2007
DOI: 10.1080/17449050701607648
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regionalist Challenges to European States: A Quantitative Assessment

Abstract: Regional autonomy demands are widespread in Western Europe and are often seen as a significant challenge to the authority of the European 'nation states'. This article formulates and tests possible explanations for variation in such demands in six Western European countries. As suggested by the existing literature, several cultural and economic characteristics of regions are associated with autonomy demands. To account for further variation and differences in specific demands, however, it is necessary to focus… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Political actors advocating sub-state territorial demands have, for example, been described as ethnic parties (Horowitz, 1985;Lane et al, 1991), peripheral movements (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967;Rokkan and Urwin, 1983), nationalist (Coakley, 1992;Conversi, 1997;Aguilera de Prat, 2002), ethnonationalist (Connor, 1977), ethnoterritorial (Rudolph and Thompson, 1985), minority nationalist (Lynch, 1996;Elias, 2008a), stateless nationalist (Keating, 1996;Guibernau, 1999), regional nationalist (Van Atta, 2003), autonomist (Seiler, 1982;De Winter et al, 2006), regionalist (Brancati, 2007;Jolly, 2007;Van Houten, 2007;Dandoy and Sandri, 2007;Hepburn, 2009a), or non-state-wide parties (De Winter, 1994;Pallares et al, 1997). Often, scholars use these labels interchangeably in their writings (even within the same essay).…”
Section: An Evolving Party Familymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Political actors advocating sub-state territorial demands have, for example, been described as ethnic parties (Horowitz, 1985;Lane et al, 1991), peripheral movements (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967;Rokkan and Urwin, 1983), nationalist (Coakley, 1992;Conversi, 1997;Aguilera de Prat, 2002), ethnonationalist (Connor, 1977), ethnoterritorial (Rudolph and Thompson, 1985), minority nationalist (Lynch, 1996;Elias, 2008a), stateless nationalist (Keating, 1996;Guibernau, 1999), regional nationalist (Van Atta, 2003), autonomist (Seiler, 1982;De Winter et al, 2006), regionalist (Brancati, 2007;Jolly, 2007;Van Houten, 2007;Dandoy and Sandri, 2007;Hepburn, 2009a), or non-state-wide parties (De Winter, 1994;Pallares et al, 1997). Often, scholars use these labels interchangeably in their writings (even within the same essay).…”
Section: An Evolving Party Familymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Due to the former feature, ethno‐regionalist parties fall within the scope of predictions of theories of ethnic party competition. For analyses of the platforms of regionalist parties that are beyond the scope of theories of ethnic party competition and therefore this article, see Massetti and Schakel (, ), Sorens () and Van Houten ().…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the effect of differences in wealth levels, the political science literature has shown a correlation between the relative wealth of a region and separatist tendencies in democracies (Van Houten, 2007). One important reason is that wealthier regions are often the net-contributors in a union subsidizing other regions.…”
Section: Benefits and Costs Of A Unionmentioning
confidence: 99%