Stopping state repression: An examination of spells
| Author | Christian Davenport,Benjamin J Appel |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221078181 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Regular Articles
Stopping state repression: An examination
of spells
Christian Davenport
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan & Peace Research Institute Oslo
Benjamin J Appel
Department of Political Science, UC San Diego
Abstract
While research into why repression/human rights violation goes up or down has thrived over the past 50 years,
essentially no effort has been made to examine what stops this behavior once under way – especially activity that is
large-scale as well as violent. To address this topic, we put forward the idea of a repressive spell (similar to that in the
study of war, civil war, and terrorism) and a new theoretical framework that conceptualizes repression as a sticky
process that is unlikely to terminate unless it is disturbed in some manner. Such an orientation is important because it
leads us to conclude that disturbance is more likely to happen under situations of democratization compared to any
of the factors typically highlighted in the literature and relevant policy community. Investigating a new database
regarding 239 large-scale repression spells from 1976 to 2006, we find that democratization is associated with spell-
termination and there is little systematic pacifying influence from anything else. Additionally, we find that non-
violent movements for change principally drive democratization but that these movements have little direct impact
on state repression spells in and of themselves.
Keywords
democratization, state repression, termination of repression
Since World War II, it has been a global priority to stop
ongoing, large-scale state repressive activity – hereafter
LSSR (i.e. government sponsored, violent action that is
both widespread and systematic).
1
With this objective in
mind, policymakers, NGOs, and activists have suggested
and implemented a number of policies, including military
intervention,economic sanctions, naming/shaming, inter-
nationallaw, preferential trade agreements, political demo-
cratization,and nonviolent directaction – all are presumed
to diminish staterepression because they increase thecosts
of such activity. What (if anything) works? What stops
LSSR? Despite the significant amount of interest in this
question, we still know very little about it (e.g. Bellamy,
2015; de Waal & Conley-Zilkic, 2006). The primary rea-
son for this limitation is that almostall empirically rigorous
work has beenfocused on understandingwhat accounts for
variation within levels of repression and what impact
diverse cost-producing factors have had on this phenom-
enon. While related and providingimportant insights, this
variationwork is largely focused on somethingquite differ-
ent fromtermination in termsof theory, data structure,and
appropriate estimation.
2
Corresponding author:
christiandavenport@mac.com
1
Researchers have called the activities here many different things: e.g.
genocide, politicide, democide, one-sided violence, human rights
violations, and atrocities, but at the most elemental behavioral level
they involve the same actions of state actors: i.e. mass arrests, extra-
judicial execution, disappearances, and mass killing.
2
Although Conrad & Moore (2010) and Bellamy (2015) are
relevant, they only cover a small part of what is commonly meant
by state repression.
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(5) 633–647
ªThe Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433221078181
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial