1 Schroeder, Gertrude E., “On the Economic Viability of New Nation-States,” Journal of International Affairs 45 (1992), 549–574Google Scholar; and Etzioni, Amitai, “The Evils of Self-Determination,” Foreign Policy, 89 (1992–1993), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Buchanan, Allen, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and Heraclides, Alexis, “Secession, Self-Determination and Nonintervention: In Quest of a Normative Synthesis,” Journal of International Affairs 45 (1992), 399–420.Google Scholar

3 Wittman, Donald, “Nations and Suites: Mergers and Acquisitions; Dissolutions and Divorce,” American Economic Review 81 (1991), 126–129Google Scholar; Simard, Pierre, “Compétition électoral et partage des pouvoirs dans un état fédéral,” Canadian Public Policy 15 (1991), 409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Young, Robert A., “The Political Economy of Secession: The Case of Quebec,’ Constitutional Political Economy 5 (1994), 221–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Buchanan, James M. and Faith, Roger L., “Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit,” American Economic Review 77 (1987), 1023–1031Google Scholar; Dion, Stéphane, “Why Is Secession Rare? Lessons from Quebec,” unpublished manuscript, December 1993Google Scholar; and Hechter, Michael, “The Dynamics of Secession,” Acta Sociologica 35 (1992), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 This article does not deal with a third class—the few instances like Western Aus tralia in 1933–1935 and Nova Scotia in 1868 where secessionist movements cap tured the support of popular majorities or elected representatives, but were simply ignored or “waited out.”

6 These cases are discussed in Franck, Thomas M., ed., Why Federations Fail (New York: New York University Press, 1968)Google Scholar: the “neo-classical” appellation is from his concluding essay, “Why Federations Fail,” 167–99, 195. The other cases in clude the breakup of the West Indian Federation, the nonformation of the East Af rican Federation and the disintegration of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (the Central African Federation). As well, the secession of Iceland from Denmark (1944) is of some interest. See also Watts, Ronald L., New Federations: Experiments in theCommonwealth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966)Google Scholar; and Hicks, Ursula K., Federalism: Failure and Success (London: Macmillan, 1978)Google Scholar.

7 Young, Robert A., The Breakup of Czechoslovakia (Kingston: Queen's University, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1994).Google Scholar

8 Watts, Ronald L., “The Survival or Disintegration of Federations,” in Burns, R. M., ed., One Country or Two? (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1971), 41–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also, for example, Nafziger, E. Wayne and Richter, William L., “Biafra and Bangladesh: The Political Economy of Secessionist Conflict,” Journal ofPeace Research 13 (1976), 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bookman, Milicia Zarkovic, The Economics of Secession(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Bookman, The Economics of Secession, Table 1.2, 31–34.

10 Tihany, Leslie C., “The Austro-Hungarian Compromise, 1867–1918: A Half Century of Diagnosis; Fifty Years of Post-Mortem,” Central European History 2 (1969), 114–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 115–16.

11 May, Arthur J., The Hapsburg Monarchy 1867–1914 (Cambridge: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1951), 495–496Google Scholar and note 22; and Huertas, Thomas F., Economic Growthand Economic Policy in a Multinational Setting: The Hapsburg Monarchy, 1841–1865 (New York: Arno Press, 1977), Table 8,37–38.Google Scholar

12 May, Hapsburg Monarchy, 34–36.

13 Wendt, Franz, Cooperation in the Nordic Countries: Achievements and Obstacles (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1981), 21.Google Scholar

14 Lindgren, Raymond E., Norway-Sweden: Union, Disunion, and Scandinavian Integration (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Ibid., 62–65.

16 Ibid., 95–111.

17 Drake, P. J., “Singapore and Malaysia: The Monetary Consequences,” AustralianOutlook 20 (1966), 28–35, esp. 28.Google Scholar

18 Chee, Chan Heng, Singapore: The Politics of Survival 1965–1967 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1971), 36–37.Google Scholar

19 Fletcher, Nancy McHenry, The Separation of Singapore from Malaysia, Data Pa per No. 73 (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1969), 12–16.Google Scholar

20 See Watts, R. L., New Federations: Experiments in the Commonwealth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 177, 257.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., 16–23; Vreeland, Nena et al., Area Handbook for Malaysia (Washington: American University Foreign Area Studies, 1970), 74Google Scholar; Ongkili, James P., Nation-building in Malaysia 1946–1974 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1985), 181Google Scholar; and Lee, H. P., “Emergency Powers in Malaysia,” in Trindale, F. A. and Lee, H. P., eds., The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspectives and Developments (Petaling Jaya: Oxford University Press, 1986), 134–156.Google Scholar

22 Ongkili, Nation-building in Malaysia, 184–85.

23 Fletcher, The Separation of Singapore, 50–51, 56–66.

24 Lyon considers the possibility that the secession was a “contrived withdrawal” by Lee Kuan Yew; on balance, though, he agrees with most analysts that the event was an eviction: see Lyon, Peter, “Separatism and Secession in the Malaysian Realm 1948–65,” in Morris-Jones, W. H., ed., Collected Seminar Papers on the Politics of Separatism, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, Paper No. 19, 1976, 69–78, esp. 74–76.Google Scholar

25 May, The Hapsburg Monarchy, 34.

26 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 130–31.

27 See Wood, John R., “Secession: A Comparative Analytical Framework,” this JOURNAL 14 (1981), 107–134, esp. 125–27.Google Scholar

28 See Watts, New Federations, 311–12.

29 Ongkili, Nation-building in Malaysia, 186.

30 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 133–34.

31 May, The Hapsburg Monarchy, 50–51; and Tapté, Victor-L., The Rise and Fall ofthe Hapsburg Monarchy (New York: Praeger, 1971), 304–305.Google Scholar

32 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 189–90.

33 Ongkiti, Nation-building in Malaysia, 187–90.

34 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 128. The Committee refused to abide by the views of the ministry just before the decisive vote, but there was no ministerial crisis: “the times demanded that there be no constitutional or parliamentary conflicts.”

35 Ibid., 149–51.

36 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 167; and Andrén, Nils, Government and Politics in theNordic Countries (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1964), 121.Google Scholar

37 In the Czech-Slovak case, the last three generalizations do not entirely hold. There was no clear, unequivocal declaration by either side of its intent to secede, nor was there a corresponding acceptance by the other of the principle that separation would occur; moreover, in neither state were broad coalitions formed to confront the national crisis. To some extent this was caused by the confusion and uncer tainty that marked the re-emergence of democracy in Czechoslovakia, and by the massive challenges facing its governments. More fundamentally, though, there simply was not enough public support for secession in either republic. The whole separation took place through a gradual process of polarization, one that was spearheaded by partisan leaders who found it politically profitable to engage in mutual antagonism. In the June 1992 elections, pluralities were won by these leaders—Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic and Vladimir Meciar of Slovakia—and they could not agree to form an operational government at the federal level. Each then formed a tight coalition at the republic level, just sufficient to dominate the legislature, and polarization proceeded as they entered negotiations about ending the common state. As these took place, punctuated by provocative acts, threats and feints towards sovereignty, public opinion shifted to the extent that pluralities in each republic favoured separation, and large majorities thought it inevitable. No referendum was ever held. Until the negotiations were well underway, a referendum would not have carried. But once they began, pressures to maintain national solidarity were evident. See Young, Breakup of Czechoslovakia, 11–18, 24–40. All the rest of the generalizations hold in this case.

38 Vreeland et al., Area Handbook for Malaysia, 75; and Fletcher, The Separation of Singapore, 3.

39 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 155–66.

40 Means, Gordon P., Malaysian Politics (London: University of London Press, 1970), 294–295Google Scholar. The agreement is in Chan, Singapore, 58–59.

41 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 145–51.

42 Boyce, “Singapore as a Sovereign State,” 24–25.

43 Vreeland et al., Area Handbook for Malaysia, 358–59; Chan, Singapore, 41–47; and Jenkins, David, “New Life in an Old Pact,” Far Eastern Economic Review, November 7–13, 1980, 26–28.Google Scholar

44 Mason, John W., The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867–1918 (London: Longman, 1985).Google Scholar

45 Hence Deák's remark that “for us Austria's existence is just as necessary as our ex istence is for Austria” (Tihany, “The Austro-Hungarian Compromise,” 118).

46 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 112–14, 127–31.

47 Ibid., 182–86.

48 In fact, it was passed unanimously, the PAP members having absented themselves by prior arrangement.

49 Franck, “Why Federations Fail,” 170.

50 Andrén, Government and Politics in the Nordic Countries, 97–98.

51 May, The Hapsburg Monarchy, 37–38.

52 Mason, Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 16–18; and May, The Haps-burg Monarchy, 46–69.

53 Ongkili, Nation-building in Malaysia, 194–95; Vreeland et al., Area Handbook for Malaysia, 94; and Watts, New Federations, 234.

54 Chan, Singapore, 48–51, 22–25; and Bedlington, Stanley S., Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 210–243.Google Scholar

55 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 235, 245–46.

56 Leistikow, Gunnar, “Co-operation between the Scandinavian Countries,” in Friis, Hen-ning, ed., Scandinavia—Between East and West (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950), 307–324, esp. 311–18.Google Scholar

57 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden, 7.

58 Wendt, Cooperation in the Nordic Countries; and Solen, Erik, The Nordic Counciland Scandinavian Integration (New York: Praeger, 1977), esp. chap. 3.Google Scholar

59 Spiro, Herbert J., “The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland,” in Franck, , ed., Why Federations Fail, 37–89, esp. 80.Google Scholar

60 Franck, , “East African Federation,” in Franck, , ed., Why Federations Fail, 3–36, esp. 6–11, 17–18.Google Scholar

61 Chan, Singapore, 29–32.

62 Pang, Eng Fong and Lim, Linda, “Foreign Labour and Economic Development in Singapore,” International Migration Review 16 (1982), 548–576.Google ScholarPubMed

63 Bedlington, Malaysia and Singapore, 247–48.

64 Chan, Singapore, 39.

65 Ibid., 33 note 48; and Vreeland et al., Area Handbook for Malaysia, 338.

66 Watts, “Survival or Disintegration,” 69.

67 See Robert A. Young, The Secession of Quebec and the Future of Canada, forth coming.