‘Nationalising states’ or nation‐building? a critical review of the theoretical literature and empirical evidence

Abstract

This article critically surveys the concept of nationalising states first coined by Rogers Brubaker when referring to the policies implemented by post‐communist states. The concept of nationalising states is placed within the context of the traditional literature on nationalism, which divides Europe into a ‘civic West’ and an ‘ethnic East’. The article discusses the concept of nationalising states and questions if it is really any different to nation building which took place from the late eighteenth century onwards in the ‘civic West’. Polyethnic rights are ignored on both sides of the classic ‘West:East’ divide. All civic states are composed of both civic and ethnic factors and the proportional relationship between them depends upon how much progress there has been in democratisation. The article concludes by arguing that the concept of nationalising states has little theoretical value unless it is equated with nation building and no longer selectively applied to only former communist countries. The traditional division of Europe into a ‘civic West’ versus an ‘ethnic East’ requires revision in the light of recent developments in Central and Eastern Europe.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.