TOOL NO 6: MEASURING ‘ETHNIC DISTANCE’

The Ethnic Distance survey is a tool used by several UNDP COs. The existence of minorities in society can be perceived either as a source of tension or as something that enriches the society. One of the ways to study attitudes towards other ethnic, religious or linguistic groups is by measuring “social distance” (or, in this case, specifically “ethnic social distance”). Social distance mean the degree of understanding and intimacy between members of social groups, which is manifested in readiness to establish more or less close social relationships with members of this group, or lack thereof.

Using this tool:

Ethnic distance surveys are useful for assessing the impact of project interventions by making comparative surveys before, after and during the project intervention. Ethnic distance surveys are also used to monitor for early warning indicators of increasing/declining tensions and possible conflict. The sample size need not be large and the tool can be used for very localized populations affected by particular projects, or on a larger scale. The tool would benefit particularly from an advisory role of minority CSOs to help determine the questions asked. Some examples are provided here on how various UNDP COs have used ethnic distance surveys.

The Human Development Report (HDR) for Serbia, ‘Strengths of Diversity’ (2005), conducted a survey of social distance focusing on ethnic distance between minority communities in Serbia, through four potential social relationships.⁵⁶
The findings were presented in the HDR, which highlighted the multiple identities people had and focused both on majority and minority groups together. The government was supportive of the publication of this information; ethnic distance measuring has long been a feature of social policy in the former Yugoslavia. Click here for a sample table drawn from the HDR.

UNDP Ukraine used an ethnic distance monitoring tool to monitor and analyze the impact of an educational intervention. A series of questions were elaborated:

• Is greater acknowledgement of inequalities and problems different minorities are facing achieved by the end of the project?
• Have there been any ‘structural’ changes in schools participating in the project that are intended to help to promote equality, such as additional language classes, additional classes in human rights or other related topics, complaint procedures or forums for addressing concerns?
• Have changes in policy occurred – either at the regional, or at the school level /districts (in terms of increased curricula to address related issues, or improvement in teacher training)
• Have there been attempts, in spite of its difficulties, to measure, how the perceptions of the majority population towards minority populations as well the self-perceptions of minorities themselves have changed?

The results of the monitoring are publicized and used to inform the recommendations for teachers and head teachers which will be drawn up at the end of the project.

UNDP Kosovo has relied on ethnic distance surveys as part of its regular Early Warning Reports. Among their initiatives was the establishment of an Expert Group on Interethnic Issues to evaluate the findings of the surveys and make policy advice. The responses are disaggregated by ‘Kosovar-Serb’, ‘Kosovar-Albanian’ and ‘other’. Some examples of the questions asked as part of the Early Warning Reports are:

Frequency of interethnic contacts:

• On more than three occasions
• One or two occasions
• I haven’t had any contact
• I deliberately have avoided contact with any person from another nationality

Inclination to work and live with other ethnic groups:

• Would work with
• Would live on the same street
• Would live in the same town
• Would marry

Prognosis on when interethnic tensions will normalize:

• They will normalize in the near future
• They will normalize in the distant future
• Relations are already normal
• They will never normalize