Can You Hear Me Now? How Communication Technology Affects Protest and Repression.

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Quarterly Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-29 DOI:10.1561/100.00016129
Darin Christensen, Francisco Garfias
{"title":"Can You Hear Me Now? How Communication Technology Affects Protest and Repression.","authors":"Darin Christensen,&nbsp;Francisco Garfias","doi":"10.1561/100.00016129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Commentators covering recent social movements, such as the Arab Spring, commonly claim that cell phones enable protests. Yet, existing empirical work does not conclusively support this contention: some studies find that these technologies actually reduce collective action; many others struggle to overcome the selection problems that dog observational research. We propose two mechanisms through which cell phones affect protests: (1) by enabling communication among would-be protesters, cell phones lower coordination costs; and (2) these technologies broadcast information about whether a protest is repressed. Knowing that a larger audience now witnesses and may be angered by repression, governments refrain from squashing demonstrations, further lowering the cost of protesting. We evaluate these mechanisms using high-resolution global data on the expansion of cell phone coverage and incidence of protest from 2007 to 2014. Our difference-in-differences estimates indicate that cell phone coverage increases the probability of protest by over half the mean. Consistent with our second mechanism, we also find that gaining coverage has a larger effect when it connects a locality to a large proportion of other citizens.</p>","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00016129","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00016129","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Commentators covering recent social movements, such as the Arab Spring, commonly claim that cell phones enable protests. Yet, existing empirical work does not conclusively support this contention: some studies find that these technologies actually reduce collective action; many others struggle to overcome the selection problems that dog observational research. We propose two mechanisms through which cell phones affect protests: (1) by enabling communication among would-be protesters, cell phones lower coordination costs; and (2) these technologies broadcast information about whether a protest is repressed. Knowing that a larger audience now witnesses and may be angered by repression, governments refrain from squashing demonstrations, further lowering the cost of protesting. We evaluate these mechanisms using high-resolution global data on the expansion of cell phone coverage and incidence of protest from 2007 to 2014. Our difference-in-differences estimates indicate that cell phone coverage increases the probability of protest by over half the mean. Consistent with our second mechanism, we also find that gaining coverage has a larger effect when it connects a locality to a large proportion of other citizens.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
你现在能听到我吗?通讯技术如何影响抗议和镇压。
报道近期社会运动(如阿拉伯之春)的评论员通常声称,手机使抗议成为可能。然而,现有的实证工作并没有最终支持这一论点:一些研究发现,这些技术实际上减少了集体行动;还有许多人在努力克服困扰观察性研究的选择问题。我们提出了手机影响抗议的两种机制:(1)通过使潜在抗议者之间的沟通成为可能,手机降低了协调成本;(2)这些技术传播抗议是否被压制的信息。政府知道现在有更多的观众目睹并可能对镇压感到愤怒,因此避免镇压示威活动,进一步降低了抗议的成本。我们使用2007年至2014年手机覆盖范围扩大和抗议事件发生率的高分辨率全球数据来评估这些机制。我们的差异中差异估计表明,手机覆盖使抗议的可能性增加了平均值的一半以上。与我们的第二种机制一致,我们还发现,当一个地方与其他大部分公民联系起来时,获得覆盖的效果更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: In the last half-century, social scientists have engaged in a methodologically focused and substantively far-reaching mission to make the study of politics scientific. The mutually reinforcing components in this pursuit are the development of positive theories and the testing of their empirical implications. Although this paradigm has been associated with many advances in the understanding of politics, no leading journal of political science is dedicated primarily to the publication of positive political science.
期刊最新文献
The Reputation Politics of the Filibuster A Letter from the Editors-in-Chief Social Conflict and the Predatory State Overreacting and Posturing: How Accountability and Ideology Shape Executive Policies A Gap in Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1