The social cohesion of multiethnic states is today at risk across the globe. African states have been facing that risk since their independence from colonial rule more than half a century ago. As elsewhere in the world, Africa’s histories of division and contest have sown seeds of political, social, and economic instability. However, Africa is not a place; it is a large continent. There are nearly 40 states south of the Sahara. A few are constantly wracked by instability, while the rest of the continent is experiencing considerable economic transformation. Ethnic conflict is not universal in Africa.

We summarise our findings by pointing out that, unlike earlier works, we believe both that it is possible for African peoples and governments to move beyond the mere management of ethnic, and other, difference, and that there is good evidence that they can themselves pursue this admittedly difficult task rather than, as others have suggested, under international supervision. Indeed, the comparative history of other parts of the world suggests that Africans must indeed rely on their own initiatives rather than on the experience of others.

This chapter argues that ethnicity is a universal human characteristic; it is an identity whose moral economy of mutual social relations causes internal dispute more continuously than external contexts cause interethnic competition. Ethnicities are mixed, shared, and subject to constant change in their own self-awareness and their inter-relations with others. The last two centuries of Kenya’s history illustrate this point. In the stateless, precolonial, past, different ways of taming the varied regional environment were the greatest influence on the nature of “ecological ethnicities” that shared ideas, took in each others’ economic migrants, and engaged in little “inter-tribal war”. Under colonial rule, access to scriptural literacy and arguments about how best to resist subjection caused much a sharper, patriotic, ethnic self-awareness. Regional inequalities in development, especially the triumph of agriculture over pastoralism, made ethnicity more competitive – a condition greatly emphasised when independence gave some Africans a centralised coercive power over others. Kenya has only recently adopted a devolved constitution that may defuse this often lethal competition but it is as yet too early to say.

This chapter considers whether there is a trade-off between growth and equality, as economists sometimes assert, differentiating between vertical inequality (among individuals) and horizontal inequality (among groups). Most evidence challenges the supposed trade-off, suggesting greater equality increases growth, especially sustained growth. Inequality among individuals tends to limit human resources, while inequality among groups can lead to violent conflict, and both constrain growth. Greater equality also supports other desirable objectives, including better nutrition, less crime, and better health. The impact of growth on equality is analysed. This depends on how far earnings are spread via employment; and the redistributionary effects of tax and government expenditure. Labour-intensive activities tend to improve distribution, while capital-intensive ones, heavy reliance on minerals for exports and rising skill requirements tend to worsen it. For horizontal inequality, the impact of growth varies according to group location, economic specialization and policies, illustrated by the experience of Ghana, Peru, Malaysia and Northern Ireland. The chapter surveys policies likely to improve vertical and horizontal distribution, with examples drawn from many countries. Finally, the chapter considers the political conditions needed to support equalising policies.

This chapter argues that ethnicity is a universal human characteristic; it is an identity whose moral economy of mutual social relations causes internal dispute more continuously than external contexts cause interethnic competition. Ethnicities are mixed, shared, and subject to constant change in their own self-awareness and their inter-relations with others. The last two centuries of Kenya’s history illustrate this point. In the stateless, precolonial, past, different ways of taming the varied regional environment were the greatest influence on the nature of “ecological ethnicities” that shared ideas, took in each others’ economic migrants, and engaged in little “inter-tribal war”. Under colonial rule, access to scriptural literacy and arguments about how best to resist subjection caused much a sharper, patriotic, ethnic self-awareness. Regional inequalities in development, especially the triumph of agriculture over pastoralism, made ethnicity more competitive – a condition greatly emphasised when independence gave some Africans a centralised coercive power over others. Kenya has only recently adopted a devolved constitution that may defuse this often lethal competition but it is as yet too early to say.

This chapter suggests that social, political, institutional and demographic changes already observable in Africa hold out the possibility of national futures in which the manipulation of ethnic difference could cease to be the main route to political power. In the first of four sections it is argued that, although ethnic allegiances are powerful there are other, situational, identities round which human interests may gather. It is shown, secondly, that there is no single model or measure that can reliably relate ethnic diversity to economic development or the nature of governance. Since the early postcolonial years of “nation-building”, third, many civil society organisations have arisen in Africa, to promote not only ethnic interests but also such heterogeneous group identities as the urban poor in mega cities, women (often peacemakers), youth, and HIV/AIDS sufferers. While, finally, these organisations, including Pentecostal churches, may be led by “big men”, they nonetheless diversify and complicate the “big man” politics of ethnic difference that has rarely met such competition until now.