Between Dissolution and Blood

How Administrative Lines and Categories Shape Secessionist Outcomes

Bibliographic Data

ID6269632
AuthorsRyan D Griffiths (0000-0001-5816-4284, corresponding author)
Year2015
Volume69
Issue3
Pages731-751
Publication date2015-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Organization (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-8183 • E-ISSN: 1531-5088
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0020818315000077
OpenAlexW2163915448
LanguageEN
Citations received31
References cited51

Common wisdom and current scholarship hold that governments need to stand firm in the face of secessionist demands, since permitting the secession of one region can set a precedent for others. For this reason governments will often choose blood rather than risk dissolution. I argue that administrative organization provides states with a third option. Those regions that represent a unique administrative type stand a much better chance of seceding peacefully. Moreover, large articulated states sometimes downsize by administrative category, which helps explain why governments will release one set of units without contest while preventing another set from doing the same. Finally, secessionist movements that do not cohere with any administrative region are the least likely to be granted independence. In sum, the administrative architecture of states provides governments with a means to discriminate between secessionist demands. I test this theory in a large-N study using original data on secessionist movements and administrative units between 1816 and 2011

CONTEST · Economics · Independence (probability theory · Law and economics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Scholarship · Secession · Set (abstract data type · Computer Science · Culture, Economy, and Development Studies · Law · Mathematics · Political Conflict and Governance · Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub