The limits of authoritarian solidarity: The<scp>G</scp>ulf monarchies and preserving authoritarian rule during the<scp>A</scp>rab<scp>S</scp>pring

Odinius, Daniel; Kuntz, Philipp

doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12085

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Strengthening the offers for online tools to citizens can be an attempt to deviate the potential for political mobilization to less ‘dangerous’ forms of social media use. Thus, the improvement of e‐participatory instruments fits the policy pattern which tried to project the image of benign and accessible monarchic rule in contrast to the vicious and deplorable human rights record of the republican autocratic regimes under contestation (Odinius and Kuntz, ).…”

Section: Motives Of Adoption Strategies Of Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Diffusion of e‐government and e‐participation in Democracies and Autocracies

Harnisch

2016

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet based technology constitutes one of the most important policy innovations in the last decades. Its diffusion has been rapid, widespread and sustained. The increase has raised questions about its drivers. The article focuses on an aspect of this dynamic that has been neglected so far: the variance between and among democracies and autocracies and their respective subtypes. Moreover, the majority of studies tackles the diffusion of e‐government techniques, excluding the important array of e‐participation. Our analysis thus offers a broader and more differentiated account of the adoption of online tools by governments. The findings indicate that the adoption of e‐government and e‐participation techniques varies substantially between and among democratic and autocratic regime types as well as over time and in kind.

show abstract

Section: Motives Of Adoption Strategies Of Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Diffusion of e‐government and e‐participation in Democracies and Autocracies

Harnisch

2016

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are also relevant to literature on the role of ideas, identity, and ideology in the constitution of regional order. Examples include work on coalitions and regional security (Buzan and Waever 2003;Solingen 1998Solingen , 2015, neoclassical realism (Juneau 2015), role theory (Cantir and Kaarbo 2012;Fernandez-Molina 2015), the role of ideology in alliances and conflict (Haas 2012;Owen 2010Owen , 2015Rubin 2014), the foreign policy of authoritarian states (Colgan and Weeks 2015;Kanat 2014;Odinius and Kuntz 2015;Weeks 2012), and constructivist approaches to foreign policy and regional order (Barnett 1998;Telhami and Barnett 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Codependency and Regional Order: Iran, Syria, and the Axis of Refusal

Stein

2017

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For a related discussion of the driving factors behind black knights interventions, see Odinius and Kuntz ( in this forum section).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Black knights and elections in authoritarian regimes: Why and how Russia supports authoritarian incumbents in post‐Soviet states

Tolstrup

2014

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, studies have documented how autocrats use elections as a way of legitimising and stabilising their regimes. Simultaneously, a literature on negative external actors (also known as ‘black knights’) has developed, emphasising how various international actors use anti‐democracy promotion strategies to undergird authoritarian regimes. In this article, these two literatures are fused in an attempt to shed light on the external dimension of authoritarian elections and what is termed ‘black knight election bolstering’. First, five mechanisms are elucidated, through which external assistance increases the chances of ‘winning’ elections in authoritarian settings (signaling invincibility, deterring elite defection, undermining opposition activities, dealing with popular protests, and countervailing pressure from foreign democracy promoters). Second, it is argued that external actors are most likely to offer election bolstering when they face a particularly acquiescent partner or when electoral defeat is perceived to lead to radical and undesired regime change. The relevance of both factors is augmented when uncertainty of the electoral outcome is high. Finally, four cases of Russian intervention during elections in three authoritarian neighbour countries (Ukraine in 2004, Belarus in 2006, and Moldova in 2005 and 2009) are analysed. The case studies corroborate the theoretical arguments: not only does Russia engage in all five types of black knight election bolstering, but it does so only when one or more of the three explanatory factors are present.

show abstract

The limits of authoritarian solidarity: TheGulf monarchies and preserving authoritarian rule during theArabSpring

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Diffusion of e‐government and e‐participation in Democracies and Autocracies

Diffusion of e‐government and e‐participation in Democracies and Autocracies

Ideological Codependency and Regional Order: Iran, Syria, and the Axis of Refusal

Black knights and elections in authoritarian regimes: Why and how Russia supports authoritarian incumbents in post‐Soviet states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About