The Role of Political Economy in Ethnic Mobilisation

Why do some communities take to the streets, form political parties, or even pick up arms in the name of their ethnic identity? The answer often lies not in ancient hatreds or cultural differences alone, but in something far more material: money, development, and who gets left behind. The political economy perspective on ethnic mobilisation argues that economic forces-uneven development, regional inequality, and the unequal benefits of modernisation-are powerful engines that turn dormant identities into active movements. This blog explores how economic grievances shape ethnic politics, drawing on key theories and real examples from India and beyond.

What the political economy perspective actually means 🔗

The political economy approach studies how economic structures and the distribution of resources influence political behaviour. When applied to ethnic movements, it shifts the focus away from purely cultural or psychological explanations and asks a sharper question: who benefits from economic development, and who is excluded?

This perspective treats ethnic mobilisation as a rational response to material conditions. Communities do not mobilise simply because they are different from others. They mobilise when that difference overlaps with economic disadvantage-when being part of a particular group consistently means lower income, fewer jobs, and weaker access to resources. Researchers have found a strong inverse association between ethnic inequality and economic development, meaning societies where wealth is sharply divided along ethnic lines tend to struggle more and see greater tension. The political economy lens, therefore, connects the dots between economic geography and political identity.

Uneven development: the foundation of ethnic grievances 🔗

Uneven development refers to the unequal spread of economic growth across regions and communities within the same country. Growth is rarely distributed evenly. Some areas attract industry, investment, and infrastructure, while others remain agricultural, isolated, and poor. Over time, these gaps harden into structural patterns that are difficult to reverse.

The crucial point is that uneven development is not random. It often follows ethnic and regional lines. When a particular community finds that its homeland is systematically left out of the growth story, a sense of collective exploitation takes root. People begin to see their poverty not as bad luck but as the result of a system that favours others at their expense.

The core-periphery divide 🔗

One useful way to understand uneven development is through the idea of a core and a periphery. The core is the advanced, industrialised heartland that controls capital and political power. The periphery supplies raw materials and labour but receives little in return. Studies of African politics show how persistent electoral blocs reflect core-periphery oppositions that emerge during national economic development, where regions integrated unequally into the national economy vote and mobilise as distinct territorial blocs.

This dynamic is visible in many countries. The periphery feels like a supplier of wealth that never gets to enjoy it. Research on regional inequality across African economies has found that the relative rankings of regions tend to stay remarkably stable over several decades, with regions advantaged in the 1960s remaining advantaged today. When inequality is this entrenched, frustration builds, and ethnic identity becomes the rallying point for demanding a fairer deal.

Modernisation and its uneven winners 🔗

Modernisation was once expected to be a great equaliser. The classic assumption was that as economies developed, regional differences would shrink and ethnic identities would fade as people assimilated into a shared national culture. Reality has been far messier.

Modernisation tends to reward those who are already well-positioned to seize new opportunities. Urban, educated communities with access to capital and networks benefit far more than rural or traditional ones. This creates a paradox: development meant to unify a nation can actually deepen the divide between groups. Instead of dissolving ethnic boundaries, modernisation can sharpen them by attaching economic advantage to one identity and disadvantage to another.

Internal colonialism 🔗

The sociologist Michael Hechter gave this paradox a name: internal colonialism. In his influential study of the Celtic regions of Britain, Hechter argued that industrialisation did not lead to the cultural assimilation or economic equality that diffusion theories predicted. Instead, it created a cultural division of labour in which minority groups are confined to inferior economic positions, with the dominant core exploiting the periphery much as a colonial power exploits a colony.

Hechter’s key insight was that ethnic solidarity inevitably emerges among groups relegated to subordinate roles in the economy. When occupation, status, and opportunity line up with ethnicity, group identity becomes politically charged. The phenomenon produces a distinct pattern of regional inequality that fuels demands for autonomy and recognition. Though the theory was developed for industrial Britain, scholars have noted that internal colonialism has analogues across many societies.

Relative deprivation: when perception drives mobilisation 🔗

Economic gaps alone do not automatically produce movements. What matters is how those gaps are perceived. This is where relative deprivation theory becomes essential to the political economy picture.

Relative deprivation describes the discontent that arises when a group perceives a gap between what it expects and what it actually receives. The key word is “relative.” Deprivation is rarely absolute; people judge their situation by comparing themselves to a reference group rather than against an objective standard. A community may be better off than it was a generation ago and still feel deeply deprived if a neighbouring group has advanced much faster.

How rising expectations fuel conflict 🔗

Modernisation often raises expectations dramatically. Development programmes, education, and media expose people to standards of living they did not previously imagine. When these rising expectations are not matched by real improvements, the gap between aspiration and reality becomes explosive. Scholars working in this tradition note that grievances can stem not only from material horizontal inequality but also from social-psychological comparisons that produce a perception of relative deprivation. This helps explain why mobilisation sometimes intensifies precisely when conditions are improving-because expectations rise faster than outcomes.

When an entire group feels deprived relative to another, the result is what scholars call fraternalistic relative deprivation, and it is a particularly potent driver of ethnic movements. The comparison is not “I am worse off than my neighbour” but “we, as a people, are worse off than them.”

Post-colonial states and the elite-mass divide 🔗

Nowhere is the political economy of ethnic mobilisation clearer than in post-colonial societies. When colonial powers withdrew, they left behind economies built to extract resources, not to develop the whole population evenly. The new states inherited these distorted structures.

In many of these countries, a small elite-often concentrated in particular regions or ethnic groups-captured the benefits of independence. This elite pursued rapid modernisation, building modern cities and industries, while the vast majority remained trapped in poverty. The contrast between a glittering, modernising elite and impoverished masses is stark, and it maps directly onto ethnic and regional lines.

This elite-mass divide intensifies grievances in two ways. First, it makes inequality highly visible. Second, it suggests that the state itself is captured by one group at the expense of others. Discriminatory policies and segregation along ethnic lines have historically contributed to inequalities at the regional and local levels, embedding disadvantage into the very structure of governance. When people conclude that the government works only for a privileged few, demands escalate from reform to autonomy, and sometimes to secession.

Lessons from ethnic movements in India 🔗

The Indian experience offers a rich illustration of how political economy shapes ethnic mobilisation. The country’s enormous regional diversity, combined with uneven development, has produced a range of movements built on economic grievances.

The Northeast and resource alienation 🔗

The northeastern states present a textbook case. The region is rich in natural resources yet remains economically underdeveloped, connected to the rest of the country by only a narrow corridor. Decades of insurgency among the Nagas, Mizos, Bodos, and others have been driven by demands for autonomy, resource control, and identity preservation. Analysts point to historical neglect and economic backwardness-poor infrastructure, unemployment, and weak access to education and healthcare-as central factors fuelling resentment. The grievance is sharpened by the perception that the region’s resources flow outward while its people see little benefit. This is internal colonialism in action: a resource-rich periphery feeling exploited by a distant core.

Language, region, and statehood demands 🔗

Economic grievances in India rarely appear alone. They tend to fuse with linguistic and cultural identity to produce powerful movements. The long campaign for a separate Telangana state, for instance, combined regional pride with the conviction that the region was being economically shortchanged within the larger state. Such movements show how reductions in ethnic inequality and democratisation can be linked, since accommodating economic demands through new states or special provisions has often been the Indian state’s chosen path to defusing tension. The creation of new states and special constitutional arrangements reflects an attempt to address grievances rooted as much in economics as in identity.

Why the political economy lens matters 🔗

The strength of the political economy perspective is that it explains both why movements arise and how they might be resolved. If ethnic mobilisation were purely about culture or ancient grievances, there would be little a government could do. But if economic exclusion is the engine, then redistributive policies, regional investment, and inclusive development become real tools for reducing conflict.

This perspective has its critics. Some argue it overemphasises material factors and underplays genuine cultural attachments. Others note that it cannot fully explain why some deeply deprived groups never rebel while others mobilise quickly. These are fair points. Identity, leadership, and historical memory all matter. Yet the political economy approach remains indispensable because it grounds the study of ethnic movements in something concrete and changeable: the distribution of economic opportunity. Understanding where wealth flows, and who is left out, gives us one of the clearest windows into why ethnic identities become political weapons.

What do you think? If uneven development is a key driver of ethnic mobilisation, can rapid economic growth ever be pursued without deepening regional and ethnic divides? And when economic grievances and cultural identity become tightly bound together, which one do you think governments should address first to build lasting peace?

References

1. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/685300
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262982200155X
3. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2025-51-spatial-inequality-political-economy-redistribution-African-countries_0.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_colonialism
5. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1978.tb01262.x
6. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/political-science/relative-deprivation-theory
7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894220906372
8. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2021/038/article-A001-en.xml
9. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/north-east-insurgency-in-india/
10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2024.2372417