Our Thursday discussion prompted the causal link between repression and per capita income. Less repression occurs when there is a higher per capita income. This got me thinking, if people with lower incomes and forms of employment are more likely to revolt and protest, what does this say about the above statement? Can we infer the reverse about the statement above; that more repression occurs when there is lower per capita income–or is that an inverse error? If it indeed is true, that higher repression occurs when per capita income is lower does that mean that governments do not care about the higher probability of protest and revolution rates? Based on the instrumental logic of action for repression, governments may still be able to achieve their interests despite civil uprising. This is commonly the case in Africa, less so now in the Middle East. We could attribute this differential to the rise in wages between the Middle East and Africa therefore increasing the per capita income spread.
This brings us back to the discussion two weeks ago on democracy and economic growth. Autocrats believe that it is not in their interest to maximize total output and spur eocnomic growth. According to the above argument autocrats would not be able to use repression on the public if their was high per capita income. So they stifle economic growth to maintain low income per capita and the ability to use repression though the lower class citizens have the opportunity to revolt.