This thesis presents a quantitative study that aims to investigate whether Brian Martin is right in his theory about how more powerful actors have a greater capacity to prevent outrage and anger after opressions and thus suffer less from political jiu-jitsu, a process in which oppression becomes counterproductive. This is done by looking at whether more powerful regimes getaway more easily with repressing nonviolent campaigns. By designing a measuring scale for the scope of political jiu-jitsu, the connection between the scope and three different aspects of power - national capacity, wealth and state oppression - is investigated. The results shows that the more powerful the oppressive states are in terms of national capacity and wealth, the less extensive political jiu-jitsu. On the other hand, a higher degree of state oppression results in more extensive political jiu-jitsu. The results linked to the degree of staterepression are statistically significant and it can thus be said that the differences in the extent of political jiu-jitsu are not due to chance. The results indicate that more powerful states getaway with repressing nonviolent campaigns more easily, if power is measured in terms ofnational capacity or wealth. If, on the other hand, power is measured in the amount of noppression, it is more costly for the states that exercise more oppression.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:umu-186455 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Berglund, Ellinor |
| Publisher | Umeå universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0072 seconds