Accounting for numbers: Group characteristics and the choice of violent and nonviolent tactics

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

Scholars have shown that nonviolent movements tend to be more successful than violent movements. A key explanation is that nonviolent movements have a mobilization advantage over violent campaigns. As nonviolent movements have lower barriers to active participation, they can expand quickly by mobilizing much larger numbers than violent movements. We argue that such a mobilization advantage is not universal, and that different movements are likely to have a comparative advantage in one tactic over another. We develop a simple model emphasizing how the ex ante potential for mobilization and prospects for success steer the choice of dissident tactics. Nonviolent tactics can be relatively more effective when a movement can mobilize more active participants than with violence, but movements with limited mobilization potential can have feasible prospects for violent dissent and a nonviolent mobilization disadvantage. We examine the implications of the model against empirical data for different types of dissident tactics and on resort to nonviolent and nonviolent dissent. We demonstrate very different actor profiles in nonviolent dissent and violent conflict, and show how each of the two types of dissent are more likely under very different settings. To compare success by types of dissent we must account for how differences in potential numbers or mobilization shape tactical choices.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEconomics of Peace and Security Journal
Volume16
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)5-25
Number of pages21
ISSN1749-852X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 04.2021

Bibliographical note

The authors are listed in alphabetical order, equal authorship implied. We are
grateful for funding from the Research Council of Norway (275955/F10) and the European Research Council Conflict (313373). We are indebted to helpful discussion, comments, and suggestion from Henrikas Bartusevicius, Erica Chenoweth, Stephanie Dornschneider, Felix Haass, Cullen Hendrix, Gabriel Leon, and Reed Wood.

DOI