| Summary/Abstract |
A range of theories have sought to explain and predict secession with varying degrees of success. Arguing that a disproportionate focus upon the seceding group as the unit of analysis has frustrated the development of a comprehensive theoretical framework that is universally valid, this article highlights the role of predecessor institutions of governance and the failure of states to successfully incorporate these as an important, but neglected, causal factor in the study of secession. The inclusion of pre-state institutions of governance and processes of state formation not only results in a more complete, and therefore accurate, explanatory account of secession, but also explains why some regions have been more prone to secession than others.
|