Repression and dissent: Substitution, context, and timing

Will H. Moore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

234 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Theory: Two expected utility theories and one psychological/resource mobilization theory of the impact of repression on dissent are tested in this study. Hypothesis: Lichbach (1987) hypothesizes that dissidents will substitute violent protest for nonviolent protest behavior (and vice versa) when confronted with repression. Gupta, Singh, and Sprague (1993) put forth a contextual argument: repression spurs violence in democracies, but high levels of repression are effective in authoritarian regimes. Rasler (1996) contends that timing matters: repression is effective in the short run, but spurs protest in the long run. Methods: Sequential tests of events data are used to test the hypotheses. Results: Lichbach's theory is supported by the evidence, but neither Gupta, Singh, and Sprague's nor Rasler's theories receives support.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)851-873
Number of pages23
JournalAmerican Journal of Political Science
Volume42
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

repression
substitution
protest
protest behavior
utility theory
dissident
mobilization
regime
violence
democracy
event
resources
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Repression and dissent : Substitution, context, and timing. / Moore, Will H.

In: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 3, 07.1998, p. 851-873.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{867029dd8e574fa0a98e357dffd695ff,
title = "Repression and dissent: Substitution, context, and timing",
abstract = "Theory: Two expected utility theories and one psychological/resource mobilization theory of the impact of repression on dissent are tested in this study. Hypothesis: Lichbach (1987) hypothesizes that dissidents will substitute violent protest for nonviolent protest behavior (and vice versa) when confronted with repression. Gupta, Singh, and Sprague (1993) put forth a contextual argument: repression spurs violence in democracies, but high levels of repression are effective in authoritarian regimes. Rasler (1996) contends that timing matters: repression is effective in the short run, but spurs protest in the long run. Methods: Sequential tests of events data are used to test the hypotheses. Results: Lichbach's theory is supported by the evidence, but neither Gupta, Singh, and Sprague's nor Rasler's theories receives support.",
author = "Moore, {Will H.}",
year = "1998",
month = "7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "851--873",
journal = "American Journal of Political Science",
issn = "0092-5853",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repression and dissent

T2 - Substitution, context, and timing

AU - Moore, Will H.

PY - 1998/7

Y1 - 1998/7

N2 - Theory: Two expected utility theories and one psychological/resource mobilization theory of the impact of repression on dissent are tested in this study. Hypothesis: Lichbach (1987) hypothesizes that dissidents will substitute violent protest for nonviolent protest behavior (and vice versa) when confronted with repression. Gupta, Singh, and Sprague (1993) put forth a contextual argument: repression spurs violence in democracies, but high levels of repression are effective in authoritarian regimes. Rasler (1996) contends that timing matters: repression is effective in the short run, but spurs protest in the long run. Methods: Sequential tests of events data are used to test the hypotheses. Results: Lichbach's theory is supported by the evidence, but neither Gupta, Singh, and Sprague's nor Rasler's theories receives support.

AB - Theory: Two expected utility theories and one psychological/resource mobilization theory of the impact of repression on dissent are tested in this study. Hypothesis: Lichbach (1987) hypothesizes that dissidents will substitute violent protest for nonviolent protest behavior (and vice versa) when confronted with repression. Gupta, Singh, and Sprague (1993) put forth a contextual argument: repression spurs violence in democracies, but high levels of repression are effective in authoritarian regimes. Rasler (1996) contends that timing matters: repression is effective in the short run, but spurs protest in the long run. Methods: Sequential tests of events data are used to test the hypotheses. Results: Lichbach's theory is supported by the evidence, but neither Gupta, Singh, and Sprague's nor Rasler's theories receives support.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032220691&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032220691&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0032220691

VL - 42

SP - 851

EP - 873

JO - American Journal of Political Science

JF - American Journal of Political Science

SN - 0092-5853

IS - 3

ER -