IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v38y2021i5p543-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaojun Li

    (Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Canada)

  • Dingding Chen

    (Department of International Relations, Jinan University, China)

Abstract

Does the public in authoritarian regimes disapprove of their leaders’ backing down from public threats and commitments? Answers to this question provide a critical micro-foundation for the emerging scholarship on authoritarian audience costs. We investigate this question by implementing a series of survey experiments in China, a single-party authoritarian state. Findings based on responses from 5375 Chinese adults show that empty threats and commitments expose the Chinese government to substantial disapproval from citizens concerned about potential damage to China’s international reputation. Additional qualitative evidence reveals that Chinese citizens are willing to express their discontent of leaders’ foreign policy blunders through various channels. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate over whether and how domestic audiences can make commitments credible in authoritarian states.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:38:y:2021:i:5:p:543-560
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894220906374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894220906374
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894220906374?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. Imai, Kosuke & Strauss, Aaron, 2011. "Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects from Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Optimal Planning of the Get-Out-the-Vote Campaign," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Robert F. Trager & Lynn Vavreck, 2011. "The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 526-545, July.
    3. Huang, Haifeng, 2015. "International Knowledge and Domestic Evaluations in a Changing Society: The Case of China," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 613-634, August.
    4. Joshua D. Kertzer & Ryan Brutger, 2016. "Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 234-249, January.
    5. Levenotoäžlu, Bahar & Tarar, Ahmer, 2005. "Prenegotiation Public Commitment in Domestic and International Bargaining," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 419-433, August.
    6. Weeks, Jessica L., 2012. "Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 326-347, May.
    7. Schultz, Kenneth A. & Weingast, Barry R., 2003. "The Democratic Advantage: Institutional Foundations of Financial Power in International Competition," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 3-42, January.
    8. Weeks, Jessica L., 2008. "Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 35-64, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Herrmann, Richard K. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Visser, Penny S., 1999. "Mass Public Decisions on Go to War: A Cognitive-Interactionist Framework," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 553-573, September.
    11. Shih, Victor & Adolph, Christopher & Liu, Mingxing, 2012. "Getting Ahead in the Communist Party: Explaining the Advancement of Central Committee Members in China," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 166-187, February.
    12. Snyder, Jack & Borghard, Erica D., 2011. "The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 437-456, August.
    13. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    14. Bell, Mark S. & Quek, Kai, 2018. "Authoritarian Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 227-242, January.
    15. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1998. "Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 829-844, December.
    16. Debs, Alexandre & Goemans, H.E., 2010. "Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 430-445, August.
    17. Weiss, Jessica Chen, 2013. "Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and Nationalist Protest in China," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 1-35, January.
    18. Chaudoin, Stephen, 2014. "Promises or Policies? An Experimental Analysis of International Agreements and Audience Reactions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 235-256, January.
    19. Gelpi, Christopher F. & Griesdorf, Michael, 2001. "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 633-647, September.
    20. Tomz, Michael R. & Weeks, Jessica L. P., 2013. "Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 849-865, November.
    21. Tomz, Michael, 2007. "Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 821-840, October.
    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. Eryan Ramadhani, 2019. "Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 30-54, April.
    2. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    3. Gregory J. Moore & Christopher B. Primiano, 2020. "Audience Costs and China’s South China Sea Policy," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(3), pages 325-348, December.
    4. Giacomo Chiozza, 2017. "Presidents on the cycle: Elections, audience costs, and coercive diplomacy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 3-26, January.
    5. Andrew H. Kydd & Roseanne W. McManus, 2017. "Threats and Assurances in Crisis Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 325-348, February.
    6. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    7. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    8. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Keren Yarhi-Milo & Joshua D. Kertzer & Jonathan Renshon, 2018. "Tying Hands, Sinking Costs, and Leader Attributes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2150-2179, November.
    10. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    11. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Michael C. Horowitz & Philip Potter & Todd S. Sechser & Allan Stam, 2018. "Sizing Up the Adversary," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2180-2204, November.
    13. Seiki Tanaka, 2016. "The microfoundations of territorial disputes: Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 516-538, November.
    14. Joshua D. Kertzer, 2017. "Microfoundations in international relations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 81-97, January.
    15. Matthew Wilson & Carla Martinez Machain, 2018. "Militarism and Dual-Conflict Capacity," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 156-172, January.
    16. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    17. David R. Andersen-Rodgers, 2015. "No table necessary? Foreign policy crisis management techniques in non-state actor-triggered crises," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(2), pages 200-221, April.
    18. Seung-Whan Choi, 2010. "Legislative Constraints: A Path to Peace?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 438-470, June.
    19. Barbara Dluhosch & Nikolai Ziegler, 2011. "The paradox of weakness in the politics of trade integration," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 325-354, December.
    20. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.

    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:compsc:v:38:y:2021:i:5:p:543-560. 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.