Ethnicity and Inequality: Distribution of Capability, Employment and Ownership A Contribution to Ethnic Debate in Nepal

Abstract

The study Ethnicity and Inequality: Distribution of Capability, Employment and Ownership: A Contribution to Ethnic Debate in Nepal is a focus on the theoretical concepts of and perspectives on ethnicity. It is both an examination of the distribution of access to resources and opportunities that relates to capability, employment and ownership across various ethnic groups and an exploration of inter- and intra- group inequality in Nepal. The research problem of the study is theoretical identification of the key dimensions of inequality and an empirical exploration of inter- and intra-group inequalities across ethnic groups in Nepal. Following the research problem, the study primarily examines the pattern of distribution of access to resources and opportunities specific to capability, employment and ownership across ethnic groups, and based on that explores inter- and intra- group inequality prevailing in Nepal. Therefore, to meet these objectives, raw data sets were obtained from NLSS, 2011, available at CBS and NDHS, 2011, available at New ERA. After careful observation of the data sets, the variables defined under each of the objectives were identified. The independent and their subsequent dependent variables, in terms of distribution across ethnic groups, were: capability, which relates to education-literacy, educational status, type of schooling, level of education, health-illness, health status and nutrition of children; employment, which pertains to employment, underemployment and unemployment status, major sectors of employment; and ownership, which relates to various types of agricultural land, livestock, agricultural equipment, non-agricultural enterprises, house, size of dwelling unit and housing plot. The study has categorized hundred plus caste/ethnic groups recorded in both NLSS and NDHS data sets. They have been recoded into eight major categories and labeled as major ethnic groups. They include Chhetri, Brahman, Hill/Mountain Janajati, Tarai Janajati, Madhesi, Dalit, Newar and others. The data were put into the major statistical techniques of mean comparison, t-test, F-test and coefficient of variation. Ethnicity, a highly debatable issue in Nepal, is a socio-historically constructed phenomenon in a particular historical context. The debate surrounding the issue gained currency, particularly, after the political changes of 1990 and 2006, which provided various platforms for people to be organized and demand for various rights, as is argued by Mishra, Wimmer and others. Concurrent to these claims of ethnicity and demands for rights, there have emerged various ethnicities like, Janajati, Madhesi, Dalit, Pahadiya, Brahman Samaj, and Chhetri Samaj in Nepal. vi

Capability, employment and ownership are important dimensions of inequality prevailing in all societies of the world and Nepal is no exception to this. Inequality, therefore, is the unequal distribution of access to resources and opportunities such as capability, employment and ownership. Primarily, access to opportunities, which enhances capability, has been unequally distributed across all ethnic groups of Nepal indicating strong intra-group differences with high coefficient of variation. There is variation among all ethnic groups in terms of access to different capability related variables such as educational level and type of schooling and health status. This variation can also be seen across inter- and intra-group situations indicating that the distribution does not follow a particular ethnic line. This only results into a difference in capability among individuals. Novel prize laureate Amartya Sen also has arrived at similar explanation. Employment is another important dimension of inequality. Access to employment opportunities as it pertains to its types and sectors is also unequally distributed across all ethnic groups, and this unequal distribution is also reflected in both inter- and intra-group situations. All ethnic groups include individuals engaged in almost all sectors of employment. None of the ethnic groups has domination over all sectors of employment which indicates that distribution of access to resources also does not follow a particular ethnic line. Even Dalit and Tarai Janajati are represented in various employment sectors. For instance, the ratio of proportion of population engaged in officer level job to the proportion of eligible candidates is lowest among Brahman i.e. 1:3, which reveals a different picture as opposed to what is believed in contemporary Nepal. At the same time, this ratio among Newar, Madhesi and Chhetri is 1:2 and among H/M Janajati and Dalit, it is 3:4 which is higher compared to that of Brahman. It shows that the individuals have unequal access to employment, which provides them different social status. This is a phenomenon which Max Weber had pointed out long back. Ownership is another important dimension of inequality, which includes here ownership of agricultural land, livestock, agricultural equipment, non-agricultural enterprise and house. Distribution of access to such productive resources and assets is also unequally made across ethnic groups in Nepal, because it varies from one variable to another and one ethnic group to another. Such unequal phenomenon across all ethnic groups has created significant differences between them and strong intra-ethnic inequality with high coefficient of variation. This has resulted into a division of Nepali people/households into two classes of haves and haves not, a process which has received significant space in Karl Marx.