Social Class and Power in Pastoralist Communities in the Sahel: Recognition and Blind-Spots in Livelihood Analyses

This article analyses how social class differentiation and power relations shape pastoralist livelihoods in the West African Sahel, and argues that social analyses and pro-pastoral policies and programs have contributed to the recognition of pastoralism as livelihood and production system, while overlooking inequalities within communities. It highlights four blind spots: (1) socio-professional labels that mask class dynamics; limited analysis of (2) how elites within communities and external gatekeepers (absentee owners, rich farmers, armed groups) shape access to land, water, labour and markets, (3) how decentralisation, customary institutions and land governance can redistribute power and enable elite capture, and (4) how insecurity and commercialised livestock theft affect social classes differently. The article focuses on the Sahel. It uses insights of an in-depth study on socio-economic and power dynamics in pastoralist communities in Africa, which combined semi-structured interviews with resource persons (academia, public sector, pastoralist organisations) and a targeted review of academic and program literature, applying a political-economy lens to trace asset control, labour relations, income distribution, and the exercise of different forms of power. A snapshot on rich, middle-class, (very) poor households and wage-dependent herders shows how herd ownership and privileged resource access translate into control over labour, market participation and political influence. External gatekeepers intensify dispossession and reshape governance. Decentralisation and territorialisation often favour sedentary and wealthier actors, increasing (poor) pastoralists’ underrepresentation and land tenure insecurity. Violence and commercialised cattle rustling disproportionately harm poor and middle households, erode customary solidarity mechanisms, and fragment governance, even as pastoralist associations expand socio-political voice. The discussion concludes that interventions focused on local markets, social protection (notably for herders and women), and accountable local land institutions are more likely to reduce inequality than strategies centred on export-oriented livestock chains.