Though not officially considered a ‘policy’ by the Lao government, resettlement of ethnic minorities has become a central feature of the rural development strategy in Laos. Over the past ten years, a majority of highland villages have been resettled downhill, and the local administrations are planning to move the remaining villages in the coming years. This article draws on a national survey about resettlement in Laos, commissioned by UNESCO and financed by UNDP, that was undertaken by the authors. It focuses on the consequences of these huge shifts of population and on the social and cultural dynamics that underlie them. It shows that the planned resettlements, which are intended to promote the ‘settling’ of the highland populations by enforcing the ban on slash‐and‐burn agriculture and opium growing, actually cause increased and diversified rural mobility. This in turn complicates the implementation of the rural development policy and the political management of interethnic relationships. In other words, the ‘settling’ process promoted by the State, because of its broad and often tragic social consequences, can paradoxically generate unplanned or unexpected further migrations, which could be called ‘resettlement‐induced forms of mobility’

No abstract

The observed lack of signature of patrilocality on Y chromosome patterns might be attributed to the higher residence flexibility in the studied patrilocal populations, thus providing a potential explanation for the apparent discrepancies between social and genetic structures. Altogether, this study highlights the need to quantify the actual residence and descent patterns to fit social to genetic structures.

This article uses ethnographic data collected since 1994 in Northern Laos to reassess the modalities of Tai cultural and political influence on the Khmu, a Mon‐Khmer‐speaking highland population, and to understand why, after so many years of ‘Tai‐isation’, distinct identities still exist. For Grant Evans, who conducted fieldwork in Tai‐Dam and Sing Moon (Ksing Mul) villages at the end of the 1980s, the answer lay in the fundamentally dualistic character of Tai‐isation, which both favours assimilation and also tends to perpetuate interethnic boundaries. I will here insist on the fact that Tai‐isation does not imply only the influence of the Tai on the highland peoples’ way of life but also how the latter adapt themselves to this influence with their own cultural resources. Tai‐isation is traditionally an inclusive and therefore ambivalent process which can lead both to the assimilation of some highlanders and simultaneously to the emergence of new identity markers, myths or categories, which transform and structure interethnic relationships. State‐building and Lao nationalism have nonetheless profoundly reshaped these dynamics and Lao‐isation now operates in a radically different conceptual framework.

No abstract