What explains protest mobilization in areas of limited statehood, where the government struggles to make and enforce rules? We adapt existing theory to explain protest mobilization through a comparative perspective, beginning with the proposition that informal political elites who mediate citizens’ interactions with the government in areas of limited statehood represent a crucial but understudied source of political opportunity. We specifically argue that informal political elites who are effective intermediaries between citizens and the state moderate the relationship between grievances and protest at the individual-level. Six months of fieldwork in Liberia substantiates this claim. Leveraging an original, high-frequency household panel dataset, we demonstrate how informal political elites called “community chairpeople” moderate the otherwise positive association between public service shortages and protest. Qualitative data collected through focus groups and interviews provide further evidence of how informal political elites shape protest mobilization in settings where the state is weak.
AbadieAlbertoAtheySusanImbensGuido W.WooldridgeJeffrey M.. 2023. “When Should you Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics138 (1): 1-35.
2.
AcemogluDaronCheemaAliKhwajaAsim I.RobinsonJames A.. 2020. “Trust in State and Nonstate Actors: Evidence From Dispute Resolution in Pakistan.” Journal of Political Economy128 (8): 3090-3147.
3.
Amnesty International. 2021. “Zambia: Ruling by Fear and Repression.” Index Number: AFR 63/4057/2021.
4.
ArmstrongElizabeth A.BernsteinMary. 2008. “Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi-Institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements.” Sociological Theory26 (1): 74-99.
5.
BagozziBenjamin E.BerlinerDanielWelchRyan M.. 2021. “The Diversity of Repression: Measuring State Repressive Repertoires With Events Data.” Journal of Peace Research58 (5): 1126-1136.
6.
BalanPabloBergeronAugustinTourekGabrielWeigelJonathan L.. 2022. “Local Elites as State Capacity: How City Chiefs Use Local Information to Increase Tax Compliance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” American Economic Review112 (3): 762-797.
7.
BaldwinKate. 2013. “Why Vote with the Chief? Political Connections and Public Goods Provision in Zambia.” American Journal of Political Science57 (4): 794-809.
8.
BaldwinKate. 2015. The Paradox of Traditional Chiefs in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BaldwinKateMvukiyeheEric. 2015. “Elections and Collective Action: Evidence from Changes in Traditional Institutions in Liberia.” World Politics67 (4): 690-725.
10.
BaldwinKateRafflerPia. 2019. “Traditional Leaders, Service Delivery, and Electoral Accountability.” In Decentralized Governance and Accountability: Academic Research and the Future of Donor Programming, 61-90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BenfordRobert D.SnowDavid A.. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26 (1): 611-639.
12.
BenYishayA.RotbergR.WellsJ.LvZ.GoodmanS.KovacevicL.RunfolaD.. 2017. Geocoding Afrobarometer Rounds 1 - 6: Methodology & Data Quality. Williamsburg, VA: AidData at William & Mary.
13.
BlairRobert A.2020. Peacekeeping, Policing, and the Rule of Law after Civil War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BlairRobert A.2022. “Civil War and Citizens’ Demand for the State: An Empirical Test of Hobbesian Theory.” British Journal of Political Science52 (4): 1748-1768.
15.
BlattmanChristopher. 2009. “From Violence to Voting: War and Political Participation in Uganda.” American Political Science Review103 (2): 231-247.
16.
BodeaCristinaLeBasAdrienne. 2016. “The Origins of Voluntary Compliance: Attitudes Toward Taxation in Urban Nigeria.” British Journal of Political Science46 (1): 215-238.
17.
BörzelTanja A.RisseThomas. 2021. Effective Governance under Anarchy: Institutions, Legitimacy, and Social Trust in Areas of Limited Statehood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BörzelTanja A.RisseThomasDraudeAnke. 2018. “Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood: Conceptual Clarifications and Major Contributions of the Handbook.” In The Oxford Handbook of Governance and Limited Statehood, edited by RisseThomasBörzelTanja A.DraudeAnke, 3–25. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
BriggsRyan C.2021. “Power to Which People? Explaining How Electrification Targets Voters Across Party Rotations in Ghana.” World Development141: 105391.
20.
BruhnKathleen. 2008. Urban Protest in Mexico and Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
CammackDianaKanyongoloEdgeO’NeilTam. 2009. “‘Town Chiefs’ in Malawi.” Africa Power and Politics Programme: Working Paper No. 3.
CarterErin BaggottCarterBrett L.. 2021. “Propaganda and Protest in Autocracies.” Journal of Conflict Resolution65 (5): 919-949.
24.
CedermanLars-ErikGleditschKristian SkredeBuhaugHalvard. 2013. Inequality, Grievances, and Civil War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
CinelliCarlosHazlettChad. 2020. “Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology82 (1): 39-67.
26.
ClarkWilliam RobertsGolderMattGolderSona N.. 2017. “The British Academy Brian Barry prize essay: An Exit, Voice and Loyalty Model of Politics.” British Journal of Political Science47 (4): 719-748.
27.
De KadtDanielLarreguyHoracio A.. 2018. “Agents of the Regime? Traditional Leaders and Electoral Politics in South Africa.” The Journal of Politics80 (2): 382-399.
28.
DesposatoScott W.WangGangWuJason Y.. 2021. “The Long-Term Impact of Mobilization and Repression on Political Trust.” Comparative Political Studies54 (14): 2447-2474.
DyrstadKarinHillesundSolveig. 2020. “Explaining Support for Political Violence: Grievance and Perceived Opportunity.” Journal of Conflict Resolution64 (9): 1724-1753.
31.
EisingerPeter K.1973. “The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities.” American Political Science Review67 (1): 11-28.
32.
FatkeMatthiasFreitagMarkus. 2013. “Direct Democracy: Protest Catalyst or Protest Alternative?” Political Behavior35: 237-260.
33.
FinkelSteven E.1985. “Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political efficacy: A Panel Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science29 (4): 891-913.
34.
GoldstoneJack AndrewTillyCharles. 2001. “Threat (and Opportunity): Popular Action and State Response in the Dynamics of Contentious Action.” In Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics, edited by AminzadeRonald R.GoldstoneJack A.DougMcAdamPerryElizabeth J.Jr.SwellWilliam H.TarrowSidneyTillyCharles, 179-194. Cambridge University Press.
35.
GriffinJohn D.De JongeChad KiewietVelasco-GuachallaVania Ximena. 2021. “Deprivation in the Midst of Plenty: Citizen Polarization and Political Protest.” British Journal of Political Science51 (3): 1080-1096.
36.
GurrTed. 1970. Why Men Rebel. New York, NY: Routeledge Books.
37.
HainmuellerJensMummoloJonathanXuYiqing. 2019. “How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice.” Political Analysis27 (2): 163-192.
38.
HarrisAdam S.HernErin. 2019. “Taking to the Streets: Protest as an Expression of Political Preference in Africa.” Comparative Political Studies52 (8): 1169-1199.
39.
HelmkeGretchenLevitskySteven. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda.” Perspectives on Politics2 (4): 725-740.
40.
HendrixCullen S.HaggardStephan. 2015. “Global Food Prices, Regime Type, and Urban Unrest in the Developing World.” Journal of Peace Research52 (2): 143-157.
41.
HennSoeren J. 2022. “Complements or Substitutes? How Institutional Arrangements Bind Traditional Authorities and the State in Africa.” American Political Science Review117 (3): 871-890.
42.
HickenAllen. 2011. “Clientelism.” Annual Review of Political Science14: 289-310.
43.
HönkeJanaMüllerMarkus-Michael. 2018. “Brokerage, Intermediation, and Translation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Governance and Limited Statehood, edited by RisseThomasBörzelTanja A.DraudeAnke, 333–352. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
ImaiKosukeKimIn Song. 2019. “When Should We Use Unit Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data?” American Journal of Political Science63 (2): 467-490.
45.
JenkinsJ. Craig. 1983. “Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology9: 527-553.
46.
JenkinsJ. CraigJacobsDavidAgnoneJon. 2003. “Political Opportunities and African-American Protest, 1948–1997.” American Journal of Sociology109 (2): 277-303.
47.
JuanAlexander DeWegnerEva. 2019. “Social Inequality, State-centered Grievances, and Protest: Evidence from South Africa.” Journal of Conflict Resolution63 (1): 31-58.
48.
KarimSabrina. 2020. “Relational State Building in Areas of Limited Statehood: Experimental Evidence on the Attitudes of the Police.” American Political Science Review114 (2): 536-551.
49.
KitscheltHerbert P.1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science16 (1): 57-85.
50.
KurerThomasHäusermannSiljaWüestBrunoEnggistMatthias. 2019. “Economic Grievances and Political Protest.” European Journal of Policy Research58 (3):866-892.
51.
LebasAdrienne. 2011. From Protest to Parties: Party-Building and Democratization in Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
LoganCarolynKatendaLuyando Mutale. 2021. “African Citizens’ Message to Traditional Leaders: Stay in Development, Stay out of Politics.” Afrobarometer Dispatch No. 443.
54.
LyonGregorySchaffnerBrian F.. 2021. “Labor Unions and Non-member Political Protest Mobilization in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly74 (4): 998-1008.
55.
MagaloniBeatrizDiaz-CayerosAlbertoEulerAlexander Ruiz. 2019. “Public Good Provision and Traditional Governance in Indigenous Communities in Oaxaca, Mexico.” Comparative Political Studies52 (12): 1841-1880.
56.
McAdamDougTarrowSidneyTillyCharles. 2003. “Dynamics of Contention.” Social Movement Studies2 (1): 99-102.
57.
McAdamDoug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
McClendonGwynethRiedlRachel Beatty. 2015. “Religion as a Stimulant of Political Participation: Experimental Evidence from Nairobi, Kenya.” Journal of Politics77 (4): 1045-1057.
59.
McClendonGwynethRiedlRachel Beatty. 2021. “Using Sermons to Study Religions’ Influence on Political Behavior.” Comparative Political Studies54 (5): 779-822.
60.
MeyerDavid S.2004. “Protest and Political Opportunities.” Annual Review of Sociology30: 125-145.
61.
MeyerDavid S.MinkoffDebra C.. 2004. “Conceptualizing Political Opportunity.” Social Forces82 (41): 1457-1492.
62.
MigdalJoel S.1988. Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
MurtazashviliJennifer Brick. 2016. Informal Order and the State in Afghanistan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
NemereverZoe. 2021. “Contentious Federalism: Sheriffs, State Legislatures, and Political Violence in the American West.” Political Behavior43 (1): 247-270.
65.
PandeyPriyanka. 2010. “Service Delivery and Corruption in Public Services: How Does History Matter?” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics2 (3): 190-204.
66.
RenoWilliam. 1998. Warlord Politics and African States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
67.
RileyLiamChilangaEmmanuel. 2018. “‘Things are not Working Now’: Poverty, Food Insecurity and Perceptions of Corruption in Urban Malawi.” Journal of Contemporary African Studies36 (4): 484-498.
68.
RisseThomasStollenwerkEric. 2018. “Limited Statehood does not Equal Civil War.” Daedalus147 (1): 104-115.
69.
ShadmehrMehdi. 2014. “Mobilization, Repression, and Revolution: Grievances and Opportunities in Contentious Politics.” The Journal of Politics76 (3): 621-635.
70.
StokesSusan S.DunningThadNazarenoMarceloBruscoValeria. 2014. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
StollenwerkEric. 2018. “Measuring Governance and Limited Statehood.” In The Oxford Handbook of Governance and Limited Statehood, edited by RisseThomasBörzelTanja A.DraudeAnke, 106–127. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
SullivanHeather. 2019. “Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Protest Violence and the State.” Journal of Conflict Resolution63 (3): 700-726.
73.
TarrowSidney. 1996. “States and opportunities: The political structuring of social movements.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by McAdamDougMcCarthyJohn D.ZaldMayer N., -41-61. Cambridge University Press.
TsaiLily L.2007. “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China.” American Political Science Review101 (2): 355-372.
78.
van der WindtPeterHumphreysMacartanMedinaLilyTimmonsJeffrey F.VoorsMaarten. 2019. “Citizen Attitudes Toward Traditional and State Authorities: Substitutes or Complements?” Comparative Political Studies52 (12): 1810-1840.
79.
VinckPatrickPhamPhuongKreutzerTino. 2011. “Talking Peace: A Population-Based Survey on Attitudes About Security, Dispute Resolution, and Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Liberia.” Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley.
80.
WilliamsonVanessaTrumpKris-StellaEinsteinKatherine Levine. 2018. “Black Lives Matter: Evidence that Police-Caused Deaths Predict Protest Activity.” Perspectives on Politics16 (2): 400-415.
ZhuangMeixiWangZhengxuLiXiaoyuan. 2023. “Social Embeddedness and Protest Avoidance: Evidence from China.” Journal of Conflict Resolution67: 1704-1730.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
