Gainous, Jason Wagner, Kevin M. and Ziegler, Charles E. 2018. Digital media and political opposition in authoritarian systems: Russia’s 2011 and 2016 Duma elections. Democratization, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 209.
Dukalskis, Alexander and Raymond, Christopher D. 2018. Failure of authoritarian learning: explaining Burma/Myanmar’s electoral system. Democratization, Vol. 25, Issue. 3, p. 545.
Steinhardt, H. Christoph 2017. Discursive accommodation: popular protest and strategic elite communication in China. European Political Science Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 04, p. 539.
Gill, Timothy M. 2017. Unpacking the world cultural toolkit in socialist Venezuela: national sovereignty, human rights and anti-NGO legislation. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 621.
Weyland, Kurt 2017. Autocratic diffusion and cooperation: the impact of interests vs. ideology. Democratization, Vol. 24, Issue. 7, p. 1235.
Huang, Vincent Guangsheng 2017. ‘Transborder conversation’ and oppositional codes: Mediatised diffusion of social movement discourse between Hong Kong and China. Discourse & Society, Vol. 28, Issue. 5, p. 473.
Hall, Stephen G. F. and Ambrosio, Thomas 2017. Authoritarian learning: a conceptual overview. East European Politics, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 143.
Ingram, Matthew C. and Marchesini da Costa, Marcelo 2017. A Spatial Analysis of Homicide Across Brazil’s Municipalities. Homicide Studies, Vol. 21, Issue. 2, p. 87.
Huang, Vincent Guangsheng 2017. ‘Transborder conversation’ and oppositional codes: Mediatised diffusion of social movement discourse between Hong Kong and China. Discourse & Society, p. 095792651771097.
Tansey, Oisín Koehler, Kevin and Schmotz, Alexander 2017. Ties to the Rest: Autocratic Linkages and Regime Survival. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 50, Issue. 9, p. 1221.
Bank, André 2017. The study of authoritarian diffusion and cooperation: comparative lessons on interests versus ideology, nowadays and in history. Democratization, Vol. 24, Issue. 7, p. 1345.
von Soest, Christian and Grauvogel, Julia 2017. Identity, procedures and performance: how authoritarian regimes legitimize their rule. Contemporary Politics, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 287.
Harbers, Imke and Ingram, Matthew C. 2017. Geo-Nested Analysis: Mixed-Methods Research with Spatially Dependent Data. Political Analysis, Vol. 25, Issue. 03, p. 289.
He, Yinan 2017. Domestic troubles, national identity discourse, and China's attitude towards the West, 2003-2012. Nations and Nationalism,
Aytaç, S. Erdem Schiumerini, Luis and Stokes, Susan 2017. Protests and Repression in New Democracies. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 15, Issue. 01, p. 62.
Ambrosio, Thomas 2017. The fall of Yanukovych: structural and political constraints to implementing authoritarian learning. East European Politics, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 184.
Tosun, Jale and Croissant, Aurel 2016. Policy Diffusion: A Regime-sensitive Conceptual Framework. Global Policy, Vol. 7, Issue. 4, p. 534.
WEYLAND, KURT 2016. Crafting Counterrevolution: How Reactionaries Learned to Combat Change in 1848. American Political Science Review, Vol. 110, Issue. 02, p. 215.
Houle, Christian Kayser, Mark A. and Xiang, Jun 2016. Diffusion or Confusion? Clustered Shocks and the Conditional Diffusion of Democracy. International Organization, Vol. 70, Issue. 04, p. 687.
Do authoritarian leaders take preemptive actions to deter their citizens from joining cross-national waves of popular mobilizations against authoritarian rulers? Are they more likely to engage in such behavior when these uprisings appear to be more threatening—in particular, when they take place in neighboring countries and in regimes that resemble their own? We provide answers to these questions by comparing the responses of the Russian and Chinese leadership to two such waves: the color revolutions and the Arab uprisings. We conclude that, despite differences in the ostensible threats posed by these two waves, they nonetheless prompted the leaders of both of these countries to introduce similar preemptive measures in order to “diffusion-proof” their rule from the color revolutions and the Arab upheavals. These findings have some important implications for our understanding of authoritarian politics and diffusion processes. One is to reinforce the emphasis in many recent studies on the strategic foundations of authoritarian resilience. That recognized, however, we would add that the authoritarian toolkit needs to be expanded to include policies that preempt international, as well as domestic threats. The other is to provide further confirmation, in this case derived from the behavior of authoritarian rulers, of how scholars have understood the drivers of cross-national diffusion. At the same time, however, we counsel students of diffusion to pay more attention to the role of resisters, as well as to adopters. In this sense, the geographical reach of diffusion is much broader than many analysts have recognized.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.