A common belief holds that democracies face more terrorism than autocracies. However, this oversimplifies the relationship between regime type and terror attacks. This study investigates how different forms of authoritarian rule influence terrorism differently.
Data & Methods:
Using zero-inflated negative binomial regression on Geddes' (2003) autocratic regime-type dataset for 161 countries from 1970 to 2006, the analysis reveals a surprising distinction among authoritarian systems. Military autocracies exhibit significantly higher terrorism rates than single-party regimes.
Key Findings:
- Single-party autocracies consistently show lower domestic and international terrorism compared to military autocracies.
- This result holds across numerous specifications and robustness tests.
- The findings challenge the assumption that all autocracies have equivalent effects on terrorism levels.
Why It Matters:
The results suggest regime design significantly affects how states manage dissent. Single-party systems appear better equipped to address grievances through a broader range of tools than military-dominated governments, offering new insights into comparative political analysis.
