This volume has argued that empire matters for post-imperial outcomes. In the introduction we observed that the similarity in the imperial creation of states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Central Asia (CA) seemed to explain similarities in the successor states. We also hypothesized that differences in imperial heritages explain the greater instability of the MENA states system and the lesser legitimacy of informal hegemony over that region compared with CA. Here, in the conclusion, we review the evidence and incorporate the findings of the chapter studies regarding these issues. We view the impact of empire on post-imperial sovereignty as mediated through intervening variables and, hence, organize the evidence under these categories: we examine effects of the drivers of transition from empire; we then summarize the evidence on the imperial transmissions left behind by empires. We then examine the extent of rupture after empire, with its implications for post-imperial hegemonies. We end with a summary of the outcome for the various dimensions of sovereignty, highlighting the similarities and differences between the cases.

Drivers of Transition and Post-imperial Outcome

Differences in post-imperial states and states systems could be expected to be partly a function of differences in the drivers of sovereignty, that is, the forces propelling the transition from empire to sovereignty. Decolonization is driven by both external forces (such as the international system) and internal forces (nationalist mobilization), which together shape the particular direction it takes.