How do states decide their policies toward “non-core” groups—any aggregation of individuals that a nation-state’s ruling elite perceives as an unassimilated group? What accounts for the variation in diaspora policy across different segments of co-nationals living abroad, by the same government? Under what conditions do governments invoke ‘fifth columns’ in the domestic political arena and what are the effects on polarization and social order? Both my published work and my ongoing research serve my long-term goal of contributing to our understanding of states’ management of diversity that may originate from national background, religious affiliation, socioeconomic status or political ideology. My research interests lie at the intersection of comparative politics, international security, and history, while I aim to develop theoretical frameworks that cross geographic boundaries.

BOOK MANUSCRIPT

I am currently working on a book tentatively entitled Diaspora Management Logics. This book provides the first systematic account of the various logics of government policies toward discrete segments of their global diaspora. These diaspora management policies vis-à-vis particular diaspora segments may include strategic neglect; recognition but without any policy; recognition coupled with a diaspora-building policy; recognition with a diaspora-building policy but with an aim to keep the segment abroad; or recognition with a diaspora-building and a favorable repatriation policy. The book asks what accounts for the puzzling differences in a government’s policies toward a discrete segment of their global diaspora?  Scholars have put forth a wide range of explanations for the variation, ranging from labor market needs, geopolitical reasons, characteristics of the various diasporic communities (e.g., ideology, wealth, educational background, degree of assimilation, and/or time abroad), to lobbying efforts by diaspora entrepreneurs. In Diaspora Management Logics, I propose an argument that accounts for variation in diaspora management policies highlighting sequentially three factors that lead to the primacy of different state logics: the reasons/conditions of emigration (exile or not), the nature of interstate relations between the purported country of origin and the country of residence (allies or enemies), and whether the diaspora-segment can have demographic or economic utility at home or may preserve an irredentist claim abroad. The book builds on various diaspora-related projects I have been involved with. 

FORTHCOMING ARTICLES

“Balance of Power, System Polarity and Irredentism,” Journal of Global Security Studies.

When and where are kin-states more likely to engage in militarized territorial expansion against a kin-group’s state of residence, i.e., irredentism, rather than merely employing irredentist rhetoric or engaging in non-irredentist kin-state politics that focus on nurturing cultural ties with co-ethnics abroad? For example, why did Russia pursue an irredentist policy and annex Crimea but a non-irredentist one toward Narva? Why pursue the annexation of Crimea in 2014 but not in the 1990s or the early 2000s? Various valuable domestic explanations have been proposed, including diversionary war theory, shifts in regime type, and socioeconomic changes; but none have centered on balance of power considerations. I emphasize the role of two variables, whether the kin-group’s state of residence is within or outside the core alliance network of a particular pole and the polarity of the international system at any given point in time, operationalized through the number of poles in the system (one, two, or many). I contend that kin-states are unlikely to target any state of residence that is affiliated with the core alliance network of a pole. Furthermore, I argue that variations in polarity shape the nature and location of irredentism. In a bipolar system, irredentism is likely to take the form of proxy warfare outside each bloc. In a unipolar system, irredentism is more likely in areas where the hegemon exercises the least influence—such as areas linked to a former pole. Finally, in a multipolar system, irredentism is more likely to be pursued by rising powers against neighbors not affiliated with alliance networks of a pole in the international system. I evaluate my argument using an existing dataset of both actual and potential irredentist cases from 1946 to 2014, supplemented by illustrative case studies.

“Bensel’s Modern Foundings: Connecting State, Nation, and Regime, through Juridical Equality,” Political Science Quarterly (with Deborah Boucoyannis)

This article draws on Richard Franklin Bensel’s magisterial The Founding of Modern States to highlight a point neglected in current political science debates: regime- and state-building are inextricably linked to the definition of a people, to nation-building. Bensel argues that these processes are defined contemporaneously at the critical founding moment, disquietingly noting this involves mythological conceptions of the popular will across all regime types. He explores six paradigmatic cases: democratic cases like England, France, and the United States, as well as nondemocratic regimes like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. His analysis shows that democracies do not differ from alternative forms of government either by invoking “the will of the people,” as all regimes do so, or by process. Instead, he explains the variation across cases based on differences in the concept of the “Transcendental Social Purpose” (TSP), which provides the founding narrative of a state, i.e, how “the people” and their common aims come to be defined. We build on his argument to further specify the conditions of regime emergence: regimes that define the people based on actualized juridical equality within clear territorial boundaries become democracies, whereas regimes that define the people based on essentialist attributes (e.g., race, religion, or even class), while extending them beyond state boundaries, result in nondemocracies. This variation, in turn, is explained by greater state capacity to achieve such depoliticization prior to regime formation. Finally, we survey the literature to show how nation-building has been neglected in accounts of state- and regime-building, even though, as Bensel’s book and this account suggest, it is constitutive of both processes. The insight suggests new avenues of exploration.

MANUSCRIPTS UNDER REVIEW

Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Study of International Relations

co-authored with Erin Jenne

The evolution of International Relations (IR) scholarship regarding ethnicity and nationalism has been remarkable. While IR theories traditionally centered on the nation-state as the core unit, thus predicting more constancy than change in the international system, subsequent waves of scholarship corrected this picture. The discernible impact of nationalism and ethnicity was unveiled in four consecutive, overlapping, and ongoing waves of scholarship addressing or inspired by methodological nationalism, groupism, individualism, and critical methodologies. This progression dissected the conflation of states with nations and challenged assumptions about the relatinship between national and ethnic identities. It showcased how nationalism shapes policy outcomes, influences foreign policy, and the conditions under which it triggers conflicts, deviating from the prior state-centric approach. This new research demonstrated that societal phenomena drive revisionist foreign policies, which ultimately affect the international system. Additionally, it revealed the substantial role played by non-state actors, diasporas, and regional powers in shaping conflicts and statehood aspirations. Moreover, the critical IR scholarship identified the fusion of nationalist ideologies with other doctrines, highlighting their impact on global politics. As the liberal international order navigates turbulence, attention to nationalism and ethnicity in IR grows, unveiling their influence on international systems increasingly fractured along ethnonational or civilizational lines.

Political Science’s Quest for Methodological Pluralism: Valuating Methods in Comparative Theory-Testing

co-authored with H. Zeynep Bulutgil and Luis L. Schenoni

We examine the epistemological and methodological implications of comparative theory testing in political science, a practice that emphasizes the empirical evaluation of competing theories based on their distinct, observationally non-equivalent predictions. By encouraging the use of diverse empirical dimensions, comparative theory testing challenges the dominant methodological tradition, which prioritizes a narrow understanding of causal identification. We argue that this tradition has promoted a hierarchy of methods, with randomized control trials at the top. However, many influential political science studies continue to employ a range of methods, including qualitative, observational, and multi-method research, guided by theoretical considerations rather than strict adherence to experimental approximations. Through an exploration of various research designs that effectively compare theories across different methods, we advocate for an eclectic approach to research in political science, one that recognizes the value of diverse methodologies in advancing theoretical understanding.

Varieties of Caste-Systems

co-authored with Anum Pasha Syed

Caste remains a significant political cleavage in contemporary societies, particularly in South Asia, affecting access to resources and opportunities for millions. And its impact extends beyond regional borders, as evidenced by reports of caste discrimination in countries like the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia. However, scholars differ on the political relevance and interpretation of the caste cleavage. In this paper, we attempt to bridge this disjunction by redirecting attention towards varieties of caste-systems.  We delineate four essential properties of the caste cleavage—ascriptiveness, salience, hierarchy, and identifiability—each bearing significant implications for sociopolitical dynamics. Different combinations in the degree of political salience and identifiability of caste markers across contexts bring about four ideal-types of caste-systems: Robust, Latent, Nominal, and Attenuated. We hold that identifying varieties of caste-systems will facilitate deeper engagement with caste in mainstream political science and provide a more robust basis for cross-national and cross-cleavage comparative research. 

WORK IN PROGRESS

Nationalist Education in the Country of Origin and Immigrant Assimilation at the Destination

with Vicky Fouka and Karmen Misiou

What is the role of education in the country of origin for immigrants’ incorporation in their final destinations? Some scholars have argued that mass schooling with national content will produce durable identities that are hard to change. Such a mechanism can hinder educated immigrants’ assimilation into a new national group. On the other hand, state curricula impact socialization, teaching individuals how to comply with social norms and the authority of the state which may be transferable to other country contexts, promoting integration. In this project, we test these hypotheses in the context of European migration to the US in the early 20th century. We exploit the staggered introduction of mass schooling with national content across European countries and the differential timing of immigrants’ arrival to the US in order to examine how nationalist education affects various aspects of integration including citizenship acquisition, exogamy, and naming patterns for immigrant children.

When do Secessionist Movements Succeed? Peripheries, State Capacity & Great Power Politics

What explains the timing of Balkan secessionist movements from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries? This project is aimed at understanding legacies of past rule as well as the diverse initial conditions that the various Balkan states faced at the beginning of their respective nation-building projects. The Ottoman Empire provides an excellent context for testing two important arguments in the literature, namely the role of direct rule and state capacity in the emergence of secessionist movements. The importance of the introduction of direct rule from the imperial center for the development of peripheral national movements has been highlighted in the literature. However, there were secessionist rebellions in the Ottoman context before the application of direct rule. More interestingly, while some secessionist rebellions did emerge after the introduction of direct rule, these were not always of the “nationalist” variety. Then again, other scholars have argued that, although nationalism may be an important ideological doctrine, wars are not driven by ideology but by opportunity structures. Following this logic, the timing should follow the patterns of variation of Ottoman state capacity across the various territories of the Empire in Europe. However, state weakness might be endogenous to other dynamics such as international intervention by one or more states or interstate wars. Moreover, it could be the result of a looming secessionist war.  Drawing on a new dataset of interstate and intra-state wars in the Ottoman Europe, this paper examines alternative theories of secession.  In contrast to the dominant “romantic” narrative of aggrieved nations rising up against Ottoman oppression, the paper demonstrates that peripheral areas of the Empire were far more likely to experience secessionist movements due to external intervention by the Great Powers, which tried to counter-balance and undermine the territorial control of rival states, and aided local elites seeking outside intervention to secure local power. The findings of this article have significant implications for our understanding of secessionist conflict and nationalism alike.

Eliminationist Politics: A New Research Paradigm

with Meghan Garrity, journal article ms. in preparation for submission.

Repression or Accommodation? How Transnational Ties Affect Government’s’ Policies Toward Ethnic Minorities

with Niklas Karlén and Hanne Fjelde

Ethno-genesis and External Intervention

with Nicholas Sambanis

The Origins of Frozen Conflicts System Polarity, Proxy Warfare, and Great Power Support

with Niklas Karlen and Belgin San-Akca

Islam at the EU Border: Greek and Bulgarian Policies toward Muslims

with Katerina Mantouvalou

Center-Right Party Organization: Does Party Structure affect Electoral Success?

with Nasos Roussias