State responses to dissent: the choice to coopt

While a majority of scholarship on a states response to dissent focuses on repression and accommodation, the latter policy is not always feasible. This study discusses a third possible response to dissent, cooptation, and introduces a conceptual framework to apply to state responses. I conduct an empirical analysis using the costs and benefits of substitutable state responses. The results suggest a substitution between repression and cooptation, as past respect for physical integrity rights is associated with an increase in the number of parties in autocracies facing dissent. This study has important implications for future work on state responses to dissent and autocratic institutions, as well as potential policy recommendations for disincentivizing the use of repression in response to dissent.