Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-nlvjk Total loading time: 0.358 Render date: 2022-05-21T09:37:13.485Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2011

KATHLEEN GALLAGHER CUNNINGHAM*
Affiliation:
Iowa State University and Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO
*
Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Iowa State University, and Senior Researcher, Centre for the Study of Civil War, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), 503 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50010 (kgc@iastate.edu).

Abstract

Why do states make concessions to some self-determination movements but not others? This article explores the role of the internal characteristics of these movements, demonstrating that their internal structures play a major role in determining which groups get concessions. Using new data on the structure of self-determination movements and the concessions they receive, I evaluate whether states respond to internally divided movements by trying to “divide and conquer” or “divide and concede.” Consistent with the latter approach, I find that internally divided movements receive concessions at a much higher rate than unitary ones and that the more divided the movement is the more likely it is to receive concessions. Yet, concessions to unitary movements appear to work better to settle these disputes. This suggests that states use concessions not only as a tool to resolve disputes, but also as part of the bargaining process.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 2005. “Let's Put Garbage-can Regressions and Garbage-can Probits Where They Belong.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (September): 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, R. William. 2000. “A World Flying Apart? Violent Nationalist Conflict and the End of the Cold War.” Journal of Peace Research 37 (January): 105–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakke, Kristin, and Wibbles, Eric. 2006. “Diversity, Disparity, and Civil Conflict in Federal States.” World Politics 59 (October): 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1998. “The Limits of Cultural Politics.” Review of International Studies 24: 307–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously in Binary Time-series Cross-section Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (October): 1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beissinger, Mark R. 2002. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrebi, Claude, and Klor, Esteban F.. 2006. “On Terrorism and Electoral Outcomes: Theory and Evidence from the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (December): 899925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Mia M. 2004. “Palestinian Suicide Bombing: Public Support, Market Share and Outbidding.” Political Science Quarterly 119 (Spring): 6188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Analytical Methods for Social Research Series. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, Albert. 1978. “Nationalism and Language Policies.” Canadian Journal of Economics 11 (November): 656–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2008. “Terrorist Factions.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3 (December): 399418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiozza, Giacomo, and Goemans, Hein E.. 2004. “International Conflict and the Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still ‘Ex Post’ Inefficient?American Journal of Political Science 48 (July): 604–19.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A. 2005. “The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (February): 341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggins, Bridget. 2006. “Secession, Recognition and the International Politics of Statehood.” Dissertation. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Cunningham, David E. 2006. “Veto Players and Civil War Duration.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (September): 875–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher. 2007. “Divided and Conquered: Why States and Self-determination Groups Fail in Bargaining over Autonomy.” Dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Kathleen, Bakke, Kristin, and Seymour, Lee. N.d. “Shirts Today, Skins Tomorrow: Dual Contests and the Effect of Fragmentation in Self-determination Disputes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Ellingsen, Tanja. 2000. “Colorful Community or Ethnic Witches’ Brew? Multiethnicity and Domestic Conflict during and after the Cold War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (April): 228–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (Summer): 379414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97 (February): 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2008. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, eds. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David. New York: Oxford University Press, 756–78.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1973. “Will Canada Last?Foreign Policy 10 (Spring): 117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Håvard. 2008. “Gravitating toward War: Preponderance May Pacify, But Power Kills.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (May): 566–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, Jack. 1991. “The Paradox of Power.” Economics and Politics 3 (November): 177200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, Jack. 2001. The Dark Side of the Force: Economic Foundations of Conflict Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. “If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post–Cold War World.” Foreign Affairs 72 (September/October): 186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenne, Erin K. 2006. Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jenne, Erin K., Saideman, Stephen M., and Lowe, Will. 2007. “Separatism as a Bargaining Posture: The Role of Leverage in Minority Radicalization.” Journal of Peace Research 44 (September): 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadera, Kelly M., and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2005. “Manna from Heaven or Forbidden Fruit? The (Ab) Use of Control Variables in Research on International Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (September): 273–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2008. “Ethnic Defection in Civil War.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (August): 1043–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N., and Balcells, Laia. 2010. “International System and Technologies of Rebellion: How the End of the Cold War Shaped Internal Conflict.” American Political Science Review 104 (October): 415–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Charles. 2004. “The Micropolitics of Social Violence.” World Politics 56 (April): 431–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (April): 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydd, Andrew, and Walter, Barbara F.. 2002. “Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extremist Violence.” International Organization 56 (Spring): 263–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitin, David. 1988. “Language Games.” Comparative Politics 20 (April): 289302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Gurr, Ted Robert. 2003. “Peace and Conflict 2003: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-determination Movements, and Democracy.” Integrated Network for Social Conflict Research, Center for International Development and Conflict Management. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Pearlman, Wendy. 2008/2009. “Spoiling Inside and Out: Internal Political Contestation and the Middle East Peace Process.” International Security 33 (Winter): 79109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. “War as a Commitment Problem.” International Organization 60 (1): 169203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, James Lee. 2003. “Explaining Interstate Conflict and War: What Should Be Controlled for?Conflict Management and Peace Science 20 (September): 131.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard N., and Stein, Arthur A.. 2006. No More States? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Safran, William. 1992. “Language, Ideology, and State-building: A Comparison of Policies in France, Israel, and the Soviet Union.” International Political Science Review 13 (October): 397414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siqueira, Kevin. 2005. “Political and Militant Wings within Dissident Movements and Organizations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (April): 218–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrick. 2005. Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stedman, Stephen John. 1997. “Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes.” International Security 22 (Fall): 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Arthur A., and Lobell, Steven E.. 1997. “Geostructuralism and International Politics: The End of the Cold War and the Regionalization of International Security.” In Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World, eds. Lake, David A. and Morgan, Patrick M.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 101–22.Google Scholar
Toft, Monica Duffy. 2003. The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25 (July): 289325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varshney, Ashutosh. 2002. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Harrison R. 2000. “Bargaining and War.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (July): 469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallensteen, Peter, and Axell, Karin. 1993. “Armed Conflict at the End of the Cold War, 1989–92.” Journal of Peace Research 30 (August): 331–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Barbara F. 2006. “Building Reputation: Why Governments Fight Some Separatists But Not Others.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (April): 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, Jeremy. 2007. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1979. “How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 23 (December): 743–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Elizabeth. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cunningham supplementary material

Appendix

Download Cunningham supplementary material(File)
File 225 KB
88
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *