| Abstract: | Politicians and pundits are quick to say that the Arab Spring has been caused by everything from an ominous “youth bulge” in the region's population to the spread of social media like Facebook and Twitter. Other observers blame the recent unrest on high levels of unemployment or on the government corruption endemic to the region. While there is a certain logic or intuitive sense to any or all these explanations, they have yet to be rigorously tested. Moreover, we do not know if these same factors explain intraregional variation in levels of unrest, or if, instead, factors specific to each particular country have caused some regimes to succumb to the violence while others have emerged unscathed. This article tests the conventional wisdom of the Arab Spring. We find some support for the notion that perceptions of government corruption and sudden price increases correlate with higher levels of unrest, although our confidence in these findings is limited by the small number of countries in our sample. Meanwhile, we find almost no evidence that population pressure or other forms of economic hardship are significant causes of intraregional variation in the intensity of unrest. Most strikingly, despite being touted as the “Twitter Revolution,” we find no evidence that unrest correlates with Internet access, cell phone use, or the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. These findings, such as they are, invite political observers and social scientists to search for other, case‐specific causes of civil unrest and regime instability. |
