Understanding the Linkages between Poverty and Ethnicity in Mauritius

A P R E S E N T A T I O N O F R E S E A R C H F I N D I N G S G E E T A N J A L I G I L L , P H D

Geetanjali Gill

Outline of Presentation

   Rationale and Focus Methodology Empirical Findings:  Education and Employment  Government Services and Resources  Formal and Informal Social Networks ● Conclusions and Implications Geetanjali Gill

Rationale

   The difficulty of defining poverty in the ‘Mauritian context’ Ethnicity treated as ‘taboo’ Overabundance of ‘culture of poverty’ arguments Geetanjali Gill

Methodology

 2 months preliminary baseline survey  14 key informants and 41 households  13 months of primary and secondary data collection   130 households, 4 focus group discussions, 19 local and national key informants In-depth, unstructured, and largely qualitative interviews   ‘Snowball sampling’ Participant observation Geetanjali Gill

Research Sample: Poverty and Ethnicity

  Local ethnic categorisation and articulation Local indicators of poverty   Poverty as material deprivation Socio-economic categories Indian +Tamil +Telegu Muslim Creole Geetanjali Gill

Ultra Poor

22

Poor

36% 13

Ordinary

21% 15

Middle class/elite

25% 11

Total No.

18% 61 2 13 10% 3 30% 17 16% 7 40% 12 37% 7 28% 1 37% 19 2% 43

Research Sample: Ultra-poor Creoles

Creole Group

Darker-skinned Medium-skinned Lighter-skinned

Ultra-Poor Category

78% 22% 0 Geetanjali Gill

Research Sample: Income and Ethnicity

Geetanjali Gill

Ethnic Category

Indian +Tamil +Telegu Muslim Darker-skinned Creole Medium-skinned Creole Lighter-skinned Creole

Average Monthly Household Income USD $

383 566 153 238 277

Demographic Characteristics of the Poor

      83% of female heads 73% of female widows 78% of separated household heads 73% of extended households 67% of 1 or 2 person elderly-only households 67% of households with young children Geetanjali Gill

Geetanjali Gill

Empirical Findings: Education and Employment

T H E N E E D F O R P E R M A N E N T A N D S E C U R E E M P L O Y M E N T T O E S C A P E F R O M P O V E R T Y T H E P O T E N T I A L R O L E O F E D U C A T I O N T O L E A D T O S O C I A L A N D E C O N O M I C M O B I L I T Y

I: An Ethnically-Segmented Labour Force

    Indians, Tamils, Telegus, and Muslims had white collar public-sector work Indians and Creoles had white-collar private sector work Indians, Tamils, Telegus, Creoles worked as casual labourers and masons, low-level factory workers, and informal sector workers.

Indians, Tamils, Telegus, and Muslims involved in more remunerative forms of self-employed compared to Creoles Geetanjali Gill

II: Ethnic Discrimination in Recruitment

 Negative stereotyping of Creoles, and to a lesser degree of Muslims by employers:

“…generally people don’t like to hire Creoles because they have a bad way of behaving. The first choice would be Indians, then Muslims, then Creoles for hiring”.

[An Employer in Goodlands]

 Employer discrimination limits Creoles’ employment opportunities and occupational mobility Geetanjali Gill

III: ‘Creoles are discouraged and don’t dream’  An expectation of employer discrimination in recruitment impacts upon Creoles’ aspirations, resulting in a cycle of disadvantage and poverty

“Overtime, if you are rejected from work and can’t find work, you become discouraged….Creoles are discouraged and don’t dream. And they don’t try. They see injustice and inequality and feel defeated. The Creole voice is very low and quiet”.

[A Creole community leader]

Geetanjali Gill

IV. Ethnic Disparities in Education

   Creole household heads have lowest education levels; many darker-skinned Creoles with none at all Muslim household heads most educated Indian (and Tamil and Telegu) household heads split between those with little or no education, and those who have completed primary levels Geetanjali Gill

V. A ‘Culture of Exclusion’ in Schools

 Mostly non-Creole teachers, many of whom have negative stereotypes of Creoles  Creoles spoke of verbal abuse and discriminatory behaviour by teachers in classrooms Geetanjali Gill

VI. Creoles lacking ‘Educational Aspirations’

 Many Creoles did not feel that education would help them to gain better employment opportunities  The experience and expectation of being discriminated against and mistreated in school (as in the labour market) negatively impacts upon Creoles’ educational aspirations Geetanjali Gill

Empirical Findings: Government Services and Resources

I N H A B I T A N T S I D E N T I F I E D T H E R O L E O F T H E S T A T E I N P R O V I D I N G A C C E S S T O K E Y R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S A S C R I T I C A L T O T H E E X P E R I E N C E O F P O V E R T Y A N D E X C L U S I O N

Geetanjali Gill

I. State ‘Gatekeepers’: Ethnic bias and discrimination    In Goodlands, inhabitants’ encounters with the state mediated by non-Creole state ‘gatekeepers’ who display bias and prejudice Creoles disadvantaged in their access to certain state resources (e.g. permits, licences) Ultra-poor and poor Indians (Tamils, Telegus) and Muslims disadvantaged in their access to state welfare resources Geetanjali Gill

II. Using One’s ‘Backing’ to Access the State

   Drawing upon social relations with state ‘gatekeepers’ to gain favourable access to the state, political processes, and state resources More social ties exist between non-Creole inhabitants and state ‘gatekeepers’ Ultra-poor and poor also generally disadvantaged Geetanjali Gill

Empirical Findings: Formal and Informal Social Networks

P E O P L E ’ S E X P E R I E N C E S I N T H E I R S O C I A L E N V I R O N M E N T S C A N I N F L U E N C E T H E I R E X P E R I E N C E S W I T H P O V E R T Y

Geetanjali Gill

I. The Influence of Housing and Neighbourhoods

Property Status of Residents

Inherited State Social Housing Purchased land/house Renting

Total No. (%)

80 (61%) 31 (24%) 14 (11%) 5 (4%) 51% of Creoles living in social housing 79% of Indians/Tamils/Telegus living on inherited family land 58% of Muslims living on inherited family land 32% of Muslims purchased their own land or house Geetanjali Gill

II. Formal Organisations

 A predominance of ethnic-specific groups, socio cultural and religious groups: 76% Hindu, 18% Muslim, 6% Catholic/Christian  Very few formal organisations functioned in a social welfare role  Some ultra-poor and poor member of Hindu associations faced ostracism and social exclusion Geetanjali Gill

III. Informal Social Networks

    Muslims (including ultra-poor) most able to receive assistance (financial and non-financial) from kin (75%) and non-kin (67%) 67% of Creoles got support from kin, and 33% from non-kin, but mostly non-financial 50% of Indians got support from kin (financial and non-financial) but very few of the ultra-poor; 50% of Indians got support from non-kin (mostly non financial) Ultra-poor Indians least able to access informal social networks for socialisation Geetanjali Gill

IV. Social Isolation and Poverty

   2/3 of ultra-poor Indians, most of whom were female-heads and widows, affected Excluded due to non-conformance to group’s norms, values and beliefs Stigmatisation of female-heads and widows amongst Hindus Geetanjali Gill

Conclusions

   Creoles affected by ‘mutually-reinforcing processes’ of ethnic discrimination and self-exclusion in realms of education, employment, and relations with the state Ultra-poor and poor Indians, Tamils, Telegus and Muslims overlooked by state representatives and hesitant to make welfare claims on the state Ultra-poor Indians (mostly widowed female-heads) faced intra-group social exclusion and social isolation Geetanjali Gill

Broader Implications for Discussion

     Ethnic stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination and exclusion critical factors; and psycho-social impacts The important role of meso-level state actors and processes, and ethnic bias Examination of the role of NGOs and CBOs in on going poverty programmes Universalism or targeting?

Best practices and exchange of information with other ethnically-plural countries tackling poverty Geetanjali Gill