Ethnofederalism and the Management of Ethnic Conflict

Assessing the Alternatives: Table 1

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6376032
AutoresLiam Anderson (0000-0003-3130-355X)
Ano2016
Volume46
Fascículo1
Páginas1-24
Data de publicação2016-01-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPublius The Journal of Federalism (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0048-5950 • E-ISSN: 1747-7107
EditoraOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/publius/pjv019
OpenAlexW2328066420
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas21
Referências citadas34

The use of ethnofederalism as an institutional means of managing ethnic problems remains controversial. For critics, it is an imprudent institutional choice that hardens and deepens ethnic divisions and all but guarantees secession and state collapse. To dismiss ethnofederalism as an imprudent choice, however, is to imply that alternative institutions exist that are both feasible to implement and that would plausibly succeed where ethnofederalism fails. To date, critics have struggled to make a convincing case on either point. This article examines empirically the viability of institutional alternatives to ethnofederalism. Based on data drawn from post 1945 and using a "same-system" comparative design, the results indicate that where ethnofederal systems have failed, they have generally failed in contexts where no institutional alternatives could plausibly have succeeded, and that in the majority of cases, ethnofederalism has succeeded where other institutional forms have demonstrably failed

Conflict management · Data mining · Ethnic conflict · Ethnic group · Social science · Sociology · Table (database · Anthropology · Computer Science · Political Conflict and Governance · Romani and Gypsy Studies