This chapter explores what inequality looks like from the perspective of the capability approach. ‘Sideways’ inequality — that is, inequality between individuals and groups in their risk of experiencing disadvantage — has been central to the capability approach since its inception, and we have tools such as the Equality Measurement Framework with which to systematically assess multidimensional horizontal inequalities. This includes examining differences in outcomes, in how people are treated, and in the autonomy they enjoy. ‘Up and down’ inequality — that is, how people are distributed across the spectrum between advantage and disadvantage, has been much less thoroughly investigated within the capability approach, and there are normative, conceptual and empirical issues to be resolved. In comparison to an exclusive focus on income and other economic resources, analysis of multidimensional vertical inequality is likely to alter who is understood to be most advantaged, how much advantage they have (the degree of stretch), and the extent of concentration of advantage in the distribution as a whole. Finally, inequality ‘along’ the dimension of time has become an important component of research on income inequality, and there are analogous questions about both short- and long-run capability mobility that we are only just beginning to address.

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 accounts for the violence that occurred during the 2011 elections in Nigeria, despite their apparently being conducted relatively fairly. It points to long run structural horizontal inequalities, together with leaders’ short-term political ambitions as the basic explanations. The chapter points to seven different types of cleavages in Nigeria, the most important being between North and South, among the three main ethnic groups and majority versus minority groups. Major horizontal inequalities are recorded in every dimension. These inequalities are used by politicians to mobilise support. While institutional mechanisms were designed to moderate these inequalities in Nigeria – particularly in relation to political power and bureaucratic appointments - Jonathan Goodluck’s abandonment of zoning arrangements, which had brought him to power, and his use of patronage to garner support, led to violent protests in many places. Although evidence shows that the institutional arrangements to ensure power-sharing have tended to rigidify ethnic differences, the chapter concludes that they are nonetheless important mechanisms for integrating the country and avoiding large-scale violence. The 2011 violence illustrates what can happen when some power-sharing rules are abandoned.