Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study explores how state capacities affect the adoption of digital authoritarian policies in Eurasia, suggesting a crucial role of domestic factors.
Authoritarian diffusion theories explain cooperation among autocracies to sustain stability through resources or policy learning. Existing research centres on autocracy promotion or “authoritarian gravity centres” like China and Russia, overlooking recipient regimes’ domestic contexts. This paper argues that state capacity moderates diffusion by shaping policy absorption, moving beyond policy convergence as evidence of diffusion. The argument draws on a comparative study of digital authoritarianism in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, based on secondary sources and 26 stakeholder interviews, and is tested with Feldstein’s Digital Repression Index and a novel 2003–2021 dataset on global diffusion exposure. Regression results show that state capacity mediates diffusion effects: weaker regimes, even when adopting foreign legislation or technologies, often fail to implement them due to limited financial and technical resources. Thus, diffusion outcomes depend not only on external influence but also on domestic institutional capacities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ildar Daminov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: