IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/globco/qt6f24q81x.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Weaponization of Information Technologies and Democratic Resilience

Author

Listed:
  • Beacham, Austin
  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie M
  • Schneider, Christina J

Abstract

The rapid spread of information and communication technologies across and within borders has been an important feature of the contemporary era, with the Internet at its core. Until recently, the widespread belief was that the Internet would be beneficial for the spread and resilience of democracy. This common wisdom has become increasingly contested, as political actors in democracies and autocracies alike have learned to use the Internet to maneuver information to enhance government popularity and suppress or delegitimate the opposition. We argue that open information access can be weaponized to reduce democratic resilience when duly elected leaders with anti-pluralist aspirations harness them to increase political polarization. We test the empirical implications of our theory with a mixed-methods approach that combines a large-N quantitative comparative analysis of democratic backsliding in 97 democracies after the Cold War with a typical case study of democratic resilience in India to trace the underlying causal mechanisms of the theory. Together, the findings indicate that with growing access to the Internet has come the increased likelihood of democratic backsliding, especially when anti-pluralist parties use it to increase polarization and executive power.

Suggested Citation

  • Beacham, Austin & Hafner-Burton, Emilie M & Schneider, Christina J, 2024. "The Weaponization of Information Technologies and Democratic Resilience," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt6f24q81x, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:globco:qt6f24q81x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6f24q81x.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2017. "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(3), pages 484-501, August.
    2. Sergei Guriev & Nikita Melnikov & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2021. "3G Internet and Confidence in Government," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2533-2613.
    3. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    4. Eszter Hargittai & Jason Gallo & Matthew Kane, 2008. "Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 67-86, January.
    5. Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary C., 2017. "Spontaneous Collective Action: Peripheral Mobilization During the Arab Spring," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(2), pages 379-403, May.
    6. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:9216-9221 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Hunt Allcott & Luca Braghieri & Sarah Eichmeyer & Matthew Gentzkow, 2020. "The Welfare Effects of Social Media," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(3), pages 629-676, March.
    8. Valentin F. Lang & Ms. Marina Mendes Tavares, 2018. "The Distribution of Gains from Globalization," IMF Working Papers 2018/054, International Monetary Fund.
    9. Fernando P. Santos & Yphtach Lelkes & Simon A. Levin, 2021. "Link recommendation algorithms and dynamics of polarization in online social networks," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(50), pages 2102141118-, December.
    10. Svolik, Milan W., 2020. "When Polarization Trumps Civic Virtue: Partisan Conflict and the Subversion of Democracy by Incumbents," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 15(1), pages 3-31, January.
    11. Levi Boxell & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2017. "Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics," NBER Working Papers 23258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    2. Gisli Gylfason, 2023. "From Tweets to the Streets: Twitter and Extremist Protests in the United States," PSE Working Papers halshs-04188189, HAL.
    3. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Gabriele Gratton & Barton E Lee, 2024. "Liberty, Security, and Accountability: The Rise and Fall of Illiberal Democracies," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 340-371.
    6. Dejean, Sylvain & Lumeau, Marianne & Peltier, Stéphanie, 2022. "Partisan selective exposure in news consumption," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Azzimonti, Marina & Fernandes, Marcos, 2023. "Social media networks, fake news, and polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. Tatsuo Tanaka, 2019. "Does the Internet cause polarization? -Panel survey in Japan-," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-015, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    9. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    10. Roberto Mosquera & Mofioluwasademi Odunowo & Trent McNamara & Xiongfei Guo & Ragan Petrie, 2020. "The economic effects of Facebook," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 575-602, June.
    11. Polanski, Arnold & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 2023. "Homophily and influence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    12. Pérez-Martínez, H. & Bauzá Mingueza, F. & Soriano-Paños, D. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Floría, L.M., 2023. "Polarized opinion states in static networks driven by limited information horizons," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    13. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Ruben Enikolopov & Maria Petrova, 2019. "Social Media and Xenophobia: Evidence from Russia," NBER Working Papers 26567, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. repec:hal:journl:hal-03533356 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ambrocio, Gene & Hasan, Iftekhar, 2022. "Belief polarization and Covid-19," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland.
    16. Shane Greenstein & Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Ideology and Composition Among an Online Crowd: Evidence from Wikipedians," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3067-3086, May.
    17. Alexandre Chirat & Cyril Hédoin, 2023. "Toward an economic theory of populism: Uncertainty, Information, and Public Interest in Downs’s Political Economy," EconomiX Working Papers 2023-16, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    18. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2020. "Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 415-438, August.
    19. Marcel Caesmann & Janis Goldzycher & Matteo Grigoletto & Lorenz Gschwent, 2024. "Censorship in democracy," ECON - Working Papers 446, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    21. Saia, Alessandro, 2018. "Random interactions in the Chamber: Legislators' behavior and political distance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 225-240.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; Internet; democracy; information; social media; backsliding; polarization;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:globco:qt6f24q81x. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/igcc/ .

    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.