This article examines the conditional effect that repression has on non-violent vs. violent mass mobilization. While governments often resort to violence to deter future mobilization, studies of the repression–dissent nexus have produced divergent evidence with regard to the effect of repression. Many argue that repression tends to backfire, while others demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing mobilization. I argue that the effect of repression varies by differing opposition tactics. I test two competing propositions regarding the effect of repression using event data from the Non-violent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes dataset (NAVCO 3.0) from 1990 to 2012. The results show that repression, specifically physical repression, of non-violent opposition reduces participation size. Non-physical repression, on the other hand, has less of a deterrence effect on non-violent dissident mobilization.
AlmeidaPD (2003) Opportunity organizations and threat-induced contention: Protest waves in authoritarian settings. American Journal of Sociology109 (2) : 345–400.
2.
AlmeidaPD (2008) Waves of Protest: Popular Struggle in El Salvador, 1925–2005. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
AytacESSchiumeriniLStokesS (2017) Why do people join backlash protests? Lessons from Turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution43(3): 291–316.
5.
BelgioiosoMGleditschKSVidovicD (2018) A tale of two governments? Government responses and perceived influence in the 2014 protests in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Global Security Studies3(3): 285–301.
6.
BellSRMurdieA (2016) The apparatus for violence: Repression, violent protest, and civil war in a cross-national framework. Conflict Management and Peace Science35(4): 336–354.
CaiBSmallDSTen HaveTR (2011) Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: Analysis of bias. Statistics in Medicine30(15): 1809–1824.
9.
CareySC (2006) The dynamic relationship between protest and repression. Political Research Quarterly59(1): 1–11.
10.
ChenowethE (2020) The future of nonviolent resistance. Journal of Democracy31(3): 69–84.
11.
ChenowethELewisOA (2013) Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes (NAVCO) Data Project, Version 2.0 Codebook. Available from: http://www.navcodata.org/.
12.
ChenowethESchockK (2015) Do contemporaneous armed challenges affect the outcomes of mass nonviolent campaigns?Mobilization: An International Quarterly20(4): 427–451.
13.
ChenowethEStephanM (2011) Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
ChenowethEPerkoskiEKangS (2017a) State repression and nonviolent resistance. Journal of Conflict Resolution61(9): 1950–1969.
15.
ChenowethEPinckneyJLewisOA (2017b) Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes Dataset, v. 3.0. University of Denver.
16.
ChenowethEPinckneyJLewisOA (2018) Days of rage: Introducing the NAVCO 3.0 dataset. Journal of Peace Research55(4): 524–534.
17.
CondraLNShapiroJN (2012) Who takes the blame? The strategic effects of collateral damage. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 167–187.
18.
CoppedgeMGerringJLindbergSISkaaningSETeorellJAltmanDStatonJ (2017) V-Dem Codebook v7.1 Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
19.
CunninghamKG (2016) The efficacy of non-violence in self-determination disputes. Working paper.
20.
DannemanNRitterEH (2014) Contagious rebellion and preemptive repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution58(2): 254–279.
21.
DavenportC (1995) Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science39: 683–713.
22.
DavenportC (2007a) State repression and tyrannical peace. Journal of Peace Research44(4): 485–504.
23.
DavenportC (2007b) State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press
24.
DavenportC (2007c) State repression and the political order. Annual Review of Political Science10: 1–23.
25.
DavenportC (2014) How Social Movements Die: Repression and Demobilization of the Republic of New Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
DavenportCArmstrongDAII (2004) Democracy and the violation of human rights: A statistical analysis from 1976 to 1996. American Journal of Political Science48(3): 538–554.
27.
DeNardoJ (1985) Power in Numbers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
DeNardoJ (2014) Power in Numbers: The Political Strategy of Protest and Rebellion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
29.
EarlJ (2011) Political repression: Iron fists, velvet gloves, and diffuse control. Annual Review of Sociology37: 261–284.
30.
EdwardsPArnonD (2019) Violence on many sides: Framing effects on protest and support for repression. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000413.
31.
FranciscoRA (1995) The relationship between coercion and protest: An empirical evaluation of three coercive states. Journal of Conflict Resolution39(2): 263–282.
32.
FranciscoRA (1996) Coercion and protest: An empirical test in two democratic states. American Journal of Political Science40(4): 1179–1204.
33.
FranciscoRA (2004) After the massacre: Mobilization in the wake of harsh repression. Mobilization9(2): 107–126.
34.
FranklinJC (2015) Persistent challengers: Repression, concessions, challenger strength, and commitment in Latin America. Mobilization: An International Quarterly20(1): 61–80.
35.
HessDMartinB (2006) Repression, backfire, and the theory of transformative events. Mobilization: An International Journal11(2): 249–267.
36.
HibbsDAJr (1973) Mass Political Violence: A Cross-national Causal Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
37.
InclánMde laL (2009) Repressive threats, procedural concessions, and the Zapatista cycle of protests, 1994–2003. Journal of Conflict Resolution53(5): 794–819.
38.
LawrenceAK (2016) Repression and activism among the Arab Spring’s first movers: Evidence from Morocco’s February 20th Movement. British Journal of Political Science47: 699–718.
39.
LeeCMalineSMooreWH (2000) Coercion and protest: An empirical test revisited. In: DavenportCA (ed.), Paths to State Repression: Human Rights and Contentious Politics in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
40.
LichbachMI (1987) Deterrence or escalation? The puzzle of aggregate studies of repression and dissent. Journal of Conflict Resolution31(2): 266–97.
41.
LichbachMIGurrTR (1981) The conflict process: A formal model. Journal of Conflict Resolution25(1): 3–29.
42.
LupuYWallaceGPR (2019) Violence, nonviolence, and the effects of international human rights law. American Journal of Political Science63(2): 411–426.
43.
LyallJ (2009) Does indiscriminate violence incite insurgent attacks? Evidence from Chechnya. Journal of Conflict Resolution53(3): 331–362.
44.
MartinB (2007) Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
45.
MasonTDKraneDA (1989) The political economy of death squads: Toward a theory of the impact of state-sanctioned terror. International Studies Quarterly33(2): 175–198.
46.
MazumderS (2018) The persistent effect of U.S. civil rights protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science62(4): 922–935.
47.
McAdamDSuY (2002) The war at home: Antiwar protests and congressional voting, 1965–1973. American Sociological Review67(5): 696–721.
48.
MooreWH (1998) Repression and dissent: Substitution, context, and timing. American Journal of Political Science42(3): 851–873.
49.
MullerEN (1985) Income inequality, regime repressiveness, and political violence. American Sociological Review50(1): 47–61.
50.
MullerENOppKD (1986) Rational choice and rebellious collective action. American Political Science Review80(2): 471–487.
51.
MullerENSeligsonMA (1987) Inequality and insurgency. American Political Science Review81(2): 425–452.
52.
MullerENWeedeE (1990) Cross-national variation in political violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution34(4): 624–651
53.
NepstadSE (2011) Nonviolent resistance in the Arab Spring: The critical role of military–opposition alliances. Swiss Political Science Review17(4): 485–491.
54.
OppK-DRoehlW (1990) Repression, micromobilization, and political protest. Social Forces69(2): 521–547.
55.
PanJSiegelAA (2020) How Saudi crackdowns fail to silence online dissent. American Political Science Review114(1): 109–125.
56.
PierskallaJH (2010) Protest, deterrence, and escalation: The strategic calculus of government repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution54(1): 117–145.
57.
PopovicSMillerM (2015) Blueprint for Revolution. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
58.
RaslerK (1996) Concessions, repression, and political protest in the Iranian Revolution. American Sociological Review61(1): 132–152.
59.
ReganPMHendersonEA (2002) Developing countries: Are democracies internally less violent?Third World Quarterly23(1): 119–136.
60.
RitterEH (2014) Policy disputes, political survival, and the onset and severity of state repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution58(1): 143–168.
61.
RitterEHConradCR (2016) Preventing and responding to dissent: The observational challenges of explaining strategic repression. American Political Science Review111(1): 85–99.
62.
RozenasA (2020) A theory of demographically targeted repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3180747
63.
RyckmanKC (2020) A turn to violence: The escalation of nonviolent movements. Journal of Conflict Resolution64(2–3): 318–343.
64.
SchockK (2005) Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements In Nondemocracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
65.
ShadmehrM (2014) Mobilization, repression, and revolution: Grievances and opportunities in contentious politics. Journal of Politics76(3): 621–635.
66.
SharpG (1973) The Politics of Nonviolent Action. P. Sargent.
67.
SiegelDA (2011) When does repression work? Collective action in social networks. Journal of Politics73(4): 993–1010.
68.
SullivanCMDavenportC (2017) The rebel alliance strikes back: Understanding the politics of backlash mobilization. Mobilization: An International Quarterly22(1): 39–56.
69.
SullivanCMLoyleCEDavenportC (2012) The coercive weight of the past: Temporal dependence and the conflict–repression nexus in the Northern Ireland troubles. International Interactions38(4): 426–442.
70.
SuttonJButcherCRSvenssonI (2014) Explaining political jiu-jitsu: Institution-building and the outcomes of regime violence against unarmed protests. Journal of Peace Research51(5): 559–573.
71.
TarrowS (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. New York: Cornell University.
72.
TerzaJVBasuARathouzPJ (2008) Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: Addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics27(3): 531–543.
73.
TillyC (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
74.
TillyC (1986) The Contentious French. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
75.
VenablesWNRipleyBD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics S. New York: Springer, pp. 271–300.
76.
WasonO (2020) Agenda seeding: How 1960s black protests moved elites, public opinion and voting. American Political Science Review, in press.
77.
ZhukovYM (2017) Repression “works”, just not in moderation. Working paper.
78.
ZhukovYMDavenportCKostyukN (2019) Introducing xSub: A new portal for cross-national data on subnational violence. Journal of Peace Research56(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319836697.
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.
