A Reanalysis of the Relationship between Indirect Rule, Ethnic Inclusion, and Decolonization

Did indirect rule during the colonial era cause greater ethnic inclusion in the postindependence era? This short article replicates a recent study that exploits exogenous variation in British and French colonial rule. Wucherpfennig, Hunziker, and Cederman argue that British and French colonies exper...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of politics 2020-10, Vol.82 (4), p.1612-1615
Main Author: McAlexander, Richard J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Colonies & territories
Decolonization
Empires
Ethnic conflict
Ethnic differences
Ethnic groups
Imperialism
Policy making
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Did indirect rule during the colonial era cause greater ethnic inclusion in the postindependence era? This short article replicates a recent study that exploits exogenous variation in British and French colonial rule. Wucherpfennig, Hunziker, and Cederman argue that British and French colonies experienced different levels of postindependence ethnic inclusion, and this was due to the metropolitan blueprints of direct and indirect rule. I replicate this study by using a more granular measure of indirect rule—substituting a binary indicator with a continuous variable—and show that the first-stage results do not hold and produce opposite effects. I find that ethnic groups that are farther from the coast in British colonies that were ruled more indirectly are less likely to experience ethnic inclusion than in directly ruled colonies. I suggest that differences in ethnic inclusion between the British and French empires can be attributed to policies during the process of decolonization.
ISSN:0022-3816
1468-2508
DOI:10.1086/708779