Self-governance and power sharing
Territorial autonomy and power-sharing remain popular and widely-used institutional arrangements for the regulation of violent conflicts in divided societies. From an empirical perspective, however, it is evident that not all post-conflict institutional reforms work as intended and have been able to prevent the re-occurrence of ethnic violence. This research track aims at a theory-based and empirical-comparative investigation of the conditions for success and failure of post-conflict institutional settings. Particular attention will be paid to unintended side effects on political as well as the societal level such as polarization, stalemates, and patronage networks. We will complement existing research by taking a complexity-oriented approach that accounts for the interplay of different postwar institutions. Outputs will include conference papers and journal article manuscripts.
Ongoing Projects
- What’s Law Got to Do With It? Legalization and Post-Conflict Autonomy Success (with G Carolan, Dublin University)
- Ethnic Patronage and Power-Sharing (with S. Tanaka, Osaka University)
Selected Publications
2022. Self-Rule and Intrastate Conflict Risk in Divided Societies: A Configurational Analysis of Consociational Institutions, In: Swiss Political Science Review 2022. Self-Rule and Intrastate Conflict Risk in Divided Societies: A Configurational Analysis of Consociational Institutions, In: Swiss Political Science Review, https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12514 (with C. Trinn).
2021. Why we should stop cherry-picking in the analysis of consociational institutions, in: 50ShadesofFederalism Blog, 50shadesoffederalism.com (with C. Trinn)
2020. Peace through Self-determination. Success and Failure of Territorial Autonomy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
2020. Untangling Territorial Self-Governance - New Typology and Data, In: Regional & Federal Studies, doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2020.1795837 (with C. Trinn).
Datasets
TERRGO (Territorial Self-Governance Dataset), here: www.territorial-governance.com
