LAUSR

contribution to the large and growing body of literature on authoritarianism. It not only fills multiple important gaps, but – as any good book – suggests a number of avenues for future inquiry. Conceptually, the book introduces the useful distinction between fragmented-exclusive and unified-inclusive repressive apparatuses, which immediately raises the question whether there are mixed types (for example, fragmented-inclusive coercive systems), how and why these are chosen, and how they affect coercion in authoritarian regimes.Theoretically, the booknot only provides the first systematic and coherent explanation for the particular design of repressive apparatuses and their effects on the human rights tally of authoritarian regimes, but also reminds students of authoritarian politics that repression is the result of agency and strategic considerations by rational actors who react to (or aim to preempt) real or perceived structural threats. Future researchmight want to thinkmore deeply about the relationship between strategic actors (including the dictator, his ruling coalition, the leaders andmembers of the repressive organs, but also their potential victims) and their respective threat perceptions to provide an evenmore nuanced insight into themicrofoundations of repression in authoritarian regimes. Methodologically, the book is based on a convincing research design that should be used in courses on qualitative and case study research as an example for welldone comparative process tracing. Empirically, the case studies provide a host of historical detail, painting a rich but systematic picture of the development of coercive apparatuses in the three East Asian countries. Especially, the case study on Taiwan is exemplary in terms of the empirical data and level of detail, drawing on a large body of Chinese-language sources that have been capitalized for the first time in English-language scholarship. But Greitens’ work is also an invitation to put her arguments to additional hard tests, both quantitative and qualitative, and in other empirical contexts. This is not least due to the fact that the book is written in a clear and approachable style with well-defined concepts and a theoretical model that generates empirically testable theoretical expectations. Whether Greitens’ brief conclusion that Western policy-makers should support the establishment of effective, unified-inclusive repressive apparatuses in authoritarian regimes in order to reduce state-led terror and citizens’ suffering really would be “feasible” (300) is doubtful. But given the impressive scholarly contribution to research on authoritarianism, repression, human rights and mass protest, this in no way lessens the highly commendable academic work presented in this book.