Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
This study examines why peripheral regions exhibit different reactions toward their national identity. Through cross-regional comparison between post-1997 Hong Kong and Kazakhstan during the Soviet era, the research builds on previous literature on peripheral nationalism, especially Horowitz’s advanced-backward group typology and explains the identity contestation in these regions and the rationale behind the selection of enemies of certain ethnic groups. Disagreeing with Horowitz’s argument, the research uncovers why socio-economically advanced groups, who have little incentives to pursue secession given the huge potential economic loss of confrontation, often respond to state integration in a costly and economically irrational manner. Borrowing the theoretical framework from integrated threats theory and Wimmer’s boundary-based model of ethnic encountering, the study holds that identity maintenance enjoys higher priorities than economic calculations in group interactions and proposes three corresponding scenarios.