To Secede... Or Not

This blog post will discuss the faults and misrepresentations present in the ideas and arguments Robert Barro presents in the section ‘Optimal Size of a Nation, or the Attractions of Secession.’

1. Barro does not give enough weight to the fact that secession, whether in the United States or elsewhere on the globe, would lead to changing the set borders, which would, in turn, result in instability. At the beginning of the section, Barro briefly mentions the fact that changing borders may result in disruption, which could in-turn lead to armed conflict. For the rest of the section, he sets aside the transitional problems of redrawing borders (the stability issue) when evaluating secession. The sovereignty of a state, as well as a state’s national identity, is often attached to the state’s set borders. If every enclave of ethnically, religiously, or politically homogenous people were to secede from whatever state they are a part of, the idea of national borders, as well as state sovereignty, would lose all legitimacy. If Barro believes that established property rights are an essential part of a growing economy, imagine the effect of undefined property rights between countries on individual economies. Because of disputes over who owns what property, secession has, more often than not, resulted in political violence. Texas was seceded from Mexico in a bloody revolution, Northern Ireland has long fought a bloody battle for its independence from Great Britain, and Southern Yemen’s attempts to secede in 1994 led to a civil war.

Barro’s decision to ignore borders (and thus to a certain extent property rights) becomes even more problematic when we examine current secessionist movements in the United States. One secessionist movement is led by the North American Lakotah tribe. They claim that areas covering thousands of square miles in current states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana encompass lands that are rightfully theirs. Those in favor of creating the Republic of Lakota feel like they have been living under a colonial apartheid system, created when the United States egregiously violated the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. In every single way the current borders of these states were drawn unfairly over the land of the Lakota tribe; however, the borders, and system of property rights within those borders, have existed for the past 200 years. Although the Lakota are a homogenous, oppressed minority who wish to secede from the United States, it would be ridiculous to even consider their claim in light of the currently established system of property rights. There would clearly be less conflict if we maintain these unfairly drawn borders.

2. After ignoring the fact that secession generally leads to political upheaval that would that would throw a country into economic instability, Barro makes tries to claim that secession leads to more homogenous communities, which lead to less economic inefficiency (fewer interest groups lobbying for resources), which leads to a more efficient economy. “Excessive diversity of preferences,” he states, “encourages people to expend resources in unproductive ways and leads thereby to poor economic performance”(30). However, if we look at the example of ethnic diversity presented by India, we find that Barro’s argument falls flat. India is one of the most populous and diverse countries in the world; not only does it have more than eight distinct ethnic groups, but its constitutions recognizes more than 18 different languages, and its people practice more than five different religions. This diversity in ethnicities, religions, and traditions would lend itself to a great diversity results in myriad preferences from each extreme of the spectrum. After India instituted market-based reform in 1991, its became one of the fastest growing major economies. The fact that India is sustaining economic growth even though it is still as diverse as ever indicates that economic reform, not homogeneity, is needed for a state to have stable economic growth; because homogeneity does not act as a barrier to economic growth, it is likewise not a strong argument supporting secession.