ABSTRACT

Authoritarian conflict management (ACM), conceptualised by Lewis et al. (2018 Lewis, David, John Heathershaw and Nick Megoran. 2018. ‘Illiberal Peace? Authoritarian Modes of Conflict Management.’ Cooperation and Conflict 53(6), 486–506.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), is an analytical framework aimed at understanding how authoritarian regimes respond to violent domestic challenges in ways that reject liberal conflict resolution practices that have emerged since the 1990s. Operationally, the authors define ACM as having three pillars: discursive control, spatial control and authoritarian political economic practices. Quantitative methods have not yet been broadly applied to ACM. This study quantitatively examines violent intrastate conflict in the Middle East and Central Asia to test several assumptions undergirding ACM, namely ACM’s prevalence over time and impact on governments’ ability to garner external support in domestic conflicts. I find that regimes in these regions deployed full ACM in fewer than half of cases, and the prevalence of ACM has not increased over time. Discursive and spatial control practices were employed more frequently than authoritarian political economic interventions. Finally, regimes that deployed full ACM were more likely than regimes that did not to have received external authoritarian support; no such difference was observed vis-à-vis support from external non-authoritarian countries.

摘要

威权冲突管理 (ACM)，由 Lewis 等人概念化。( 2018 刘易斯，大卫，约翰Heathershaw和尼克Megoran。2018 年。'非法和平？冲突管理的威权模式。合作与冲突53(6), 486 – 506。[交叉引用]  , [谷歌学术])，是一个分析框架，旨在了解威权政权如何以拒绝自 1990 年代以来出现的自由主义冲突解决做法的方式应对暴力的国内挑战。在操作上，作者将 ACM 定义为具有三个支柱：话语控制、空间控制和威权政治经济实践。定量方法尚未广泛应用于 ACM。本研究定量地考察了中东和中亚的国家内部暴力冲突，以检验支持 ACM 的几个假设，即 ACM 随时间推移的流行以及对政府在国内冲突中获得外部支持的能力的影响。我发现这些地区的政权在不到一半的情况下部署了完整的 ACM，而且 ACM 的流行率并没有随着时间的推移而增加。话语和空间控制实践比专制政治经济干预更频繁地被采用。最后，部署完整 ACM 的政权比没有获得外部专制支持的政权更有可能；与来自外部非专制国家的支持相比，没有观察到这种差异。