Taming a Paper Tiger? A Political Economy of Support for the Repression of the Business Elite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do autocrats financially repress some allies but not others during an economic crisis? When too many foxes are in the henhouse, an autocrat may purge his allies in bad times and shrink the winning coalition. However, it is a risky enterprise. If he targets the wrong elite, it may backfire and trigger coups and dissent. Despite the high risk, we still do not know much about precisely who autocrats are likely to sideline from the ruling coalition. I suggest that the autocrat’s business allies are a politically expedient target during economic crises because the people perceive the co-opted business elite as corrupt. Given their low public popularity, the autocrat may justifiably blame the greedy business elite for the country’s economic woes. To develop a framework for public support for repression, I focus on Turkey as a case – a highly polarized country that has experienced a protracted financial crisis. One novel contribution of this study is the use of visual conjoints. I created fake LinkedIn profiles of hypothetical businesspeople with AI-generated profile pictures and business logos. I measured people’s support for their financial repression, depending on their firm’s characteristics, sectoral affiliations, and partisan attitudes toward the government’s economic policies. The results suggest that public support for financial coercion depends on the regime’s political economy. People are more likely to condone the extra-taxation of the business elite, who owe their success to the regime and are perceived as responsible for the economic crisis. This paper contributes to a growing scholarship on micro-level determinants of autocratic purges, and its findings have broad implications for our understanding of elite defection and autocratic power-sharing arrangements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".