The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang On
Abstract
No monarchy fell to revolution in the Arab Spring. What accounts for this monarchical exceptionalism? Analysts have argued that royal autocracies are inherently more resilient than authoritarian republics due to their cultural foundations and institutional structure. By contrast, this paper leverages comparative analysis to offer a different explanation emphasizing deliberate regime strategies made in circumstances of geographic fortuity. The mobilization of cross-cutting coalitions, hydrocarbon wealth, and foreign patronage account for the resilience of monarchical dictatorships in the Middle East. Without these factors, kingships are just as vulnerable to overthrow as any other autocracy—something that history indicates, given the long list of deposed monarchies in the region over the past half-century.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The Gulf regimes thus closed ranks to collectively address a shared threat to stability and regime survival, as a realist reading of these events would have anticipated (Yom and Gause 2012).”
From Regionalism and Alliances in the Middle East, 2011-2021: From a “Flash in the Pan” of Regional Cooperation to Liquid Alliances (2024) · cites this paper as Yom and Gause 2012
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The intra-GCC crises: mapping GCC fragmentation after 2011
Bianco, C., & Stansfield, G. (2018) · International Affairs · doi:10.1093/ia/iiy025 · Cited by 64
Del Sarto, R. A., & Soler i Lecha, E. (2024) · Geopolitics · doi:10.1080/14650045.2023.2268542 · Cited by 28
“18 The Gulf regimes thus closed ranks to collectively address a shared threat to stability and regime survival, as a realist reading of these events would have anticipated (Yom and Gause 2012).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Yom, S. L., & Gause, F. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Democracy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 74-88
- ISSN
- 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3214
- OpenAlex
- W2044841334
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 48.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East Politics and Society
- Keywords
- Arab monarchies, regime resilience, Arab Spring, Middle East, authoritarianism
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
