. religion, N.Ireland; ‘race’ (US, Malaysia, S.Africa); ethnicity (Nigeria, Rwanda..); region (Iran, UK)

3

Background:

• Deep inequalities in outcomes (e.g. political participation, education, incomes, health, housing..) which can lead to:

• Unhappiness. Being black and feeling blue.• Unfair society – worse than ‘normal’ inequality

because is ‘durable’ (Tilly), arising from categorical differences. Limited mobility across groups at one time or over time.

• Criminality.• Social unrest, or even conflict.

4

Therefore important to correct inequalities. How?

• Variety of approaches:• Focus on process (‘fair’ practices, Fair

Employment Laws..).• Use of public expenditure (subsidise some

groups..).• Quotas (e.g. for employment shares, investment

shares..).. NB this is not a target but a policy. Could be interpreted as mandatory target.

5

• Targets are time-bound objectives for achieving fairness in various dimensions.

• In principle could carry out all without targets

• None of above ARE targets (even quotas); all are means of achieving targets.

6

Role of targets

• For government (others) to assess progress – monitoring. (Could be kept secret or announced publicly). Without targets and monitoring complacency possible (e.g. ethnic composition of students at Oxford).

• To overcome collective action problem and prevent free-riding where many semi-autonomous agents involved. But this requires (a) that targets are broken down to micro-units (and same targets may not be appropriate for all: e.g. MDGs – Sierra Leone and China).(b)penalties (can be moral or reputational) for non-compliance.

• To overcome principal/agent problem within institutions (e.g. government) – same qualifications apply.

• To identify problems where progress is ‘off-target’, to generate investigation into causes and new policies where needed (or even target revision).

7

Problems: 1

1. Choice of variable to target:– Outcome and which one (health, or incomes)– Inputs and which one (access to health services,

credit, land, employment). [Many of these are partly outcomes/objectives as well as inputs]

N.B. Outcome is objective, but one cannot plan for this; has to plan for inputs. Yet selected inputs may be ‘wrong’. E.g. aim for reducing infant mortality; put health services in place. But real need is for female education.

8

Problems: 2

• Choice of target/ time and level.– Underambitious will achieve nothing (though political

impact?)– Overambitious; problems if not achieved. May

discredit targets. – How to deal with different agents: same or different

targets. Different targets appropriate but increases complexity and can decrease political attractiveness. Could aim for same % improvement (e.g. some of MDGs); but still might be easier for some than others.

9

Problems: 3• Behavioural impact. Targets distort

i. Activities chosen move towards targeted. Maxwell: ‘They [targets] encourage reductionist approaches to complex

problems, privilege quantitative indicators at the expense of qualitative indicators, distort resource allocation ..’ (Maxwell, 2003, p 12). E.g. education targets for particular group may be achieved by expanding access to poor schools; for targets at a particular level (primary) expansion of primary at expense of other levels…Or education at expense of health….

ii. Reclassification. Change declared group membership: e.g. encourage people to self-declare as favoured identity (Blacks, Roma..indigenous peoples). Previously non-aid expenditures redefined as aid.

iii. Disfavoured groups take evasive action :• Expand private education and use foreign schools (Chinese in Malaysia)• Move to favoured areas• Make alliances with favoured group (joint cos) to achieve privileges

(Malaysia, S.Africa).

10

Problems: 4

• Argued to entrench ethnicity/race… and consequently increase racial/ethnic/religious divisions. Little evidence on this. Some aspects could have opposite impact, as– Alliances formed to receive privileges.– Fact that communities are more equal may make them mix

more.– Can use implicit methods with non-declared targets (e.g. Fair

Employment…) so ethnic impact not obvious.– Can counter with other policies simultaneously – e.g. education;

media; etc.

• Argued to increase intra-group inequality.– Depends on measures. Not true in Malaysia. True, probably in

S.Africa.

11

Problems real. But benefits of targets also real.

• Benefits include:– Mobilising among disparate agents for

desirable goals.– Identifying problems as a result of non-

performance.

• Some examples • Malaysia.• N. Ireland• Development goals

12

Examples: 1. Malaysia: a successful case of reducing econ/social HIs.

• 1971, following anti-Chinese riots, 1969. NEP. Aim to secure national unity. 

• Characteristics.– Two prong: ‘to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty’; and ‘to

accelerate the process of restructuring Malaysian society to correct economic imbalance so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the identification of race with economic function’ (Second Malaysian Plan 1971-1975)

– a variety of anti-poverty policies (rural development; social services).– restructuring:

o expand Bumiputera share of capital ownership to 30%.o 95% of new lands to be settled on Malays; o educational quotas in public institutions laid down, in line with population

shares; o credit policies favoured Malays, with credit allocations and more favourable

interest rates.

o Conflict avoided, including post-1997; high growth; reduced poverty.

13

Malaysia: Mean incomes relative to average

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1970 1979 1990 1999

Bumiputera

Chinese

Indian

14

Share of capital ownership as ratio of pop share

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1970 1985 1990 1999

rati

o o

f lo

ca

l c

ap

ita

l o

wn

ers

hip

to

po

pu

lati

on

sh

are

Bumiputera

Chinese

Indian

15

   

 Malaysia : share of total registered professionals as a ratio of population share*

 

   1970 1980 1999

Bumiputera 

0.08 0.24 0.47 0.47

Chinese 

2.03 2.12 1.86 1.80

Indian 

2.91 2.18 1.65

1.94

           

s dev. 

1.45 1.10 0.75 0.81

 

1990

16

Example: 2. N.Ireland: a success?

• His large, persistent and consistent over all dimensions over a long time period

• >By the end of the nineteenth century Protestants controlled the vast bulk of the economic resources of east Ulster - the best of its land, its industrial and financial capital, commercial and business networks, industrial skills=.(Ruane and Todd 1996)

• no narrowing of the gap between the communities from 1901 to 1970s, with Catholics disadvantaged at every level.

• u/e gap widened• New policies to reduce gaps from late 1970s: Fair

Employment Acts, 1976; 1989; housing policy. Police Acts 1998,2000, 2003: 50% recruitment aim.

17

Horizontal Inequalities in N.Ireland

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

High in

c HH

% p

rof a

nd m

anag

jobs

highe

r edu

c

House

s with

> 3

room

s

New a

ppoin

tmen

ts in

polic

e

changes from 1970s to 1990s

Ra

tio

of

Ca

tho

lic

to

Pro

tes

tan

t

18

Paramilitary violence

1998

Good Friday Agreement

19

But Protestant discontent

• Case shows that action on HIs may need to precede peace.

• ‘It is unusual to find such a rate of social change within a generation. It is quite dramatic. In many areas Catholics have caught up with or surpassed Protestants’ (Osborne)

• Exodus of young Protestants to GB. • Ps. perceive themselves disadvantaged. 39% believe

they are worse off than six years ago.• 1996, 44% of Ps and 47% Cs thought inter-community

relationships were better than five years previously. • 2003, 25% Ps and 33% Cs.

20

Example 3: Development goals

• Some successes in past.• Monitoring on MDGs allows diagnosis of

failures, and policy focus.See Sachs report:– More money– Specific reforms

• Puts reputational/moral pressure on rich countries and poor.

• Backed up by PRSPs/aid conditionality • But leads to neglect of non-targeted issues (e.g.

agricultural productivity; environment).• And what happens in 2016?