Cited by 290Political Conflict and GovernanceSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Empowering activists or autocrats? The Internet in authoritarian regimes

Open access
Rød, Espen Geelmuyden, Weidmann, Nils B·2015·Journal of Peace Research

Abstract

The reported role of social media in recent popular uprisings against Arab autocrats has fueled the notion of ‘liberation technology’, namely that information and communication technology (ICT) facilitates organization of antigovernment movements in autocracies. Less optimistic observers, on the other hand, contend that ICT is a tool of repression in the hands of autocrats, imposing further restrictions on political and social liberties. We investigate whether the liberation- or the repression-technology perspective can better explain empirically observed patterns. To this end, we analyze two outcomes. First, we look at which autocracies are more likely to adopt and expand the Internet. In line with the repression technology expectation, we find that regimes aiming to prevent any independent public sphere are more likely to introduce the Internet. Second, we study the effects of the Internet on changes towards democracy. This analysis reveals no effect of the Internet on political institutions. These findings provide moderate support for the ‘repression technology’ perspective, and suggest that the Internet has not – at least in its first two decades of existence – contributed to a global shift towards democracy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343314555782

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Empirical research provides tentative support for cyber-pessimists who claim that the internet plays into the hands of autocrats.

    “While some theoretical work suggests that the internet may impede non-democratic rule (Edmond, 2013), empirical research provides tentative support for cyber-pessimists who claim that the internet plays into the hands of autocrats (Rød & Weidmann, 2015).”

    From How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay (2020) · cites this paper as Rød & Weidmann, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rød, E. G., & Weidmann, N. B.
Affiliations
University of Konstanz (DE)
Corresponding author
Rød, Espen Geelmuyden
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Published
2015-02-13
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
338-351
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
OpenAlex
W2170302519
Cited by
290
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
64.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • University of Essex
  • Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
internet adoption, authoritarian regimes, social media, political uprisings, Arab Spring, democratization, political institutions, information and communication technologies, political repression, public sphere

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