Authoritarian resilience, a concept mostly debated within the context of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA region), describes the durability and strengths of authoritarian regimes in resisting...Show moreAuthoritarian resilience, a concept mostly debated within the context of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA region), describes the durability and strengths of authoritarian regimes in resisting the pressure of democratisation. Both authoritarian consolidation, referring to the employment of authoritarian tactics by a regime to increase its stability, as well as the related sub-concept of authoritarian adaptation, meaning learning processes of a regime and respective adjustment of these authoritarian tactics in the wake of challenges to a regime, are crucial to the understanding of the debate on authoritarian resilience. Drawing on scholarship on this debate, most notably the theoretical conceptualisations by Göbel, who classified the tactics for authoritarian regime survival into despotic, infrastructural, and discursive powers, I develop a theoretical framework for regime consolidation in the wake of popular discontent and protest. Applying the framework to the case study of the authoritarian Al-Sisi regime in Egypt shows how the regime adapted its tactics to consolidate in the light of the challenges of popular discontent and protest and ultimately survived. This underscores the significance of the concept of authoritarian consolidation to authoritarian resilience. Furthermore, it substantiates how the skilful and well-integrated application of authoritarian adaptation contributes to authoritarian stability. Therefore, such an analysis provides a more comprehensive understanding of authoritarian regime dynamics and the concept of authoritarian resilience.Show less
Thaler and Sunstein argue that applying nudges to people’s everyday decision-making will steer them towards making a decision that will benefit their health, wealth and wellbeing. Thaler and...Show moreThaler and Sunstein argue that applying nudges to people’s everyday decision-making will steer them towards making a decision that will benefit their health, wealth and wellbeing. Thaler and Sunstein argue people need help when making a decision because they have bounded rationality, lack in self-control and are easily influenced by others. By having a nudge function like a GPS system, people’s ends are respected, while also making sure the ends pursued are benefitting their lives. When applying nudges, Thaler and Sunstein do not differentiate between nudges infringing on people’s autonomy differently. It will be suggested to distinguish three degrees of nudging. These degrees vary in their impact on people, infringing on their autonomy differently. This thesis will argue that, despite their own intentions, Thaler and Sunstein fail the conditions of their theory of nudging by allowing third-degree nudges to be applied to people’s decision-making process. In doing so, they fail to uphold their condition of transparency, precluding people from making a rational, autonomous decision. By aiming at the emotional response of the nudgee, their target, the safety-valve, or the option not to go with a nudge, is made invisible and inaccessible. Despite this, Thaler and Sunstein still allow third-degree nudges, limiting people's freedom of choice, thus allowing an unjust infringement on their autonomy. For this reason, this thesis will argue that third-degree nudges should be objected. First and second-degree nudges, however, are deemed permissible to be applied to the decision-making process of adults.Show less
Over the last half century, North Korea has made over 2,660 military provocations against South Korea. Even during peaceful dialogue or institutional negotiations, North Korea has often engaged in ...Show moreOver the last half century, North Korea has made over 2,660 military provocations against South Korea. Even during peaceful dialogue or institutional negotiations, North Korea has often engaged in “unreasonable” actions such as provocations, violence, and terrorism when situations do not proceed according to plan, the goal being to force its counterparts to change their stance or make concessions. Various explanations have been proposed as to when and why North Korea employs brinkmanship. The key feature underlying these explanations is the precedence of factors internal to the North Korean regime such as diversion and human needs over other factors. This study attaches importance to South Korea’s foreign policy as a cause of Pyongyang’s constant provocations. The study starts with the question of under what conditions South Korean policies of coercion and engagement affect North Korea’s brinkmanship foreign policy. In order to answer the question, it examines two periods related to North Korea’s response to South Korea’s coercion and engagement policies from 1993 to 2008 by process tracing, employing tit-for-tat game theory, and tests alternative explanations. Its findings include: (1) North Korea is more cooperative and less belligerent when South Korea pursues coercion and conditional engagement; (2) North Korea is less cooperative and more conflictual when South Korea implements unconditional engagement. The findings of the study have important theoretical and policy implications. In terms of theoretical debate, the study lends support to coercion and conditional engagement as more sound strategies in dealing with renegade regimes. In terms of policy, the study recommends policy makers to (1) implement a strict reciprocity towards North Korea, (2) maintain a strong US-South Korea alliance, and (3) respond sternly against armed provocations.Show less
