Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
What explains the variance in how authoritarian regimes treat labor? We advance a theory of why and how some dictatorships coopt workers using nominally democratic institutions, such as legislatures and political parties. When dictatorships need cooperation from society and face a potentially strong opposition, they attempt to coopt workers to reinforce their bases of support. As instruments of cooptation, legislatures and parties are useful in facilitating a political exchange between regimes and labor: dictatorships provide material benefits to workers in exchange for labor’s quiescence. As a result, institutionalized dictatorships provide more benefits to workers and experience lower levels of labor protest than their noninstitutionalized counterparts. We find empirical support for these hypotheses from a sample of all dictatorships from the 1946–96 period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: