Repression and Dissent: Substitution, Context, and Timing

TLDR

Prior theories propose that repression causes dissidents to substitute violent for nonviolent protest, that its effects differ between democracies and authoritarian regimes, and that timing influences whether repression suppresses or stimulates protest. The study tests two expected‑utility theories and a psychological/resource mobilization theory on how repression affects dissent. Sequential event‑data tests were employed to evaluate the hypotheses. Evidence supports Lichbach’s substitution theory, but not the contextual or timing theories of Gupta et al.

Abstract

Theory: Two expected utility theories and one psychological/resource mobilization theory of the impact of repression on dissent are tested in this study. Hypotheses: 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.