Exposing Repression Behind the Scenes

Abstract

I n the post–Cold War era, incumbents in authoritarian regimes have increased their toolkit for repression. In addition to blatant, forceful forms of repression (such as making mass arrests and shooting protesters), less visible, more sophisticated means of coercion have become vital components of a regime’s repertoire to stifle unrest. Joining a bourgeoning literature on authoritarian repression, Lynette H. Ong’s book Outsourcing Repression: Everyday State Power in Contemporary China presents a rigorous account of how the Chinese state takes advantage of nonstate actors to impose violent and nonviolent methods of social control. In particular, the book elaborates on how authorities hire private agents (e.g., thugs and gangsters) and rely on grassroots brokers (including local elders and members of urban residents’ committees) to neutralize social protests against land appropriation and housing demolition in urban and rural China. Outsourcing Repression is highly relevant for anyone seeking to understand state repression, urbanization, and Chinese politics. Regarding violent acts carried out by thugs-for-hire, Ong describes these thugs’ typical profile and the conditions under which they operate. She argues that such everyday repression is a lower-cost strategy that can minimize the likelihood of social protest and violent backlash—as long as any violence remains low-intensity, severe casualties or significant confrontations do not result, and no overt government complicity is involved. Yet, once any of these conditions fails to be satisfied, thugs-for-hire are no longer a low-cost repressive measure but a liability to the hiring authority. This paves the way for the state to increasingly turn to brokers and nonviolent tactics to resolve conflicts in demolition projects. These brokers are classified into three types (political, social, and economic), depending on the sources of their brokerage—whether their power or legitimacy stems from their state or quasi-state status, their social capital, or their role in bridging information asymmetry between state and society.