The Illusion of Rupture: Reevaluating the Relationship Between Systemic Grievance and Revolutionary Demand

Full report

On this page

The presumption that severe economic, political, social, and institutional grievances naturally mature into revolutionary demand remains a fixture of popular political discourse and select sociological frameworks. However, a rigorous red-team examination of contemporary political behavior, historical base rates, and the psychological mechanisms of aggrieved populations reveals a profound disconnect between systemic dissatisfaction and the behavioral commitment required for revolutionary action. This report functions as a falsification test for the hypothesis that contemporary grievances imply revolutionary demand. Focusing primarily on the modern United States, with historical and local comparative analyses, the evidence demonstrates that structural barriers, psychological risk aversion, and institutional shock absorbers consistently route intense grievances into reformist, expressive, or accommodating trajectories rather than revolutionary rupture.

Defining the Boundaries of Revolutionary Preference

To evaluate the progression from grievance to revolution, it is necessary to establish rigid conceptual boundaries. Revolutionary preference is defined strictly as the active support for replacing or fundamentally restructuring major political and economic institutions through extra-institutional, often illegal, and highly risky means. This definition requires a desire for systemic rupture, the nullification of the existing constitutional order, and a willingness to incur extreme personal costs to achieve that end.

This specific preference must be cleanly distinguished from adjacent but fundamentally different political phenomena. These alternative manifestations of grievance operate primarily within or adjacent to the existing system, rather than seeking its annihilation:

• Policy Dissatisfaction and Anti-Incumbent Voting: These operate entirely within the bounds of the existing electoral apparatus. They represent a desire to punish perceived elite failures and alter legislative priorities utilizing the system's internal mechanisms for self-correction.
• Protest, Civil Disobedience, and Strikes: While extra-institutional in their immediate tactics and occasionally disruptive, these actions are generally deployed to extract concessions, expand inclusion, or force policy changes within the existing order1. They rely on the state's ultimate recognition of their moral or economic leverage.
• Constitutional Reform and Amendment: A desire to fundamentally alter the state utilizing its own legal mechanisms. This indicates a high level of attachment to constitutional norms, even when the desired changes are drastic.
• Populism and Anti-System Sentiment: Often manifesting as rhetorical postures, these are primarily affective identities. Populists may express a desire to "drain the swamp" or remove entrenched elites, but this rarely translates into a literal revolutionary program to destroy the nation-state's foundational architecture3.
• Support for Political Violence: Crucially, political violence does not automatically equate to revolutionary preference. Violence can be deployed to enforce the status quo, terrorize marginalized out-groups, or extract localized concessions (e.g., hate crimes, localized riots) without any coherent agenda to replace overarching institutions5.

Recognizing these distinctions is vital. Conflating aggressive reformism, expressive outrage, or reactive violence with revolutionary intent artificially inflates the perceived fragility of the state and misdiagnoses the trajectory of aggrieved populations.

The Strongest Case Against Contemporary Revolutionary Demand

The strongest case against the claim that contemporary grievances imply revolutionary demand lies in the pervasive misinterpretation of survey data, the psychological distinction between anger and ressentiment, and the overwhelming historical base rates of collective inaction. Even in environments characterized by extreme polarization, stark inequality, and institutional distrust, the overwhelming majority of aggrieved citizens remain deeply averse to the risks associated with state collapse. The apparent demand for revolution is largely a measurement artifact, driven by expressive responding and performative grievance politics, which structurally favor symbolic venting over physical mobilization.

Measurement Artifacts and Expressive Responding

The widespread narrative that large segments of the American public desire a revolution or tolerate political violence is significantly distorted by methodological flaws in public opinion polling. When surveys ask respondents if "the system is broken," if they want "major changes," or if the system needs a "complete overhaul," the language is highly ambiguous7. Respondents frequently interpret these phrases as a mandate for aggressive policy reform, the removal of a specific political party, or the eradication of corruption.

This ambiguity is compounded by the phenomenon of "expressive survey responding" or "partisan cheerleading." In highly polarized environments, survey questions regarding political violence or systemic illegitimacy often function as opportunities for respondents to signal in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, rather than expressing sincere behavioral intentions9. Extensive research by Kalmoe, Mason, Schaffner, and Luks demonstrates that when partisans are asked if violence is justified to achieve political goals, a subset will answer affirmatively to express their intense dislike of the opposing party, regardless of their actual willingness to engage in violence12. For instance, a noise blast experiment documented partisan bias where individuals were more likely to inflict simulated pain on opponents, yet this interpersonal aggression does not translate to support for systemic overthrow9.

When survey designs introduce cognitive friction, penalties for inaccuracy, or when they decouple the evaluation of an act from the evaluation of a political figure, support for violent or revolutionary action plummets15. Experimental data reveals that previous estimates of support for partisan violence (often cited between 18% and 40%) are inflated by a factor of up to six due to respondent disengagement and ambiguous wording17. When correcting for random responding by disengaged participants (satisficing) and specifying actual acts of violence rather than abstract concepts, the median support for partisan violence drops to approximately 2.9%, with an upper bound of 6.86%12. Furthermore, almost all respondents, regardless of partisan affiliation, strongly support criminal prosecution for individuals who actually commit acts of political violence17.

To illustrate the disparity between survey rhetoric and behavioral intent, the following table synthesizes the best available polling distinctions regarding reform, system replacement, and violence:

 

Therefore, the "demand for revolution" found in unadjusted polls is primarily a metric of partisan affective polarization and expressive frustration, not a leading indicator of armed insurgency.

The Psychology of Grievance: Anger Versus Ressentiment

The psychological state of aggrieved populations further militates against revolutionary action. Theoretical and empirical work by Salmela and Capelos distinguishes between "anger proper" and "ressentiment" in contemporary grievance politics23. Anger is a discrete, short-lived emotion that generates action tendencies aimed at removing a specific obstacle to achieve a goal. If widespread grievances generated pure, efficacious anger, revolutionary mobilization might be more common.

Instead, chronic systemic grievance tends to produce ressentiment. When individuals face prolonged deprivation, perceived injustice, and a lack of political efficacy, their frustration transmutes into a defensive psychological mechanism3. Ressentiment relies on "transvaluation": the aggrieved individual redefines their impotence as moral superiority and demonizes the unattainable object (e.g., economic success, political dominance)26. Crucially, the psychological footprint of ressentiment includes a preference for inaction, low efficacy, and the maintenance of a persistent aura of victimhood4.

Populations steeped in ressentiment may express morally righteous indignation, hatred, and a psychological "need for chaos"23. However, this hostility is generally directed toward symbolic venting, sharing hostile political rumors, and engaging in antisocial digital behavior rather than undertaking the organizational labor, discipline, and physical risk required for a revolution22. The emotional mechanism of ressentiment acts as a psychic shield that stabilizes the individual's ego in a state of chronic dissatisfaction, thereby neutralizing the action-oriented, efficacious impulses that drive systemic overthrow.

The Collective Action Problem and Prospect Theory

Even if genuine revolutionary desire exists, the transition from individual grievance to collective revolutionary action faces nearly insurmountable structural and psychological barriers. Mancur Olson's logic of collective action dictates that rational, self-interested individuals will not voluntarily contribute to the production of a non-excludable public good—such as a revolution—because they can enjoy the benefits of a new system without bearing the immense personal costs of participating in the rebellion20. This free-rider problem means that even intense, widespread discontent fails to generate sustained mobilization without massive selective incentives or coercion21.

This structural barrier is powerfully reinforced by human cognitive biases regarding risk. Kahneman and Tversky's Prospect Theory demonstrates that individuals evaluate utility based on a reference point and are fundamentally loss-averse; the pain of losing is psychologically more powerful than the pleasure of an equivalent gain33. When individuals possess any baseline level of security, property, or social standing, they operate in a "domain of gains" and exhibit extreme risk aversion33. Revolution is an inherently high-variance, high-risk proposition carrying the ultimate penalties of death, imprisonment, or total expropriation. Therefore, unless an aggrieved population is pushed deeply into a "domain of catastrophic losses"—where the status quo offers literal starvation, extermination, or total displacement—they will systematically reject the catastrophic risks of revolutionary rupture in favor of the predictable, even if deeply dissatisfying, status quo.

Alternative Responses to Grievance: The Institutional Sponges

Because the barriers to revolution are overwhelmingly high, populations suffering from severe economic, social, or political grievances almost invariably pursue alternative trajectories. These alternative responses function as pressure relief valves, continuously bleeding off the kinetic energy required for systemic overthrow. The state, market, and civil society offer a vast menu of absorptive mechanisms:

1. Voting and Policy Reform: The primary mechanism for grievance resolution. The ability to punish incumbents creates a sense of agency that preempts violence.

2. Litigation: Utilizing the courts to force systemic alteration. When activists can alter national policy through judicial victories, energy is redirected from the streets into the legal profession.

3. Unionization and Community Organization: Structuring grievance into collective bargaining. This translates diffuse anger into specific, actionable demands within the existing legal framework.

4. Migration and Economic Adaptation: Rather than fighting the state, aggrieved individuals frequently choose to exit the jurisdiction (e.g., moving from high-tax to low-tax states) or adapt to new market conditions.

5. Political Withdrawal and Cynicism: A highly common response to intractable grievances. A cynical, withdrawn populace is highly unlikely to undertake the arduous collective action required for a revolution35.

6. Authoritarian Preferences: Rather than a revolution to tear down the state, aggrieved populations deeply fearful of instability may prefer the election of a strongman to centralize power and restore order19.

7. New Parties and Constitutional Amendment: Seeking to capture the system rather than destroy it.

8. Negotiation and Simple Accommodation: Accepting a suboptimal status quo because the transaction costs of changing it are too high.

Integration and Clientelism: The Cicero Model

A highly instructive micro-level example of grievance absorption is found in the local dynamics of Cicero, Illinois. As demographic shifts transformed the region, a growing Latino immigrant and working-class population faced substantial economic hurdles, gang violence, and marginalization by entrenched local power structures37. Under a purely grievance-driven revolutionary model, this marginalized population, facing severe institutional friction and alleged municipal corruption, would be a prime candidate for anti-system radicalization.

Instead, the community followed a trajectory of political adaptation and integration. Utilizing Urban Regime Theory—which posits that local governance operates through informal coalitions of public and private actors to manage cities39—the local political apparatus successfully absorbed potential revolutionary energy. Machine politics, led by figures like Larry Dominick and the Cicero Voters Alliance, effectively utilized clientelism: trading municipal services, employment, and local influence for political support41. Simultaneously, civil society groups such as the Interfaith Leadership Project channeled community grievances into structured, institutional negotiations for better services, safety, and integration42.

This dynamic demonstrates that when local governments possess the resources to engage in selective fiscal or social appeasement, they can co-opt aggrieved populations. The pursuit of immediate material improvements, community safety, and incremental political representation entirely supersedes any theoretical desire to tear down the overarching institutional framework.

Macro-Level Sponges: Federalism and Decentralization

At the macro level, federalism and decentralization play a paramount role in preserving state stability. Barry Weingast's theories of market-preserving federalism highlight how decentralizing political power limits the ability of the central state to impose uniform, inefficient, or highly contested regulations45.

In the contemporary United States, this has evolved into "agonistic federalism," a highly polarized, zero-sum contestation between state and national governments46. While agonistic federalism generates intense political friction and partisan hostility, it paradoxically preserves the nation-state by allowing aggrieved populations to achieve policy victories at the subnational level46. If highly motivated ideological groups can effectively capture state legislatures to regulate healthcare, environmental standards, or social policies within their own borders, the existential necessity of capturing or destroying the federal government is drastically reduced. Federalism transforms potentially explosive, zero-sum national conflicts into manageable, localized jurisdictional disputes.

Variables Preserving Reformist Expectations

The preservation of reformist expectations—the belief that the system can eventually be made to work—relies on specific variables that historically inoculate states against revolution.

Economic Development and Democratic Survival

Adam Przeworski's seminal research on democracy and development establishes a virtually unbreakable barrier to democratic collapse: per capita wealth. Przeworski demonstrated that while democracies can emerge at any level of economic development, their survival is entirely conditional on national wealth48. Above a certain threshold of per capita income, no democracy has ever collapsed into dictatorship or succumbed to revolution50.

In wealthy societies, the economic stakes of the status quo are too high, and the distribution of resources generally prevents the absolute immiseration necessary to trigger risk-seeking revolutionary behavior. Furthermore, democratic accountability constrains elite capture and creates incentives to convert rents into public goods48. Even during severe economic crises, wealthy democracies experience elite turnover through elections, not regime change48. The U.S. benefits immensely from this wealth shield, rendering economic grievances survivable without state collapse.

Elite Concessions and Electoral Credibility

The threat of revolution itself often serves as a catalyst for reform, preempting actual violence. As modeled by Acemoglu and Robinson in their theory of political transitions, when extreme inequality creates a credible threat of revolution—typically during a recession when the opportunity costs of rebellion are low—rational elites will concede political power, expand the franchise, or redistribute wealth to defuse the threat52. The existence of a responsive government capable of executing policy shifts acts as a fatal blow to revolutionary momentum.

Credible elections facilitate this process by institutionalizing elite turnover. Survey data from Bright Line Watch indicates that despite high polarization and concerns about democratic erosion, the vast majority of the American public and political experts still view electoral outcomes and judicial checks as the legitimate arbiters of power54. When a population believes it is possible to achieve a total change in executive leadership every four years through the ballot box, the rationale for armed rebellion is nullified.

Cross-Cutting Identities and Memory

Societies characterized by cross-cutting cleavages—where individuals possess multiple, overlapping identities (e.g., race, religion, class, geographic location, occupation)—are highly resistant to revolution. As identified by Lipset and Rokkan, when societal divisions do not perfectly align, it prevents the formation of a single, unified revolutionary bloc against a monolithic elite56. An individual aggrieved by economic policy may simultaneously share religious or regional identities with the political elite, diluting the potential for absolute, binary systemic conflict.

Additionally, negative historical memories of instability strongly deter revolutionary preference. The fear of anarchy, civil war, or the authoritarian consolidation that typically follows revolutionary outcomes reinforces an attachment to constitutional norms.

When Barriers Weaken: Historical Precedents

While the barriers to revolution are immense, historical and international comparisons demonstrate specific conditions under which these barriers fail.

Revolutionary preferences do not typically emerge from absolute, static poverty, but rather from a disruption of expectations. James Davies' J-Curve theory of revolution posits that rebellions occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is suddenly followed by a sharp reversal57. This creates an intolerable gap between rising expectations and sudden deprivation58. If an autocratic or unresponsive state fails to manage this gap, and simultaneously lacks the wealth to buy off the population or the institutional flexibility to hold credible elections, revolutionary demand can materialize. This dynamic was visible in events like the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Arab Spring, where rising middle classes were abruptly blocked from economic and political opportunity60.

However, demand alone is insufficient; opportunity is paramount. Fearon and Laitin's research on civil conflict demonstrates that grievances are ubiquitous across all nations, but civil wars and revolutions only occur where state capacity is critically weak62. A revolution requires a permissive environment: a hollowed-out military, fractured security forces, loss of territorial control, or severe geographic vulnerabilities62.

Comparing similarly aggrieved populations illustrates this clearly. An aggrieved minority in a low-income, low-capacity state with fractured security forces (e.g., parts of Sub-Saharan Africa or the historical Balkans) may initiate a successful armed rebellion. A similarly aggrieved population in the contemporary United States faces an immensely powerful, heavily funded, and technologically advanced security apparatus. The near-zero opportunity for successful armed insurgency systematically suppresses any nascent revolutionary action, forcing grievances back into reformist or expressive channels.

Reconciling Conflicting Evidence: Dissatisfaction vs. Action

The most glaring contradiction in the study of political instability is the coexistence of intense, widespread anti-system sentiment and the near-total absence of revolutionary participation. This paradox is resolved by examining the varying risk profiles of political action, most notably through Erica Chenoweth's "3.5% Rule."

Chenoweth's research demonstrates that nonviolent campaigns are historically twice as successful as violent insurgencies and tend to attract vastly larger numbers of participants1. The critical insight here is the barrier to entry. Nonviolent protest requires significantly less physical risk, allowing a movement to mobilize the 3.5% peak participation of the population necessary to force elite concessions or regime collapse in authoritarian systems1. Conversely, violent revolution repels participation due to the extreme danger involved.

Therefore, highly aggrieved populations in democratic or semi-democratic states will readily engage in low-risk protests, performative digital outrage, and polarized voting. They will express high levels of dissatisfaction to pollsters. Yet, because their basic security and economic survival are tied to the stability of the state, they will absolutely refuse to cross the threshold into high-risk, extra-institutional violence. The apparent conflict between high grievance and low violence is merely a reflection of rational cost-benefit analysis by the citizenry.

Epistemological Requirements for Establishing Genuine Demand

Given the unreliability of survey data and the performative nature of grievance politics, what evidence would be necessary to establish that genuine revolutionary demand exists in a contemporary context? Analysts must look past self-reported attitudes and focus strictly on behavioral leading indicators that demonstrate a willingness to incur catastrophic risk. Genuine revolutionary demand would be evidenced by:

1. Massive Defections from the State Apparatus: The refusal of military, police, and bureaucratic personnel to enforce the laws of the central government, transferring their loyalty to an alternative authority.

2. The Establishment of Dual Power: The creation of parallel, extra-legal institutions that successfully usurp the state's monopoly on taxation, dispute resolution, and resource distribution (e.g., shadow courts, autonomous zones that persist beyond temporary protests).

3. Sustained, High-Risk Economic Sabotage: The occurrence of illegal, politically motivated general strikes that cripple national infrastructure, undertaken with the explicit goal of forcing regime collapse rather than negotiating labor concessions.

4. Capital Flight and Elite Fracturing: A measurable, panic-driven exodus of capital from the nation, accompanied by major political and economic elites openly defecting to anti-constitutional factions.

5. Widespread Sustained Violence Against State Infrastructure: A shift from spontaneous riots or isolated extremist attacks to coordinated, sustained, and logistically sophisticated insurgent campaigns aimed at disabling state capacity.

In the absence of these behavioral indicators, one must conclude that revolutionary demand is a rhetorical illusion, regardless of the severity of polling data.

Literature Evaluation and Epistemic Confidence

To contextualize the foundations of this report, the following table evaluates the most critical sources and theoretical frameworks informing this falsification test.

An Integrated Neutral Model of Political Trajectories

To replace the flawed assumption that grievance naturally yields revolution, this report proposes an integrated, phase-state model. This model maps the progression of a political stimulus through cognitive and structural barriers, demonstrating how revolutionary preference is systematically filtered out.

 

Conclusion

The hypothesis that severe contemporary grievances imply an impending revolutionary demand fundamentally misreads the mechanics of human behavior, institutional design, and state resilience. When analyzed through the lenses of behavioral economics, psychological defense mechanisms, rational choice theory, and political science, it becomes evident that the architecture of modern developed democracies is explicitly designed to diffuse, absorb, and co-opt existential discontent.

Apparent indicators of revolutionary fervor—such as alarming poll numbers regarding political violence and high levels of anti-system rhetoric—are overwhelmingly measurement artifacts driven by partisan expressive responding and performative ressentiment. Citizens express a desire to "tear the system down" as a mechanism to signal tribal loyalty and moral indignation, not as a behavioral commitment to the catastrophic risks of state collapse.

Furthermore, institutional shock absorbers—ranging from the localized clientelism and grievance absorption observed in municipalities like Cicero, Illinois, to the macro-level dynamics of agonistic federalism and judicial intervention—ensure that aggrieved populations can achieve incremental victories, thereby destroying the necessity for violent overthrow. Barring a complete collapse of state capacity or a devastating, unprecedented reversal of economic wealth that shatters the risk-aversion of the general populace, the contemporary state will continue to successfully route the deepest grievances into reformist, expressive, and accommodating trajectories. Therefore, the presumption of an impending revolutionary rupture based on current societal grievances is analytically unsound and empirically unsupported.

Works cited

1. 3.5% rule \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25\_rule

2. Civil Resistance and the 3.5% Rule: An Overview \- Commons Library, https://commonslibrary.org/chenoweth-3-5percent-rule/

3. Grievance Politics: An Empirical Analysis of Anger Through the, https://www.academia.edu/98782899/Grievance\_Politics\_An\_Empirical\_Analysis\_of\_Anger\_Through\_the\_Emotional\_Mechanism\_of\_Ressentiment

4. (PDF) Sour grapes:ressentimentas the affective response of, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357896283\_Sour\_grapesressentimentas\_the\_affective\_response\_of\_grievance\_politics

5. Radical American Partisanship \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical\_American\_Partisanship

6. Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason. Radical American Partisanship, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368637867\_Nathan\_P\_Kalmoe\_and\_Lilliana\_Mason\_Radical\_American\_Partisanship\_Mapping\_Violent\_Hostility\_Its\_Causes\_and\_the\_Consequences\_for\_Democracy

7. Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age, https://universityofleeds.github.io/philtaylorpapers/pmt/exhibits/799/reinventingdip.pdf

8. Interest Groups Unleashed \[1 ed.\] 9781483301204, 9781452203782, https://dokumen.pub/interest-groups-unleashed-1nbsped-9781483301204-9781452203782.html

9. Partisan Bias in Justifying Political Violence in the United States, https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/90/3/758/8533205

10. Expressive Survey Responding: A Closer Look at the Evidence and, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/expressive-survey-responding-a-closer-look-at-the-evidence-and-its-implications-for-american-democracy/6A103C2A09C4F37C5AEA5F95A7E869DD

11. What is Expressive Responding? Evidence from a Meta-Reanalysis, https://m-graham.com/papers/Graham\_ExpressiveMeta.pdf

12. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116870119

13. Self-Reported Exposure and Beliefs About Misinformation Across a, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2025.2532584

14. Partisan reasoning in a high stakes environment, https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/partisan-reasoning-in-a-high-stakes-environment-assessing-partisan-informational-gaps-on-covid-19/

15. Response Decoupling and Partisans' Evaluations of Politicians, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9058741/

16. The Big Lie: Expressive Responding and Misperceptions in the, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BCD84FDE078F10B9E87335A061EBDE85/S2052263022000331a.pdf/big\_lie\_expressive\_responding\_and\_misperceptions\_in\_the\_united\_states.pdf

17. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359332265\_Current\_research\_overstates\_American\_support\_for\_political\_violence

18. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2116870119

19. Who Supports Political Violence?, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9A6BE3C153607A2E26B5DF8076F1753D/S1537592722001086a.pdf/who-supports-political-violence.pdf

20. Collective action theory \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective\_action\_theory

21. Collective action problem | Causes, Solutions & Examples \- Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/collective-action-problem-1917157

22. The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile Political, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/need-for-chaos-and-motivations-to-share-hostile-political-rumors/7E50529B41998816383F5790B6E0545A

23. Grievance Politics: An Empirical Analysis of Anger Through the, https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/88350/1/88350\_1.pdf

24. Grievance Politics: An Empirical Analysis of Anger Through the, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/5789/3010

25. (PDF) Grievance Politics: An Empirical Analysis of Anger Through, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366700181\_Grievance\_Politics\_An\_Empirical\_Analysis\_of\_Anger\_Through\_the\_Emotional\_Mechanism\_of\_Ressentiment

26. Sour grapes: ressentiment as the affective response of grievance, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610.2021.2023005

27. Cynicism, Political Nihilism, and Need for Chaos \- Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intersections/202505/cynicism-political-nihilism-and-need-for-chaos

28. (PDF) The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368627146\_The\_Need\_for\_Chaos\_and\_Motivations\_to\_Share\_Hostile\_Political\_Rumors

29. "Social Movements and Free Riders" by J.P. Weismuller, https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macreview/vol2/iss2/4/

30. Social Movements and Collective Action (9B) \- Varsity Tutors, https://www.varsitytutors.com/practice/subjects/mcat-psychological-social-foundations/lessons/9b-social-movements-collective-action

31. The Free Rider Problem \- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/

32. The Logic of Collective Action Summary of Key Ideas and Review, https://www.blinkist.com/books/the-logic-of-collective-action-en

33. Studying Political Decision-Making Using Prospect Theory, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228435173\_Studying\_Political\_Decision-Making\_Using\_Prospect\_Theory

34. Prospect theory \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect\_theory

35. The American National Election Study (ANES): History and Insights, https://cpsblog.isr.umich.edu/?p=2743

36. Who Trusts the Government in the Americas? \- Vanderbilt University, https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO962en.pdf

37. Organizing Immigrant Communities in American Cities, https://ccis.ucsd.edu/\_files/wp103.pdf

38. The Latino Landscape: | A Metro Chicago Guide and Non-Profit, https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/curl/pdfs/Latino\_Landscape\_Final2.pdf

39. regimes in the power relations of cities \- SciELO, https://www.scielo.br/j/rbcpol/a/QGpL4MgrytmHLW5rJJnFQxz/?format=pdf\&lang=en

40. SLM-Eco- URBAN ECONOMICS.pdf \- Kozhikode \- University of Calicut, https://sde.uoc.ac.in/sites/default/files/sde\_videos/SLM-Eco-%20URBAN%20ECONOMICS.pdf

41. Cicero, IL \- Why hasn't anyone cleaned house yet? : r/illinois \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/10eukkk/cicero\_il\_why\_hasnt\_anyone\_cleaned\_house\_yet/

42. Power in Coalition: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change, https://dokumen.pub/power-in-coalition-strategies-for-strong-unions-and-social-change-9780801459351.html

43. The Chicago Community Trust 2014 Annual Report \- Studylib, https://studylib.net/doc/8714311/action---chicago-community-trust

44. COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT \- Loyola Medicine, https://www.loyolamedicine.org/sites/default/files/hg\_features/mercury\_standard\_layout/5e6d6741a1101b6e9d3aeb8391bebf5d.pdf

45. Economic Growth and Institutions: Some Sensitivity Analyses, 1961, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/economic-growth-and-institutions-some-sensitivity-analyses-19612000/259D00507C76C28AD7411722B3B73753

46. Agonistic Federalism \- Chicago Unbound, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2420\&context=public\_law\_and\_legal\_theory

47. Agonistic Federalism | Texas Law Review, https://texaslawreview.org/agonistic-federalism/

48. Democracy and Development | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227390107\_Democracy\_and\_Development

49. (PDF) Democracy and economic development \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319450870\_Democracy\_and\_economic\_development

50. 10\. Economic Drivers of Democracy | Politics Trove, https://www.oxfordpoliticstrove.com/display/10.1093/hepl/9780198820819.001.0001/hepl-9780198820819-chapter-10

51. Economic Development and Transitions to Democracy, https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/transwp.pdf

52. A Theory of Political Transitions \- American Economic Association, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.938

53. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY James A. Robinson, https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/f/1135/files/2018/06/jr\_econdevelopment-u48utc.pdf

54. Bright Line Watch: One of the greatest threats to democracy is the, http://brightlinewatch.org/

55. A Partial Democratic Rebound? | Bright Line Watch, https://brightlinewatch.org/a-partial-democratic-rebound/

56. Cleavage Politics in Old and New Democracies \- ZORA, https://www.zora.uzh.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/edccd4ba-9e9c-47df-8ce6-3e64f705f5a6/content

57. J-Curve Theory of Revolution Explained | PDF \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/47803154/Toward-a-Theory-of-Revolution-James-Davies

58. Well-being and relative deprivation in a digital era \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9615042/

59. Economics and Political Economy \- EconSciences \- Journals, https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JEPE/article/download/813/852/2894

60. Political order in Egypt | FSI, https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/political\_order\_in\_egypt\_20110801

61. Political Order in Egypt \- International Centre for Defence and Security, https://icds.ee/en/political-order-in-egypt/

62. Grievances and civil war \- Good Authority, https://goodauthority.org/news/grievances-and-civil-war/

63. Critical Mass and the 3.5% Rule: Why Nonviolent Protest Can Work, https://thefulcrum.us/civic-engagement-education/critical-mass-3-5-percent-rule-nonviolent-protest

64. A Theory of Political Transitions \- Rochelle Terman, http://www.rochelleterman.com/ComparativeExam/sites/default/files/Bibliography%20and%20Summaries/Acameglu%20and%20Robinson%202001.pdf

65. Bright Line Watch \- Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/bright-line-watch