IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jlqjps/100.00019038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protest Puzzles: Tullock's Paradox, Hong Kong Experiment, and the Strength of Weak States

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Shadmehr

Abstract

Tullock's (1971) Paradox of Revolution uses an Olsonian logic to conclude that revolutions should not happen in large societies. et al.'s (2019) Hong Kong Experiment shows that, in sharp contrast to the literature that models protest as a coordination problem, actions can be strategic substitutes. We develop a model to address these standing puzzles, and investigate its empirical implications. We show that when the movement's goal is modest, free-riding concerns dominate the citizens' interactions, making their actions strategic substitutes. By contrast, when the movement's goal is to topple the regime, coordination concerns dominate, and actions become strategic complements. Moreover, with natural other-regarding preferences, some citizens participate in costly revolt even in large societies. A new empirical implication of the model is that as a regime grows stronger in the sense that a larger fraction of citizens is needed to overthrow it, the likelihood of regime change may rise.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi Shadmehr, 2021. "Protest Puzzles: Tullock's Paradox, Hong Kong Experiment, and the Strength of Weak States," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 16(3), pages 245-264, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:now:jlqjps:100.00019038
    DOI: 10.1561/100.00019038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00019038
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1561/100.00019038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Johannes Hermle & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Political Activists as Free Riders: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(653), pages 2068-2084.
    2. Cantoni, Davide & Heizlsperger, Louis-Jonas & Yang, David Y. & Yuchtman, Noam & Zhang, Y. Jane, 2022. "The fundamental determinants of protest participation: Evidence from Hong Kong’s antiauthoritarian movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    3. Canen, Nathan & Chakraborty, Anujit, 2023. "Belief elicitation in political protest experiments: When the mode does not teach us about incentives to protest," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 320-331.
    4. Boris Ginzburg & José-Alberto Guerra, 2021. "Guns, pets, and strikes: an experiment on identity and political action," Documentos CEDE 19932, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    5. Jarke-Neuert, Johannes & Perino, Grischa & Schwickert, Henrike, 2021. "Free-Riding for Future: Field Experimental Evidence of Strategic Substitutability in Climate Protest," SocArXiv sh6dm, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:now:jlqjps:100.00019038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucy Wiseman (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nowpublishers.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.