Digital Revolution or Digital Dominance? Regime Type, Internet Control, and Political Activism in East Asia

IF 0.1 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Korean Journal of International Studies Pub Date : 2017-08-31 DOI:10.14731/KJIS.2017.08.15.2.219
Min-hua Huang, W. Hong
{"title":"Digital Revolution or Digital Dominance? Regime Type, Internet Control, and Political Activism in East Asia","authors":"Min-hua Huang, W. Hong","doi":"10.14731/KJIS.2017.08.15.2.219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many studies have shown that Internet use may be a driver of real world political participation. However, we still have a lot to learn about the dynamics of this relationship. This article elaborates this relationship by exploring the effect of different types of Internet use (including social media) on participation in real world political activism. We also explain how two contextual factors – regime type (level of authoritarianism) and the level of government control over the Internet (level of Internet control) interact and affect the relationship between Internet use and political activism. Our findings in general corroborate the expected positive and significant relationship between Internet use and political activism. However, this relationship is highly contingent on how the level of authoritarianism and level of Internet control interact, producing two contrasting patterns of relationships between Internet use and political activism, labeled as “digital revolution” and “digital dominance.” We find that one-party authoritarian regimes are closer to the “digital dominance” type, meaning that the interaction between regime type and Internet control weakens the relationship between Internet use and political activism; how-ever, in limited democracies or democracies with excessive Internet control or authoritarianism, citizens’ participation in political activism through online channels is emboldened, producing the “digital revolution” type. In democracies with little Internet control, citizens may have an incentive to participate in political activism through the Internet, but institutional rules that allow rotation of power might prevent either “digital dominance” or “digital revolution” from developing.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"219-245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/KJIS.2017.08.15.2.219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many studies have shown that Internet use may be a driver of real world political participation. However, we still have a lot to learn about the dynamics of this relationship. This article elaborates this relationship by exploring the effect of different types of Internet use (including social media) on participation in real world political activism. We also explain how two contextual factors – regime type (level of authoritarianism) and the level of government control over the Internet (level of Internet control) interact and affect the relationship between Internet use and political activism. Our findings in general corroborate the expected positive and significant relationship between Internet use and political activism. However, this relationship is highly contingent on how the level of authoritarianism and level of Internet control interact, producing two contrasting patterns of relationships between Internet use and political activism, labeled as “digital revolution” and “digital dominance.” We find that one-party authoritarian regimes are closer to the “digital dominance” type, meaning that the interaction between regime type and Internet control weakens the relationship between Internet use and political activism; how-ever, in limited democracies or democracies with excessive Internet control or authoritarianism, citizens’ participation in political activism through online channels is emboldened, producing the “digital revolution” type. In democracies with little Internet control, citizens may have an incentive to participate in political activism through the Internet, but institutional rules that allow rotation of power might prevent either “digital dominance” or “digital revolution” from developing.
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
数字革命还是数字统治?东亚的政权类型、互联网控制与政治激进主义
许多研究表明,互联网的使用可能是现实世界政治参与的驱动因素。然而,关于这种关系的动态,我们还有很多需要了解的地方。本文通过探讨不同类型的互联网使用(包括社交媒体)对参与现实世界政治激进主义的影响来阐述这种关系。我们还解释了两个背景因素——政权类型(威权主义水平)和政府对互联网的控制水平(互联网控制水平)——如何相互作用并影响互联网使用和政治激进主义之间的关系。我们的研究结果总体上证实了互联网使用与政治激进主义之间预期的积极而重要的关系。然而,这种关系在很大程度上取决于威权主义水平和互联网控制水平如何相互作用,在互联网使用和政治激进主义之间产生了两种截然不同的关系模式,被称为“数字革命”和“数字主导”,意味着政权类型与网络控制之间的互动削弱了网络使用与政治激进主义之间的关系;然而,在有限的民主国家或互联网控制或威权主义过度的民主国家,公民通过网络渠道参与政治激进主义的行为更加大胆,产生了“数字革命”类型。在几乎没有互联网控制的民主国家,公民可能有动机通过互联网参与政治激进主义,但允许权力轮换的制度规则可能会阻止“数字主导”或“数字革命”的发展。
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
Korean Journal of International Studies
Korean Journal of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
CRUDE POWER: How Oil Affects Military Capacity and Institutions The Moderating Effects of Official Development Assistance on the Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and Human Development The Nord Stream pipe dream: How an outdated Ostpolitik misguided Germany’s foreign policy toward Russia Why Restrict Emigration: Autocrats’ Economic Ideas in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan Supply Chain Security in the Age of Techno-Geopolitics: ‘Fab 4’ Case in the Semiconductor Industry
×
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