Analysis reveals selective university admissions impact dissent in autocratic regimes, suggesting strategic implications.
Universities present a dilemma for autocrats: they are often fertile grounds for anti-regime protests, but also necessary for educating a skilled workforce that ensures economic productivity. Solving this dilemma through indoctrination and repression can be costly and inefficient. I investigate a third strategy autocrats use to resolve this trade-off: strategic student admissions. By preferentially admitting regime-loyal students, indoctrination becomes easier and monitoring less costly. To counter efficiency problems, however, autocrats enforce admission criteria selectively: they value loyalty signals more in fields more likely to generate dissent---the social sciences/humanities---and less strongly in fields less exposed to critical thinking and more relevant for economic productivity, such as the natural/technical sciences. I find empirical support for these implications using detailed admission records from more than 234,000 university applications in the former German Democratic Republic. By unpacking a key repressive strategy this study clarifies how universities can help to stabilize autocracies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Felix Haaß (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: