IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v64y2020i10p1796-1827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focal Moments and Protests in Autocracies: How Pro-democracy Anniversaries Shape Dissent in China

Author

Listed:
  • Erin Baggott Carter
  • Brett L. Carter

Abstract

Social scientists have long observed that focal points enable citizens to coordinate collective action. For antiregime protests in autocracies, however, focal points also enable repressive governments to prepare in advance. We propose a theory to explain when citizens are likely to employ focal points to organize antiregime protests. Our key insight is that tacit coordination is most critical when explicit coordination is costly. Empirically, we use our theory to identify a setting where focal points are likely to be salient and then argue that the anniversaries of failed pro-democracy movements satisfy conditions for focality. In China, we find that the anniversaries of failed pro-democracy movements occasion nearly 30 percent more protests than any other day. Protests during pro-democracy anniversaries are more likely to employ “rights-conscious†discourse, which scholars have argued is code for democratic resistance, and to be repressed by the government. We find no similar trends for other holidays.

Suggested Citation

  • Erin Baggott Carter & Brett L. Carter, 2020. "Focal Moments and Protests in Autocracies: How Pro-democracy Anniversaries Shape Dissent in China," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(10), pages 1796-1827, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:64:y:2020:i:10:p:1796-1827
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002720932995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002720932995
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002720932995?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2017. "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(3), pages 484-501, August.
    2. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. & Hyde, Susan D. & Jablonski, Ryan S., 2014. "When Do Governments Resort to Election Violence?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 149-179, January.
    3. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2013. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 326-343, May.
    4. Javeline, Debra, 2003. "The Role of Blame in Collective Action: Evidence from Russia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(1), pages 107-121, February.
    5. Egorov, Georgy & Guriev, Sergei & Sonin, Konstantin, 2009. "Why Resource-poor Dictators Allow Freer Media: A Theory and Evidence from Panel Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 645-668, November.
    6. Rosenfeld, Bryn, 2017. "Reevaluating the Middle-Class Protest Paradigm: A Case-Control Study of Democratic Protest Coalitions in Russia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(4), pages 637-652, November.
    7. Chen, Jie, 2013. "A Middle Class Without Democracy: Economic Growth and the Prospects for Democratization in China," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199841639.
    8. Bei Qin & David Strömberg & Yanhui Wu, 2017. "Why Does China Allow Freer Social Media? Protests versus Surveillance and Propaganda," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 117-140, Winter.
    9. Elsa Voytas & Laia Balcells & Valeria Palanza, 2018. "Do Museums Promote Reconciliation? A Field Experiment on Transitional Justice," Empirical Studies of Conflict Project (ESOC) Working Papers 10, Empirical Studies of Conflict Project.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erin Baggott Carter & Brett L. Carter, 2021. "Propaganda and Protest in Autocracies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(5), pages 919-949, May.
    2. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2020. "Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 415-438, August.
    3. Boxell, Levi & Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary, 2022. "Taxing dissent: The impact of a social media tax in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Greg Chih-Hsin Sheen & Hans H. Tung & Wen-Chin Wu, 2024. "Tell me the truth? Dictatorship and the commitment to media freedom," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(1), pages 37-63, January.
    5. Sonin, Konstantin & Egorov, Georgy, 2019. "Persuasion on Networks," CEPR Discussion Papers 13723, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Levi Boxell & Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld, 2019. "Taxing dissent: The impact of a social media tax in Uganda," Papers 1909.04107, arXiv.org.
    7. Jun Liu & Jingyi Zhao, 2021. "More than plain text: Censorship deletion in the Chinese social media," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(1), pages 18-31, January.
    8. Maiting Zhuang, 2022. "Intergovernmental Conflict and Censorship: Evidence from China’s Anti-Corruption Campaign," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(6), pages 2540-2585.
    9. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2019. "Informational Autocrats," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 100-127, Fall.
    10. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    11. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    12. Emilie Frenkiel & Anna Shpakovskaya, 2019. "The Evolution of Representative Claim-Making by the Chinese Communist Party: From Mao to Xi (1949–2019)," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 208-219.
    13. Iacus Stefano M. & Salini Silvia & Siletti Elena & Porro Giuseppe, 2020. "Controlling for Selection Bias in Social Media Indicators through Official Statistics: a Proposal," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(2), pages 315-338, June.
    14. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2015. "How Modern Dictators Survive: An Informational Theory of the New Authoritarianism," NBER Working Papers 21136, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Ruben Enikolopov & Alexey Makarin & Maria Petrova, 2020. "Social Media and Protest Participation: Evidence From Russia," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1479-1514, July.
    16. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2015. "How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03473701, HAL.
    17. Sonin, Konstantin & Egorov, Georgy, 2020. "The Political Economics of Non-democracy," CEPR Discussion Papers 15344, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Raphael Boleslavsky & Mehdi Shadmehr & Konstantin Sonin, 2021. "Media Freedom in the Shadow of a Coup," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1782-1815.
    19. Willemien Kets & Alvaro Sandroni, 2021. "A Theory of Strategic Uncertainty and Cultural Diversity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 287-333.
    20. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2108, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:64:y:2020:i:10:p:1796-1827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.