PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Do any distinguishable factors contribute to the upward trend of regional secession? Is there any

way to implement a method to determine the probability of secession?

Word count: 4041

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Abstract

On October 1st, 2017 the outcome of a referendum vote prompted the secession of the Spanish

region of Catalonia from the nation as a whole. This region-wide vote has since caused

complications between regional leaders and the Spanish government, ultimately resulting in a

tensive stalemate between the two earlier this year. The vote itself, and the occurring conflict,

have caused the researcher to question the ties between historical independence, a rising sense of

nationalism, and secession. This prompted the question of whether or not there was a fail-safe

method to determine the probability of a region choosing to secede from its encompassing

nation. After preliminary research, a gap presented itself. While the reasoning behind the case of

secession for individual regions had been studied, there was no evident investigation into an

overarching method. Thus the researcher was able to obtain a gap and a focused question

regarding the ability of a method to determine the probability of regional secession. The research

method itself was substantially subjective, since the researcher was composing the method

herself. However, individual cases were used to determine common underlying factors of

secession. Each factor was then divided into subcategories within itself; these were not

subjectively chosen when at all possible, but rather given equal intervals. The researcher then

assigned a numerical value to each category and ran a total of fourteen test regions through the

method. Through the research process, it was determined that while a concrete method of

determining regional probability was nonexistent, the researcher could conclude which factors

had the heaviest impact on secessional decisions. Therefore, the researcher reached the

conclusion that economic factors tend to be the larger participants in secession. When a region

begins contributing more to their nation’s economy, it becomes problematic. This leads to a rise
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

in nationalism that can be sustained and stoked if there is an ethnic, lingual, or religious

discongruence between the region and the whole. Therefore, the researcher’s method can be used

to explore the factors that contribute most to regional secession, however the method cannot be

approached as seamlessly accurate and should not be regarded as concrete. Society as a whole

would benefit best from more investigative research into this topic.

Keywords​: secession, regional, nationalism, independency, factors, conflict

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Determining the Probability of Regional Secession

On October 1st, 2017, the people of Catalonia explicitly voted to secede. One of Spain’s

autonomous regions, Catalonia has been politically independent for years, yet tensions have been

continuously present between the region and Spain (Minder, 2017). The referendum marked a

breaking point for the two institutions, one that prompted talk of sovereignty and placed

secession on the horizon (Siegel, 2017). Despite the clarity of the situation, much has yet to be

addressed. The ultimate reasons the Catalan people are citing for pushing to secede are vague

and oftentimes ambiguous, leaving questions regarding what factors, if any, lead to secession.

The act of leaving the control of another in favor of gaining total sovereignty of one

specific region is not a modern idea. People have been competing for land jurisdiction since the

beginning of time, yet only recently has it become formal. Secession itself is viewed as an

organized and rebellious push against an unsatisfactory government, in order to establish and

maintain the ideals of the majority. As a general assumption, the specific conditions for secession

vary from region to region. However, despite these distinct differences, there must be some

underlying factors that are similar across the board. Yet the identity of these factors remains

anonymous, as does their weight in the discussion of secession. The baseline of secession begins

on a singular basis, as historians have utilized case studies to recognize factors that aid the rise of

regional nationalism, division, and ultimately secession.

Literature Review

In 1947, Pakistan was recognized as an independent nation by Britain, splitting from its

former counterpart: India. The reason for secession is heavily agreed upon by a vast majority of

historians. Religion. The British territory had experienced chaos for years, as Hindus and
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Buddhists clashed within society (Hunt, 2017). This purely religious tension was the spark for

heinous acts of violence and terror between the two groups, as the two disagreed upon societal,

economic, and political elements due to the precise teachings within their religious doctrines. It

also became evidence for the “two-nation” thesis, reasoning that if two extremely distinct groups

of people reside within different proximities of a nation, than its reasonable for them to be

recognized separately (UK Essays, 2013). This secession displays how religion can play a

singular role in the need to secede.

In 1971, the Bangladesh Liberation War came to a close. The regions of West and East

Pakistan had experienced turmoil for years due to the differing cultural and linguistic traditions

of the two (Hensher, 2013). The East was comprised of several religious groups, including

Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and Animists that lived in harmony; whereas the West

had a Muslim majority (Batabyal, 2014). West Pakistan (now solely Pakistan) set themselves up

to be the superior, denying the East Pakistanis of their equal rights, and imposing a universal

language, “Urdu”, across the country (Zakaria, 2017). The East faced economic exploitation and

the devastating effects of the 1970 cyclone before implementing their right to self-determination

(Schanberg, 1970). The prime factors the Bengali cited for secession were cultural and linguistic

contrasts.

After 22 years of fighting, the president of Sudan and the leader of the southern rebellion

signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005; this ended Sudan’s civil war. However,

despite the agreement’s good intentions, several issues remained unsolved (Natsios &

Abramowitz, 2011). Sudan’s central government had continuously neglected its southern

counterpart for years. The north implemented harsh techniques in an effort to force the south to
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

accept Arab culture and Islam faith, even though a majority of Christians resided there. Jobs,

wealth, and public services are all concentrated in the north, courtesy of the influence of

government officials (Natsios & Abramowitz, 2011). The south’s resources, especially oil, have

also been exploited in order to spur the riches of the government (Raghavan, 2012). Amid all of

these issue, the Agreement did give the south some autonomy in regards to government and

military, in addition to promising a secession vote. However, the north delayed the vote for so

long that the referendum didn’t occur until 2011 (Natsios & Abramowitz, 2011). Now fully

independent, South Sudan is facing a civil war within its own borders (Byanyima, 2017). Yet

many agree that escaping government corruption, economic exploitation, cultural and religious

discrimination, amongst other horrid acts was worth it.

During the Cold War, the state of Korea was split bisectionally via the 38th parallel. A

communist regime was instilled in the north by Russia, and later China, whereas the U.S.

implemented a more democratic system in the south (Marshall, 2013). Peace ensued for a time,

with solely polarization further dividing the two. In 1950, the North decided to infiltrate the 38th

parallel and took back a significant portion of the South (Rothman, 2015). With the world still

reeling from the effects of communism in Europe, the United Nations quickly became involved.

They executed a “police action” that coordinated help from several countries in an effort to

confront the spread of communism by taking on North Korea. This marked the beginning of the

Korean War, a three year effort that resulted in a lack of progress: the same singular divide along

the 38th parallel (Marshall, 2013). However, it did mark the role that government, specifically

the type, can have on secession. It also proved the impact that outside forces can have as well, as

the U.S. defended the South, and China rallied the North (Rothman, 2015).
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Perhaps one of the most famous cases of modern session, Brexit, occurred in 2016. The

United Kingdom, informally known as Britain, is comprised of four individual countries:

England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (Blakemore, 2016). They all chose to leave the

European Union in favor of more independent self-governance. Although the EU is not a formal

country, it does exert a fraction of power over member countries, as it sets legal precedents and

controls monetary regulation. Therefore, once seceded, the UK no longer has to kneel to the

decisions of the EU. This issue, sovereignty was one of the significant components of secession

(Mauldin, 2016). In addition to independency, the UK did not want to follow in the footsteps of

the EU economically; unemployment, bank relocation, and preexisting financial relationships

(formed by Britain) also contributed to the need for secession (Mauldin, 2016). Brexit is also an

example of how simple nationalism can play a role in secession.

These case studies all highlight just some factors that push regions to secede. The truth is

that every situation is different, involving specific ingredients that prompt people to rebel,

however many of these can be grouped together due to similarity and frequency. Particularly,

one of the most profound factors is a difference in identity. Identity was an overarching problem

for many of the referenced regions, and can be used as an all encompassing idea for a mirage of

other factors. Therefore, although there is no singular way to look at this issue, there may be a

way to predict the situation based off the generality of many secession-associated elements. This

led to the generation of a research question: do any distinguishable factors contribute to the

upward trend of regional secession? Is there any way to implement a method to determine the

probability of secession?
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Obtaining optimal results could lead to a brighter political future. The ability to foresee

possible cases of secession could allow governments to make amends and correct unjust

situations. In addition to this, organizations such as the EU and UN could prep ahead of time,

decreasing the response time of country recognition.

Methods

Though the exact causes of secession vary from country to country, at times even

appearing oblique, baseline factors can give a broad description as to why secession occurs. In

order to obtain an extensive depth of variables, inclusive categories such as economic, political,

and social, can be used. Within these brackets specific variables can be chosen; variables that

represent unfavorable conditions that may prompt secession. These factors will be chosen based

off a range of sources, including Freedom House and the Center on Global Economic

Governance. More generic factors will be used as well, including: GDP, economic state, stock

market, currency value, type of economy, average annual income, equal rights, equity, religion,

wealth, language difference, state of freedom, regime classification, political stability, political

management, corruption, etc. (see Appendix A)

Design-based research is used in order to create methods that successfully outline the

factors leading to secession, and utilize them to predict probability. Bridging the gap between

research and practice, design-based methods are a set of analytical techniques that combine

positivist and interpretivist approaches to science in order to find a more applicable solution (L.

David, 2007). This method is favored because it creates a more significant impact on the societal

level, therefore ensuring that the research is used to better society. It’s also the ideal layout for

the researcher’s study due to the lack of research on this particular study that was uncovered in
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

the preliminary research. Because this research method has not been attempted yet, it’s necessary

for the researcher to be able to construct the method from scratch. Beginning from the ground up,

the researcher will be setting the precedent for future research on this inquiry, by being the first

to attempt accurate results.

In order to construct a method for determining the probability of secession, a structural

foundation must be set. Several factors play into secession, yet these variables alter from case to

case. So, how does one effectively set baseline factors? The simplest direction would be perusing

historical and recent variables in order to identify the most basic factors. Once those factors are

identified, they can be used to determine probability. A sample country will be selected and the

number of factors evident within the country will be identified. From there, a simple percentage

can be calculated based on the number present over the whole. This calculation should accurately

predict the possibility of secession from a country.

Despite the lack of differentiable clarity between secession factors of one country in

comparison to another, the method must apply control variables in order to add structure to the

process. One limitation of this method is the idea that the control variables will be as basic as

possible, but they still may not account for or accredit the different ways that the variables are

present in each country. This means that while a variable can be identified and evaluated within

every country and region, the specifics of that particular element may vary from country to

country and region to region. This is the primary downside to the study, a limitation that cannot

be overcome due to the researcher’s circumstances and available resources.

This method will be applied to a variety of regions in order to find the reliability of the

process and determine whether the method is accurate or erroneous. The regions used in the
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

study should be spread out along the scale of secession to firmly united. Some of these regions

include North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Catalonia and Spain, Sudan and

South Sudan, amongst others.

This method will also include several trial runs. The baseline method will consist of

variables that are split into reasonable subcategories based off the range of their data sources.

These subcategories will be divided among equal intervals for the quantitative data and allotted

points based off the desirability of the statistic. For example, the variable for “state of

democracy” will be divided into equal intervals based off the results of the Freedom House

investigation into the democratic state of every country. These intervals will then be addressed

points as so: a higher democratic score will be given less points in the method, because due to

the preliminary research, it can be determined that regions from democratic states are less likely

to secede. The opposite is true as well. Lower scores for the democratic state of a nation will be

given more points within the method because regions are more likely to secede from countries

that are less democratic. Note that this distribution of points is based off the connection of the

preliminary studies and the input of the researcher. This process is fairly subjective within the

method and could differ from researcher to researcher. It’s also important to note that the trials

will first be run through countries that have already seceded or gained independence. Once a

baseline process has been developed and a decently accurate method has been compiled, then the

method will be applied to regions facing turmoil today. The end goal is to establish a method that

predicts the probability for secession to a reasonable degree. This degree in and of itself is also a

fairly subjective component to the study. However, a generally reasonable degree can be
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

consummated when the results of the study match the occurrence of modern events occurring

throughout the world today.

Results

The regions of Catalonia, Tibet, Basque Country, and Québec had the highest overall

probability of secession (see Appendix B). Both of the American states in the study received the

same score of 27. Île-de-France obtained the lowest score, 9, which is startling in contrast to the

outcome of the corresponding French region of Québec.

The breakdown, percentage-wise, of secessional factors in Catalonia can be seen (see

Appendix C). As shown, the combination of autonomy, language differences, and regional

contribution to GDP played a significant role in increasing the percentage that Catalonia would

secede from Spain. Autonomy played a more significant role due to its higher score. Catalonia

was originally independent before being absorbed by Spain, and it was their conflicting regional

identity to that of the nation which resulted in the Spanish recognition of Catalonian autonomy.

They were then given the status of an autonomous state that continues to be the case today.

Since October tensions between the region and Spain have been increasing. Mainly due

to economic strain causing an inflated sense of regional nationalism, reflected in the data from

the figure. The reaction of the Spanish government has also intensified the reaction of the

Catalan people and reignited the flames of the revolutionary movement by attempting to

persecute Catalan independence leaders and suppress the voice of citizens by obstructing the

regional voting process.

California’s outcome included a variety of widespread secessional causes, more so than

Catalonia (see Appendix D). California’s regional contribution to the American GDP rises above
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

the others in terms of value, while the others come together to prompt secession. It’s important to

note that America is considerably a very diverse country, therefore that causes a somewhat

homogenous diverse population distributed across the board - in every single state. Due to this,

it’s easier for nationalism to be promoted as a whole, individual states and regions often have

slight variables that define them. In this way, economic variables tend to have more girth due to

the distinction that it created between the region and the whole.

Economics can outline the contributions of the region to the whole, and when those

contributions are varied and lack balance, disgruntlement can ensue. Over the last year, rumors

and conspiracy theories have been circling American news outlets over the concept of “Calexit”.

The term swarms over the consequences of California’s ability to be self-sufficient. Despite their

cooperation with the nation as a whole, they are financially able to stand on their own. Though

the idea of Calexit remains loose and unlikely, the factors behind the movement are present and

meaningful. The data reflects both their presence and weight.

The presence of historical autonomy and the modern desire for sovereignty can be seen,

outlining Tibet’s want to secede (see Appendix E). The ethnic conflict currently occuring

between the region and China also triggers a want to secede as well. Tibet has practiced

Buddhism for a lengthy amount of time, despite China’s attempts at conversion. Tibetan

Buddhism has faced severe persecution of opposition from the Confucian standards of the

Chinese. Violent suppression has historically declined, however disapproval has persisted in

China. This has reached the extent where the government has no plans to grant official autonomy

to Tibet, despite pleas and overwhelming calls for independence.

The Dalai Lama was also forced to flee Tibet years ago, and travels the world advocating
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

for the freedom of his people today. The fact that Tibet has such a strong sense of independence

without officially claiming it is significant because even though they have not been officially

freed from China, a vast majority of world leaders informally recognize the region as though it

were autonomous. The Dalai Lama contributes to this recognition by greeting world leaders as a

spokesperson, despite China’s continued condemnation of these meetings.

Analysis

Based off the results, the researcher can conclude that economic factors play a key role in

the probability of secession (see Appendix F). When a specific region begins to significantly

contribute more to the whole than other regions, it becomes problematic. Making the small leap

from large economic contributions to economic dependency often leads to a rise in nationalism

within a region. This profound sense of identity prompts discussions of secession. However, the

mere concept of secession gains strength when cultural, religious, or linguistic differences are

present. Discrepancies between the regional identity and that of the overarching country lead to a

push for secession. Especially if the discrepancies are reinforced by seemingly forceful or

ignorant actions by the government. This tension can continuously increase over time, often

pulling in a pathos related argument for secession.

Discussion

Overall, the data and analysis combine for a sensical investigation into regional

probability. The first step of the method, running trials on individual countries who had already

undergone secession, using the proposed formula proved to be unsuccessful. Various limitations

played a key role here, as much of the general information needed from the countries

pre-secessional state was not accessible. Due to the inability to locate this information, the
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

method itself was thrown off. In addition to this, the manner of running the method did not work

as precisely with the trial countries as it did with the regions. For example, finding a modern

region’s contribution to the nation’s GDP is generally obtainable information, however, finding

the contrast of economic contribution between two already separated nations is not nearly as

readily accessible. This problem was identified within several of the initial regions that the

researcher sought to test via the method. North and South Korea were ultimately not included

due to the inability of the available regional data to apply to the method as a whole. These

regions, along with Sudan and South Sudan, are examples of those that were essentially not

applicable within the confines of the method.

For these reasons, the first part of the method proved inconclusive and partially

incomprehensible. This affects the outcome of the investigation because it was through this

initial stage that the accuracy of the method would be proven. Running already separated nations

through the process would have set a successful precedent for the regions debating secession.

Therefore, the accuracy of the method can be called into question which is unfortunate due to the

precision of the method itself and the information it could provide for the future. Establishing a

more clear sense of credibility may be a compelling outlet for future study; thus reinforcing the

data compiled in this study while also presenting a new facet of research to the

academia.However, common sense and assumptions can be attributed in order to confer the

general precision of the method due to qualitative parallels between the results of the study and

current regional states. A general comparison could still be made between the tested regions and

the countries outlined in the literature review. Common sense can be applied to this topic, but the
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

lack of precision prompted the method from the beginning, and remains as a single reason why

more research into this topic is demanded.

The regional results also aligned with present day conflicts and tensions which further

amplified the overall accuracy of the method. Although the outcome of the first trial was

unfortunate, the results of the second prove notable. If the method were to be implemented again,

a new process may need to be constructed in order to set the baseline probability of secession via

historical examples. Without this, the study is lacking, but not invaluable. The main takeaways

are the significant role that the combination of economic and cultural (religious, ethnic, lingual)

factors can have on the probability of regional secession.

Benefits of this baseline method would be the useful in preparing numerous countries for

the future. Even stable, developed countries undergo political change constantly (as seen via

Brexit and Spain), so the ability to predict and prepare for the future politically is truly

invaluable. For example, if the European Union had access to this method in 2015, than

implementing preventative measures may have been possible. Either creating a stronger sense of

unity with the United Kingdom, or economically planning for the divide would have benefitted

both parties in the long run. However, no method for predicting regional secession was available

during the time of and foreshadowing Brexit.

The same can be said for issues occurring right now. The conflict between Catalonia and

Spain officially began with a referendum vote last October, but the issue has reached more of a

stalemate as of late. This standstill is the result of pointed action on both sides: the determination

of the Catalonian people to become an independent nation, and the efforts by the Spanish

government to detain their independency. If both the nation and the region had access to this
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

method beforehand, perhaps the violence and resulting tensions between them could have been

prevented in the long-run.

In a broader sense, this method as a whole could play a role in attaining world peace. Its

ability to predict future conflicts gives nations and world organizations a chance to seek out

peace and preventative measures before the onslaught of violence. Tensions between disagreeing

parties often result in violence, especially when the sides become polarized due to ethnic,

lingual, and religious differences. This method could allow for alternative measures that would

prevent violence on a global scale.

Imagine if the world could have known about the tensions between North and South

Vietnam in advance. Maybe global powers could have come together to form a peaceful result,

rather than backing either region through military force and defensive alliances. Rather the

reality was a global effort outlined by the larger conflict of communism vs representational

government marked by widespread freedom. North and South Vietnam are still at odds today, as

the communist north is still technically the overarching power, yet the south still maintains a

sense of autonomy - at least on a gubernatorial level. The conflict itself remains as a silent

stalemate that the world would rather not recognize because to do so would reopen old wounds

and inevitably lead to the same unequivocated violence as before. This method could have

changed the course of events, and solved the present turmoil that is still evident within both

regions. The method could have aided the world in attaining a peaceful global climate, perhaps

without even attempting to fight over pre-established institutions.

The method configured by the researcher can also be used to evaluate the roots of

nationalism as a whole. Historically, the negative effects of imperialism on the continent of

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Africa are widespread and definitively agreed upon. Perhaps it’s time for the world to stop

relying on political affiliation as a standard for delineation and begin looking towards

nationalism as a boundary indicator. The amount of conflicts that would be resolved

instantaneously are immeasurable. So why isn’t nationalism the standard? Some historians would

argue that greed, differing allegiances, and economic gain stand in the way of peace by twisting

nationalism into something negative. The researcher did not have the time to delve into this line

of reasoning, nor does the research specifically address this, however in terms of future study,

the double-edged sword that is nationalism could be a key element of futuristic research. Advice

for researchers following this study would be to approach subjectivity with caution. While it’s

necessary for creating a method from scratch, it’s important to emphasize quantitative data and

implementing objective patterns into research.

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

References

Batabyal, G. (2014, November 03). The Birth of Bangladesh Was a Triumph of Culture Over

Religion. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/the-birth-of-bangladesh-was-a

-triumph-of-culture-over-religion-43865/

Blakemore, E. (2016, June 24). What’s the Difference Between England, Britain and the U.K.?

Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/whats-difference-between-england-britai

n-and-uk-180959558/

Byanyima, W. (2017, December 14). One last push to end South Sudan's deadly civil war.

Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/push-south-sudan-deadly-civil-war-1712140

71246774.html

Hensher, P. (2013, February 19). The war Bangladesh can never forget. Retrieved December 16,

2017, from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-war-bangladesh-can-never-forget-8

501636.html

Hunt, K. (2017, August 14). Pakistan marks 70 years of independence with pageantry, reflection.

Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/asia/pakistan-independence-day-partition-india/index.

html
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Marshall, T. (2013, April 04). Korea: A History Of The North-South Split. Retrieved December

16, 2017, from

https://news.sky.com/story/korea-a-history-of-the-north-south-split-10449691

Mauldin, J. (2016, July 05). 3 Reasons Brits Voted For Brexit. Retrieved December 16, 2017,

from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/07/05/3-reasons-brits-voted-for-brexit/

#4219aede1f9d

Minder, R. (2017, September 08). Catalonia Independence Bid Pushes Spain Toward Crisis.

Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/world/europe/spain-catalonia-independence.html

?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSpain&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion

=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collectio

Natsios, A. S., & Abramowitz, M. (2011, January 10). Sudan's Secession Crisis. Retrieved

December 16, 2017, from

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/east-africa/2011-01-01/sudans-secession-crisis

Raghavan, S. (2012, May 01). South Sudan civilians are trapped in conflict over oil. Retrieved

December 16, 2017, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/south-sudan-civilians-are-trapped-in-conflict-o

ver-oil/2012/05/01/gIQAUX6buT_story.html?utm_term=.f971b7cb6709

Rothman, L. (2015, June 25). The Korean War and American History: How the Conflict Started.

Retrieved December 16, 2017, from http://time.com/3915803/korean-war-1950-history/

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Schanberg, S. H. (1970, December 30). After Pakistani Storm: Grief, Indifference. Retrieved

December 16, 2017, from

http://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/30/archives/after-pakistani-storm-grief-indifference-a

fter-the-pakistani-storm.html

Siegel, R. (2017, October 27). Conflict Continues In Spain Between Catalan Government And

Madrid. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560484102/conflict-continues-in-spain-between-catala

n-government-and-madrid

Zakaria, A. (2017, August 13). 'We'll never be at home here': Bangladesh's Urdu speakers still

dream of being resettled in Pakistan. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from

https://scroll.in/article/846758/well-never-have-a-true-home-here-urdu-speaking-comm

unity-in-bangladesh-still-dreams-of-pakistan

Appendix A
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

The table demonstrates the method itself. All variables are outlined in addition to the

identification of any preliminary studies that were utilized for obtaining data. The subcategories

are also present, as well as the values assigned to them.

#1 recession ANALYSIS #7 autonomy ANALYSIS

- presence of (2) - presence of (2)
- no presence (0) - is there a history of
- is there a history of recession? (1) autonomy/independence? (1)
- combination (3) - combination (3)
- no presence (0)
- fight for (4)

#2 government corruption #8 infant mortality rate

- score (100, 75) - 0 - (120-90) - 3
- score (75, 50) - 1 - (89-59) - 2
- score (50, 25) - 2 - (58-28) -1
- score (0, 25) - 3 - (28-0) - 0
- transparency international

#3 state of democracy #9 gender inequality

- free: 0 - (0-.2) - 0
- partly free: 1 - (.201-.4) - 1
- not free: 2 - (.401-.6) - 2
- freedom house - (.601-.8) -3

#4 maternal mortality rate #10 language ANALYSIS

- (1400-1000) - 3 - are there two or more dominant languages
- (999-599) - 2 present? 1
- (598-198) - 1 - is their presence resulting in conflict? 2
- (197-0) - 0

#5 regional contribution to GDP #11 ethnic ANALYSIS

- (0-5)% - 0 - are there two or more ethnicities dominant
- (6-11)% - 1 present? 1
- (12-17)% - 2 - is their presence resulting in conflict? 2
- (18-23)% - 3

#6 political stability #12 religious ANALYSIS

- (-2.5, -1.5) - 3 - are there two or more dominant religions
- (-1.4, -.4) - 2 present? 1
- (-.3, 1.3) - 1 - is their presence resulting in conflict? 2
- (1.3, 2.5) -0
- The Global Economy
Appendix B
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

This table displays the results found by the compilation of the raw research data. These results do

not come from the first failed trial, rather the second trial regarding only the tested regions, not

regions that had already sought independence.

region country total (#/33) percent

Catalonia Spain 12 36

California U.S.A. 9 27

Texas U.S.A 9 27

South Vietnam Vietnam 11 33

Kashmir India 11 33

Saint Pierre and France 6 18

Miquelon

Tibet China 15 45

Île-de-France France 3 9

Basque Country Spain 10 30

Guangdong China 9 27

Québec Canada 15 45

Campeche México 7 21

Rio de Janeiro Brazil 8 24

Queensland Australia 7 21
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Appendix C

This pie chart details the specific breakdown of secessional factors in the individual case of

Catalonia. The secession would mark the division between Spain and the autonomous region of

Catalonia.
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Appendix D

This pie chart demonstrates the breakdown of secessional factors within the state of California. It

provides a refreshing perspective into how the method remains applicable even within a

historically diverse nation such as the United States of America.

PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Appendix E

The pie chart below portrays the multiple factors that represent secessional value within Tibet.

Tibet is also a unique case due to its relation to a world power. China remains in control of Tibet

despite its declared autonomy that has been recognized by various global powers.
PROBABILITY OF REGIONAL SECESSION

Appendix F

This bar chart breaks down the weight of the assigned value to regional economic contributions

within the method. The result here displays how large the economic role is in regional secession.

This is the case even in regions where there are no other specific issues creating turmoil.