Focal Moments and Protests in Autocracies: How Pro-democracy Anniversaries Shape Dissent in China
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
We should expect dissidents in regimes with stronger security apparatuses to follow public coordination to a greater extent or innovate other forms of collective action altogether.
“We should expect dissidents in regimes with stronger security apparatuses to follow public coordination to a greater extent (Carter and Carter 2020; Chau, Hassan, and Little 2022) or innovate other forms of collective action altogether (Fu 2017; 2018).”
From Coordinated Dis-Coordination (2024) · cites this paper as Carter and Carter 2020
Dissidents organizing against a strong regime will likely find that the resulting friction from dis-coordination is not worth the gains because the regime can quickly adapt to dissidents' innovations.
“Returning to this paper's second scope condition, dissidents organizing against a strong regime will likely find that the resulting friction from dis-coordination is not worth the gains because the regime can quickly adapt to dissidents' innovations (Carter and Carter 2020; Chau, Hassan, and Little 2022).”
From Coordinated Dis-Coordination (2024) · cites this paper as Carter and Carter 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Carter, E. B., & Carter, B. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carter, Erin Baggott
- Venue
- Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-06-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1796-1827
- ISSN
- 0022-0027 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8766
- OpenAlex
- W3033132729
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Conflict Resolution (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics
- Keywords
- focal points, authoritarian regimes, tacit coordination, collective action, protest repression, Chinese politics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review