The classic paper is Buchanan and Faith, AER 1987. Here is a recent extension of this classic work, with a dash of economic determinism:
Secessionist movements present themselves to the global public as analogues of colonial liberation movements: long-established identities are denied rights of self-determination by quasi-imperial authorities. Self-determination is presented as the solution to the challenge of peaceful coexistence between distinct peoples. The global public not only accepts this message but reinforces it: both Hollywood and diasporas relay it back to populations in developing countries. In this paper, we will argue that the discourse of secessionist movements cannot be taken at face value. We will suggest that a more realistic characterization of secessionist movements is that their sense of political identity is typically a recent contrivance designed to support perceived economic advantage, if the secession is successful, and facilitated by popular ignorance.
There are, of course, plenty of successful secessions. Slovakia has been successful nation because of a language and a desire to be free of Czech rule, backed by EU free trade, EU largesse and political precommitment. Or secession can help you break free of an evil empire, such as when Georgia left the former Soviet Union. The most likely American state to make a success out of secession is, I think, Texas (or offer up your pick in the comments). A Texan nation is hardly a good idea, but at least the state is big, has a diversified economy, has an outlet to the water, has a history of independence, and has a border with another nation, namely Mexico.
The least likely American state to make a success of secession is, I think…Alaska. The state takes in lots of federal money, has only a small natural population base, and is not too far from Russia. Here are some data on which states receive the most on net from the federal government. According to these numbers, only the state of New Mexico benefits more in (proportional) fiscal terms. The states which fare the worst from federal transfers are New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois.
The first thing Alaska would do is start drilling in ANWR, sign a neutrality agreement with Russia, and live like the Kuwait or Dhubai of North America.
Regarding Texas: I somewhat agree with Tyler, noting that a history of (and desire for) independence seems a very important criteria. However, there are two big caveats about Texas government: first, it would have to change a lot, as currently the legislature meets about 4 months out of every 2 years, and second, it will change a lot regardless, given population shifts (Texas will soon be majority Hispanic).
Why is the answer not Hawaii? Again, I am not saying it is a good idea, but lots of small island nations get away with being their own country. The economy may not be diversified but it already relies on trade for everything anyway.
Would it be necessary to bring Texas into NAFTA, or could they be grandfathered in? If so, would there be protests about American jobs going to Texas?
It’s worth noting that the Feds also own most of Alaskan land. Secession would open that land up for whatever Alaskans wanted to do with it, which presumably would not be nothing. Alaska also has huge energy supplies…Also, Canada shows that a high latitude need not discourage immigration.
California looks more secession-worthy than Texas. Its economy is larger and more diversified, plus its politics and social norms are the most out of step with the rest of the country when compared with just about any other state.
This finding is quite the commentary on Israeli/Palestinian relations.
It’s interesting that overall “red states” and their citizens are net recipients of federal subsidies, transfer payments and other types of welfare programs, while “blue states”, which are more productive on average, are overwhelmingly the ones that subsidize them.
You’d never guess that from the GOP rhetoric or the stereotypes that they and the press perpetuate.
a student of economics:
Yes, this is well known and primarily explained by the fact that blue states are much richer; limousine liberals…
From the linked article:
“Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called blue states that have generally elected politicians who support a more steeply progressive tax system even though their own constituents bear a greater share of the burden as the code gets more progressive.”
I generally consider Texas to be another country anyway…
…although some of the people here in Salt Lake seriously would support Utah breaking off from the Union.
The claim that Slovakia has freed herself from the Czech rule is inaccurate. In fact, many leading Czechoslovak politicians were Slovaks, including the long-serving conservative communist president Gustav Husak. Czechs were freed, too, from the Slovak rule. No insult intended. Both nations now have what they deserved: both Czech and Slovak Republic is run by Czech and Slovak villains, respectively.
I think Mississippi would have the worst time of any seceding state. It’d become like another Haiti in about 10 years.
After spending a fair bit of time in Vermont I discovered that there is a pretty strong secessin movement in northern New England. I could see VT, NH and ME splitting of en masse to form another country.
If the US broke up to some degree, with CA, TX, AK, the south, the Pacific Northwest, and so on, forming independent nations, the rest of the world would probably be a net winner, given that the relentless American drive to acquire complete global hegemony would be blunted.
Student,
The red states tend to have military bases, retirees ect because they are low cost of living states. This study includes govt workers, social security, and other like payments that make this look worse. A person who works in NY all his life, then retires to Florida really skews the data.
Same with govt workers. These sites are often located in the south. Acreage need for military bases, as well as the work force available is much cheaper. I guess the fed could put an Air Force base in NJ, at ten times the cost, just to make NJ feel more even.
It’s also interesting to note, from the pdf, that Clinton’s last three years were more expensive than Bushes last three (only shows data to 2004).
Federal Tax Burden Per Capita (Current $2004)
Clinton 7182 + 7686 + 7319 = 22187
Bush 6632 + 6229 + 6369 = 19230
Tom,
Are you working under the assumption that the government never has to pay its debt?
Anyone can “reduce the tax burden” especially on the wealthiest citizens, if they just borrow the money instead.
I think there are five states with some sort of secession movement: Hawaii, Alaska, California, Texas and Vermont. All but Alaska were independent states before joining the Union, Hawaii a monarchy, the others republics. For California, Texas and Hawaii, the difficulty with secession would be disentangling the defense capabilities. Were Hawaii to become independent, the US would still want basing rights at Pearl Harbor (whether we’d want the Army and Air Force bases is another question, but Pearl is irreplaceable). The income from those rights would make Hawaiian independence possible. But the same is not true of Texas and California. The US would not tolerate that much of its defense (and NASA) aerospace infrastructure (or bases) being in a foreign country. The ships (and aviation) based in San Diego could be moved to Bremerton, for example. TRW or Lockheed would be told to move their facilities or lose their contracts.
Vermont, on the other hand, has many fewer entangling ties with the rest of the US. It has always had a very open border with Canada (in fact, the US being heavy handed with that border is one of the sources of dissatisfaction in Vermont). It would presumably want an open border with the US. Its economy would run as it does now. Readers of this blog might see Howard Dean being removed from US national politics as a good result.
While Alaskan secession would not be crushed by US tanks (how would they get there?), it’s very hard to see it as an independent country. Even the Alaskan secessionists don’t actually see it as independent; they talk of some other relationship with the US: commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico, perhaps. In retrospect, Alaskan statehood was probably a mistake — a political bargain which has not panned out. But we’re stuck with it.
Bartman,
You assume quite a bit in your last statement. The “relentless American drive to acquire complete global hegemony”, if it truly exists, might seem on the surface to be contrary to the rest of the world’s interests, especially in recent years regarding Iraq. But the force of American influence to, say, stop the war in the former Yugoslavia, or to prevent North Korea and Iran from becoming nuclear powers could be seen by some as a good thing. Ending the Taliban regime in at least part of Afghanistan also comes to mind, and I’m sure other readers could think of more examples.
Student,
The pdf doesn’t really differentiate between expenditure and burden, I’m sure how to handle the debt part. I shouldn’t have assumed it was included, but it would be odd if it weren’t.
Tom, Here’s a chart I found on the web of spending and taxes as a share of GDP:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/11/
I believe the pdf referenced in Tylers post uses “tax burden” synonymously with taxes collected, and excluded debt run up. This is analagous to the blue line in the chart.
If you include borrowing, then you would get something more like the red line in the chart (since the total of taxes and borrowing equals spending).
This makes it pretty clear that Clinton spent less and paid down the debt, while Bush spent and borrowed more, mainly on the military (which grew substantially even excluding the spending on the wars).
Asserting that Bush reduced the “tax burden” is inaccurate, although widely repeated.
Bush reduced the tax burden for the (voting) living. He totally screwed future generations in the process.
California is the best choice. It is big enough to stand alone. It has harbors. There is some historical basis. There are also some grievances (same amount of Senators as Wyoming and Rhode Island? a new war every decade?).
The best explanation for why it could work is that the southern Republican base would be eager to get rid of us. So, there are no natural opponents.
Unbelievable! A post on secession with 40 previous comments, and no one has brought up Sarah Palin’s secessionist leanings! It’s just another reason to believe McCain picked her without much scrutiny. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column
Or secession can help you break free of an evil empire, such as when Georgia left the former Soviet Union.
Georgia didn’t really get the chance to “secede”. If you remember Russia, Belarus and Ukraine more or less unilaterally dismantled the USSR in 1991. Georgia was simply set free. You also have to wonder how “evil” an empire was that couldn’t be bothered to fight for its own survival. In historical terms the USSR really wasn’t all that evil, as empires go. Better to be a Georgian or Estonian in the USSR or a Tibetan in the PRC? Is it even debatable? In terms of raining death and destruction on subject peoples the Soviet Union was more evil than the British or French Empires but probably less so than the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire (although admittedly much of the death toll was based on disease), the Mongol Empire or the Belgian Empire (I’m thinking of the Congo). In terms of granting subject peoples a voice in how the empire was run the USSR was better than the British Empire or the short-lived Japanese Empire, but probably worse than the Ottomans. In terms of nasty expansionistic tendencies the USSR was better than the Ottomans or the Romans. Hell, it was an improvement on the late Tsarist Empire which kept trying to take over Anatolia and the Balkans every 30 years or so. 300 years from now historians will probably view the USSR as a disastrous attempt to keep the anachronistic Russian Empire alive into the 21st century (something the Russians still don’t get). It won’t seem particularly more or less evil than the 19th century empires that preceded it.
CG,
We are all shocked! Shocked!
I think her views were why the post was made, I assumed that was a given, which is why noone mentioned it.
A recent example of a good secession is Kosovo… NOT…
Not only it didin’t improve kosovo economy it even made it worst… Power is out most of the time, there is no white economy mostly gray and black… more black then gray for sure, lot of mafia’s clans dealing with: body organs, weapons, drugs, prostitution etc…
yes, its the horror of war…. but it is still a secession…
A secession that will improve the quality of life in Kosovo is possible, but not before it is totaly rehabilitaed from the war… 15 years of protectorate is enoguht, if UN impose law…
now, the secession made things worst, giving power to local bosses.
Wyoming’s biggest employer is the Federal Government, who also owns over 60% of the land area. So, yes, to reinforce that observation, Wyoming is a terrible candidate for secession, unless Idaho,Montana and Washington go along with them, or vice versa.
Ta,
An outlet to the what … ? A large population? Somebody shoulda told us that before we took the plunge. Maybe we made a huge mistake 700 years ago.
Measuring how much federal money a state takes in is a terrible measure of whether or not it is likely to secede. For example, if Alaska were free of all federal land regulations and environmental regulations, it could easily recover any lost federal money, and then some.
The Republic of Texas joined the Union only after the U.S. agreed to leave all public lands in the hands of the state. The federales own very little land in Texas unlike most western states where the Bureau of Land Management controls almost every square inch. It would be an easy matter for Texas to detach itself and perhaps a good idea if “W” would promise to stay out.
“Federal lands in Alaska were stolen from the Natives.” So was all land in the United States, surely?
Just wanted to throw in a shout-out to Albertan secession.
Interesting how places like Switzerland refute so many of the quibbling complaints about the need for ports, people, etc.
To paraphrase the great Hans-Hermann Hoppe, prosperity comes (only) from savings and the accumulation of capital. Rich countries are rich because they accumulate capital. They accumulate capital because they maintain stable currencies and vigorously protect property. Any location that acquires a reputation for keeping property safe will see inflows of capital.
Also, the smaller a state is, the more it will be encouraged (even forced) to rely on free trade, specialization, and the division of labor rather than protectionism.
There are reasons that Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Singapore etc. are so wealthy, and they have little to do with natural resources and/or population size.
@Asher,
Dude. are you dense or what? Conquered = stolen. A mugger conquers his victim when he gets the goods!
Conquered means what? A gang of thugs had more power or means to kill another gang of thugs….go figure.
Let us reduce that to the smallest terms. You thug, me victim, you make demands or offer death, I surrender my wealth.
Asher you are busted.
Does it have to be one state to secede? Based on the numbers linked, it looks like the Western U.S. (WA, OR, CA, NV) might do well to break off and form a country. The northeast also would make sense. The West would work fine culturally, haven’t spent much time in the NE, but from what I can gather they’d be okay as well.
I wonder if all this talk of secession aligns with a general decline in the usefulness of the nation-state. Nation-states, inherently based upon physical territory, are becoming somewhat obsolete with the advent of a heavily globalized marketplace. Many of the American states may no longer look upon the Federal Government as a provider of services that are vital to their economic health, much the same as many business entitities. It turn, many towns may no longer feel that their State government is providing useful services relative to what their citizens are paying to support the State. A few years back there was a secessionist movement in Killington VT. The state had changed the tax code in such a way that towns with a large proportion of vacation homes would get screwed disproportionately. Killlington wanted to join New Hampshire. Unfortunately, they were not even a border town.
I think there are plenty of citizens who would like to opt-out of our bloated governments and the burdens they impose. The cost-benefit ratio is not very compelling.
Comments on this entry are closed.