The reported role of social media in recent popular uprisings against Arab autocrats has fueled the notion of ‘liberation technology’, namely that information and communication technology (ICT) facilitates organization of antigovernment movements in autocracies. Less optimistic observers, on the other hand, contend that ICT is a tool of repression in the hands of autocrats, imposing further restrictions on political and social liberties. We investigate whether the liberation- or the repression-technology perspective can better explain empirically observed patterns. To this end, we analyze two outcomes. First, we look at which autocracies are more likely to adopt and expand the Internet. In line with the repression technology expectation, we find that regimes aiming to prevent any independent public sphere are more likely to introduce the Internet. Second, we study the effects of the Internet on changes towards democracy. This analysis reveals no effect of the Internet on political institutions. These findings provide moderate support for the ‘repression technology’ perspective, and suggest that the Internet has not – at least in its first two decades of existence – contributed to a global shift towards democracy.
BBC (2007) Uzbekistan: Analysts say Internet obstructions make news blackout worse. 2 December. Accessed via LexisNexis.
2.
BoasTaylor C (2006) Weaving the authoritarian web: The control of Internet use in nondemocratic regimes. In: ZysmanJohnNewmanAbraham (eds) How Revolutionary Was the Digital Revolution? National Responses, Market Transitions, and Global Technology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 361–378.
3.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceMorrowJames DSiversonRandolph MSmithAlastair (2004) Testing novel implications from the selectorate theory of war. World Politics56
(3): 363–368.
4.
CorralesJavierWesthoffFrank (2006) Information technology adoption and political regimes. International Studies Quarterly50
(4): 911–933.
5.
DahlRobert AlanTufteEdward R (1973) Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
DeibertRonaldPalfreyJohnRohozinskiRafalZittrainJonathan (2008) Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
DeibertRonaldPalfreyJohnRohozinskiRafalZittrainJonathan (2010) Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
DiamondLarry (2010) Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy21
(3): 69–83.
9.
EdmondChris (2011) Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. NBER Working Paper no. 17395 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w17395).
10.
EgorovGeorgyGurievSergeiSoninKonstantin (2009) Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: A theory and evidence from panel data. American Political Science Review103
(4): 645–668.
FreundCaroline LWeinholdDiana (2004) The effect of the Internet on international trade. Journal of International Economics62
(1): 171–189.
18.
FriedrichCarl JBrzezinskiZbigniew K (1965) Totalitarian Dictatorship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
GandhiJennifer (2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GandhiJenniferPrzeworskiAdam (2007) Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies40
(11): 1279–1301.
21.
GeddesBarbara (1999) What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science2: 115–144.
22.
GeddesBarbaraWrightJosephFranzErica (2012) Autocratic regimes code book, version 1.0 (http://dictators.la.psu.edu/).
23.
GeddesBarbaraWrightJosephFranzErica (2014) Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data setPerspectives on Politics12
(2): 313–331.
24.
GeddesBarbaraZallerJohn (1989) Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science33
(2): 319–347.
25.
GleditschNils PetterWallensteenPeterErikssonMikaelSollenbergMargaretaStrandHåvard (2002) Armed conflict 1946–2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research39
(5): 615–637.
26.
GroshekJacob (2009) The democratic effects of the Internet, 1994–2003. International Communication Gazette71
(3): 115–136.
27.
HestonAlanSummersRobertAtenBettina (2012) Penn World Table Version 7.1. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania (https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt_index.php).
KalathilShanthiBoasTaylor C (2003) Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
30.
KernHolger LHainmuellerJens (2009) Opium for the masses: How foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes. Political Analysis17
(4): 377–399.
31.
KhazaeliSusanStockemerDaniel (2013) The Internet: A new route to good governance. International Political Science Review34
(5): 463–482.
32.
KingGaryPanJenniferRobertsMargaret E (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review107
(2): 1–18.
PierskallaJan HHollenbachFlorian M (2013) Technology and collective action: The effect of cell phone coverage on political violence in Africa. American Political Science Review107
(2): 207–224.
49.
ReuterOra JGandhiJennifer (2011) Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science41
(1): 83–110.
50.
RossMichael L (2001) Does oil hinder democracy?World Politics53
(3): 325–361.
StockmannDanielaGallagherMary E (2011) Remote control: How the media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comparative Political Studies44
(4): 436–467.
53.
SvolikMilan (2012) The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
TeorellJan (2010) Determinants of Democracy: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
