CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Populism, Right-Wing MovementsTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceGerman legal, social, and political studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dynamics of Repression and Mobilization: The German Extreme Right in The 1990s

Koopmans, Ruud·1997·Mobilization: An International Quarterly
DOI 10.17813/maiq.2.2.e6g82877674x6048
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In spite of the centrality of the relationship between repression and mobilization to our understanding of state-movement interactions, the literature has not even come close to providing conclusive answers. A variety of competing models exists, each of which can claim some theoretical plausibility and empirical support. This inconclusiveness seems to derive from the general level of analysis in many studies and from insufficient empirical acknowledgment of the interactive and dynamic nature of the repression-mobilization nexus. This paper aims to avoid these problems by presenting a detailed analysis of the interaction between the mobilization of the German extreme right and the different forms of repression that state authorities have reactively applied. Two types of repression—institutional and situational—and their impacts on two types of mobilization—violent and nonviolent—are distinguished and analyzed both cross-sectionally, by comparing the sixteen German federal states, and diachronically, through a time-series analysis for the period 1990-1994. The results consistently show that the two types of repression have very different impacts on mobilization. Whereas situational police repression as a direct reaction to mobilization events had an escalating effect, more indirect, institutional repress-sion such as bans of organizations and demonstrations or trials and court rulings against activists had a clear negative impact on the extreme right's level of mobilization. The article discusses several reasons for this relative effectiveness of institutional repression, including its greater degree of consistency and legitimacy as well as its preventive focus on mobilizing structures.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17813/maiq.2.2.e6g82877674x6048

Cites

21 of 21 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.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Koopmans, R.
Affiliations
WZB Berlin Social Science Center (DE)
Corresponding author
Koopmans, Ruud
ORCID
Koopmans, Ruud
Venue
Mobilization: An International Quarterly
Publisher
Mobilization Journal
Published
1997-09-01
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
149-164
ISSN
1086-671X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17813/maiq.2.2.e6g82877674x6048
OpenAlex
W2216706044
Cited by
183
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mobilization An International Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › German legal, social, and political studies
Keywords
repression, mobilization, institutional repression, police repression, German states, 1990s

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