1985) and the factors that lead ethnic minorities to mobilize for rights and rebel against
the state (e.g., Koopman et al. 2005; Gurr 2000a, 2000b, 1993). In short, many studies
begin with migration; few end with it. Migrant minority groups engage in more than
“quiescence and rebellion” (Gaventa 1980) or “loyalty” and “voice” (Hirschman 1970).
They have a third potential option: emigration (Coleman 1990). Outside of population
transfers and ethnically targeted refugee movements where migrants’ choices are severely
constrained, authors have yet to engage the unintended – though perhaps not unforeseen –
consequences that nation-building projects might have for migration. Left unexplored and
under-theorized are the places where emigration is not forced, where ethnic politics
matter, and where the minority groups in question “vote with their feet” (except see
Radnitz 2006).
In a first attempt to fill the gap, this article examines how comparative policies
towards ethnic minorities promote ethnic minority emigration. Studying the ways that
state policies affect ethnic emigration does more than bring the state back in to the study
of population movement; it narrates minority groups’ responses to the nation-building
efforts of new states. These questions have much to teach researchers about passive
ethnic cleansing, what Rogers Brubaker (1998) has called the un-mixing of peoples. This
line of research also relates to broader understandings of relative deprivation. For
instance, though scholars have studied how inter-group differentials and policies compare
in their influence on minority protest and rebellion, little is known about their influence
on ethnic emigration. Finally, the specific analyses undertaken in this article speak to
students of post-colonial politics by examining what happens to settler groups when the
colonial metropole recedes, a question that has hardly been examined in recent decades.
2
Convention