Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:32:00.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propaganda to persuade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2019

Tinghua Yu Open the ORCID record for Tinghua Yu [Opens in a new window]
Tinghua Yu*
Affiliation:
Government Department, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I analyze a model in which an incumbent ruler designs a rule for propaganda disclosure that reveals information about her competence to her allies and opponents. A message that increases beliefs about the incumbent's competence is considered as propaganda. I show that for propaganda to be persuasive, it must be limited in frequency. I also demonstrate how various features of the environment affect the frequency of propaganda. Propaganda increases in frequency as the incumbent's allies become more dependent on her and as her opponents become weaker. Further, there is a non-monotonic relationship between the strength of the conflict of interest between both her allies and her opponents and the frequency of propaganda. As conflict increases, the frequency of propaganda decreases up to a threshold beyond which increased conflict is associated with more frequent propaganda.

Keywords

Formal modeling
Type
Research Note
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 438 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adena, M, Enikolopov, R, Petrova, M, Santarosa, V and Zhuravskaya, E (2015) Radio and the rise of the nazis in prewar Germany. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, 1885–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, R and Câmara, O (2016) Persuading voters. American Economic Review 106, 3590–3605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, TJ and Kudamatsu, M (2007) Making autocracy work.Google Scholar
Cantoni, D, Chen, Y, Yang, DY, Yuchtman, N and Zhang, YJ (2017) Curriculum and ideology. Journal of Political Economy 125, 338–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mesquita, BB, Smith, A, Morrow, JD and Siverson, RM (2005) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.Google Scholar
Egorov, G, Guriev, S and Sonin, K (2009) Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: a theory and evidence from panel data. American Political Science Review 103, 645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, J (2008) Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B (1999) What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science 2, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, S and Keefer, P (2012) Private investment and the institutionalization of collective action in autocracies: ruling parties and legislatures. The Journal of Politics 74, 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, S and Sonin, K (2014) Government control of the media. Journal of Public Economics 118, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, M and Shapiro, JM (2006) Media bias and reputation. Journal of political Economy 114, 280–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J (1999) Gorbachev's Glasnost: The Soviet Media in the First Phase of Perestroika, vol. 9, College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Guriev, S and Treisman, D (2015) How modern dictators survive: an informational theory of the new authoritarianism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollyer, JR, Rosendorff, BP and Vreeland, JR (2015) Transparency, protest, and autocratic instability. American Political Science Review 109, 764–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H (2015) Propaganda as signaling. Comparative Politics 47, 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
i Miquel, GP (2007) The control of politicians in divided societies: the politics of fear. The Review of Economic Studies 74, 1259–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamenica, E and Gentzkow, M (2011) Bayesian persuasion. The American Economic Review 101, 2590–2615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G, Pan, J and Roberts, ME (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review 107, 326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A (2017) Propaganda and credulity. Games and Economic Behavior 102, 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorentzen, P (2014) China's strategic censorship. American Journal of Political Science 58, 402–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Z and Rozenas, A (2016) Ruling the ruling coalition: information control and autocratic governance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, S and Shleifer, A (2005) The market for news. American Economic Review 95, 1031–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, RB (2008) The autocrat's credibility problem and foundations of the constitutional state. American Political Science Review 102, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadmehr, M and Bernhardt, D (2015) State censorship. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 7, 280–307.Google Scholar
Svolik, MW (2012) The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagizawa-Drott, D (2014) Propaganda and conflict: evidence from the Rwandan genocide. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, 1947–1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Yu supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Yu supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 217.4 KB