CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 266Political Conflict and GovernanceMemory, violence, and historyInternational Relations and Foreign Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A dictator’s toolkit

Frantz, Erica, Kendall-Taylor, Andrea·2014·Journal of Peace Research
DOI 10.1177/0022343313519808
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A dictator’s motivation for using repression is fairly clear, but why some repress more than others or favor particular types of repressive strategies is less obvious. Using statistical analysis, this article demonstrates that a dictator’s reliance on co-optation fundamentally alters how repression is used. Specifically, it finds that co-optation through the use of political parties and a legislature creates incentives that lead dictators to decrease empowerment rights restrictions, like censorship, while increasing physical integrity rights violations, like torture and political imprisonment. This occurs because, by creating parties and a legislature, a dictator draws his potential opposition out of the general public and into state institutions, making it easier to identify who these opponents are, to monitor their activities, and to gauge the extent of their popular support. This reduces the need to impose broad types of repressive measures, like empowerment rights restrictions, that breed discontent within the overall population. At the same time, co-optation creates the risk that rivals, once co-opted, will use their positions within the system to build their own bases of support from which to seek the dictator’s overthrow, generating incentives for dictators to increase physical integrity violations to limit the threat posed by these individuals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343313519808

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Banks, 2012, Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive
  2. Carey, 2006, The dynamic relationship between protest and repression, Political, 59, 1
  3. Cingranelli, 2010, The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset
  4. Gibney, 2008, Political Terror Scale 1976–2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 266

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Frantz, E., & Kendall-Taylor, A.
Affiliations
  • Bridgewater State University (US)
  • Government of the United States of America (US)
Corresponding author
Kendall-Taylor, Andrea
ORCID
Frantz, Erica
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-03-20
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
332-346
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
DOI
10.1177/0022343313519808
OpenAlex
W2070733498
Cited by
266
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
35.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of international women's studies (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Memory, violence, and history
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
Keywords
dictatorship, repression, co-optation, political parties, legislatures, censorship, torture, political imprisonment, physical integrity rights

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