This is great stuff. But why is it a "surprise" that strategies involving media indoctrination and civil liberties repression are associated with autocratic survival?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The surprise stems from the finding that co-operation does not seem to matter at all once we take into account the whole spectrum of strategies. We demonstrate that using Bayesian staking models.
For example, dictators making concessions to the opposition by sharing some power through having parliaments. Or providing public goods and welfare to its citizens to “buy them off”.
According to our research those strategies do not impact regime survival once we take into account repression of civil liberties and media propaganda, which are most important to ensure the resilience of autocracies.
It'd be interesting in cooptation ever didn't grow over time (the decay you speak of) but remained fairly steady, as a sort of class buy-in. In such a scenario, I could imagine what's otherwise framed as cooptation might be a predicate for the success of indoctrination and repression.
Or subsidizing key commodities (i.e., oil in Petro states).
But, where do company stores fit? Co-opting consumer power by controlling availability and prices of goods. (Key to the oligarch's concentration of wealth)
Comments
Do you all run a robustness check that excludes Communist regimes?
Where do fees and royalties fit? example: 3% transaction fee to some entity that enriches the entitled. Or crossly marketing costs
But, where do company stores fit? Co-opting consumer power by controlling availability and prices of goods. (Key to the oligarch's concentration of wealth)