Consultation and selective censorship in china

Dimitar Gueorguiev, Edmund J. Malesky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Conventional theories of authoritarianism view the need to suppress criticism as a key function of censorship. In a 2013 article, King, Pan, and Roberts challenged this wisdom by arguing that the paramount goal of censorship is defusing collective action, not silencing dissent. After accounting for collective action potential, they argue that criticism has no bearing on censorship. In this research note, we point out that a significant portion of sampled posts in King et al.’s analysis coincided with state-led consultation campaigns that were aimed at soliciting critical public input on policy proposals. This introduces the potential for bias by combining solicited and unsolicited criticism under the generic title of criticism. After reanalyzing King et al.’s aggregate data, studying Chinese censorship directives, and offering a statistically guided thought experiment, we conclude that a more conservative version of their original thesis is in order.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Politics
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

censorship
criticism
China
collective behavior
aggregate data
authoritarianism
wisdom
campaign
experiment
trend

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Consultation and selective censorship in china. / Gueorguiev, Dimitar; Malesky, Edmund J.

In: Journal of Politics, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{be407c74e4384d4f92adace2d09854ea,
title = "Consultation and selective censorship in china",
abstract = "Conventional theories of authoritarianism view the need to suppress criticism as a key function of censorship. In a 2013 article, King, Pan, and Roberts challenged this wisdom by arguing that the paramount goal of censorship is defusing collective action, not silencing dissent. After accounting for collective action potential, they argue that criticism has no bearing on censorship. In this research note, we point out that a significant portion of sampled posts in King et al.’s analysis coincided with state-led consultation campaigns that were aimed at soliciting critical public input on policy proposals. This introduces the potential for bias by combining solicited and unsolicited criticism under the generic title of criticism. After reanalyzing King et al.’s aggregate data, studying Chinese censorship directives, and offering a statistically guided thought experiment, we conclude that a more conservative version of their original thesis is in order.",
author = "Dimitar Gueorguiev and Malesky, {Edmund J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/704785",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Politics",
issn = "0022-3816",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consultation and selective censorship in china

AU - Gueorguiev, Dimitar

AU - Malesky, Edmund J.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Conventional theories of authoritarianism view the need to suppress criticism as a key function of censorship. In a 2013 article, King, Pan, and Roberts challenged this wisdom by arguing that the paramount goal of censorship is defusing collective action, not silencing dissent. After accounting for collective action potential, they argue that criticism has no bearing on censorship. In this research note, we point out that a significant portion of sampled posts in King et al.’s analysis coincided with state-led consultation campaigns that were aimed at soliciting critical public input on policy proposals. This introduces the potential for bias by combining solicited and unsolicited criticism under the generic title of criticism. After reanalyzing King et al.’s aggregate data, studying Chinese censorship directives, and offering a statistically guided thought experiment, we conclude that a more conservative version of their original thesis is in order.

AB - Conventional theories of authoritarianism view the need to suppress criticism as a key function of censorship. In a 2013 article, King, Pan, and Roberts challenged this wisdom by arguing that the paramount goal of censorship is defusing collective action, not silencing dissent. After accounting for collective action potential, they argue that criticism has no bearing on censorship. In this research note, we point out that a significant portion of sampled posts in King et al.’s analysis coincided with state-led consultation campaigns that were aimed at soliciting critical public input on policy proposals. This introduces the potential for bias by combining solicited and unsolicited criticism under the generic title of criticism. After reanalyzing King et al.’s aggregate data, studying Chinese censorship directives, and offering a statistically guided thought experiment, we conclude that a more conservative version of their original thesis is in order.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068990374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068990374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/704785

DO - 10.1086/704785

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Politics

JF - Journal of Politics

SN - 0022-3816

ER -