Files
Abstract
This thesis examines the puzzle of what explains a state’s strategic behavior against domestic contentions, highlighting the inadequacy of existing regime type and bureaucratic politics theories in accounting for the dynamic variations in state responses observed during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. The study proposes a novel theory arguing that a state’s assessments of interest alignment and relative capability with contentious groups are necessary and sufficient conditions for understanding its strategic choices. High interest alignment leads to alliance formation, while low interest alignment combined with low relative capability results in concessions, and low alignment with high relative capability prompts coercion. The theory is tested through a plausibility probe and typological case studies of key events in the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Process tracing and consideration of alternative explanations bolster the theory’s validity. The case studies confirm the theory’s predictions, with the Hong Kong government’s shifts between coercion, concession, alliance, and restraint aligning with the expected patterns based on assessed interest alignment and relative capability. This thesis contributes to the literature by offering a parsimonious rational choice model that captures the dynamic strategic interactions between states and contentious groups, advancing our understanding of contentious politics and generating policy-relevant insights for predicting and managing state responses to domestic unrest.