Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Do people support a government because of real results or because of the image it creates?
Both real results and the image of them can create support. Wage growth, better services, peace or infrastructure change everyday life and can be a justified reason for citizens to reward the government. But people do not see the results directly and completely: the media choose what is being compared, the government claims success, hides price and mistakes, and presents opponents as incompetent or dangerous.
The same citizen can at the same time have real benefit and overestimate the merits of the authorities due to unequal information. These two things do not need to be artificially separated. To understand the support, it is necessary to check what has changed objectively, who paid the price, how reliable the data is, what information was available to people and how the attitude changes when they receive a credible different explanation.
Government support in Serbia has both a real and produced basis. A part of citizens sees roads, salary growth or greater international visibility and values this; at the same time, the dominant media attribute credit to the leader, reduce costs and failures and rarely give equal opportunity to opponents to offer another explanation. The picture does not have to invent the result it can increase, personalize and separate from its price.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
The World Bank confirms certain developments, while the CRTA measures media dominance and personalization of power, and scientific papers analyze populist attribution of results to the leader.
People decide on the basis of the available comparison. When success is constantly visible, and the cost and alternative is poorly present, the actual result and political performance become difficult to separate.
Yes sources confirm both the results and the unequal construction of their public image.
From the media imbalance it cannot be concluded that all support has been manipulated. Citizens have experience and different sources; it is necessary to ask what concrete results they value and what information they had.
When the economy grows and support grows, it does not yet show what the cause is. People see the results differently and decide differently to whom the credit belongs.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Guriev, S. i Treisman, D. (2019), „Informational Autocrats“, Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(4): 100–127.
- Contribution to this answer
- Guriev and Treisman show how modern “information autocrats” try to remain popular by convincing citizens that they are capable: they emphasize the results, use propaganda and prevent better informed people from passing on information that destroys the image. Support can therefore rest on the results and on controlling the way citizens see them.
Explain how the system works
Guriev, S. i Treisman, D. (2020), „A Theory of Informational Autocracy“, Journal of Public Economics 186: 104158.
- Contribution to this answer
- Their model precisely separates these two things: citizens assess the ability of the leader from their standard of living, state propaganda and information they receive from independent and better informed actors. The leader can therefore work really well but he can also invest in making it look more capable than it is.
analysis of surveys
Geddes, B. i Zaller, J. (1989), „Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes“, American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 319–347.
- Contribution to this answer
- On Brazil Geddes and Zaller show that state messages can really affect support, but that influence depends on how politically informed people are and what alternative information they are exposed to. The support we see need not be just a reaction to objective results or just fear.
Explain how the system works
Wallace, J. (2022), Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts: Information, Ideology, and Authoritarianism in China, Oxford University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wallace shows one problem that arises even before propaganda towards citizens: the government can get a distorted picture of its own results because officials embellish the numbers that the top rewards. Thus, the difference between the “real result” and the “image of the results” can exist even within the state itself.
comparing several countries or cases
Schiffrin, A. (ur.) (2017), In the Service of Power: Media Capture and the Threat to Democracy, CIMA/NED.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schiffrin and the authors in the proceedings show how political and economic elites can, through ownership, financing and other dependencies, weaken the independence of private media. Thus, the government does not have to invent a good image of itself it is enough that it has a great influence on what information that image can seriously question.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
International Development Institution Economic Diagnostics - Verified 21.08.2026
World Bank. 2024. Serbia Country Economic Memorandum: Fostering Growth Through a More Diversified Industrial Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank.
- What the source records
- The analysis acknowledges macroeconomic progress and investment-driven growth, but warns against dependence on subsidies, poor productivity and the need for stronger domestic institutions and competition.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the actual results and the politically produced picture are intertwined through personalization of merits and unequal visibility of costs and alternatives.
- Source limitation
- Economic diagnostics does not measure authoritarianism and cannot interpret every subsidy as political control.
Domestic NGOs systematic media monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2025. Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism: Government in Focus, Opposition Almost Invisible. Beograd: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Monitoring finds that more than half of the time intended for political actors went to the president, who had 354 live television broadcasts and almost exclusively neutral or positive treatment.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the actual results and the politically produced picture are intertwined through personalization of merits and unequal visibility of costs and alternatives.
- Source limitation
- The sample includes the central news of five national TV stations, but does not measure all media, the entire program offer, the audience or the direct impact of such reporting on voting.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Stojiljković, Zoran, i Dušan Spasojević. 2018. “Populistički Zeitgeist u ‘proevropskoj’ Srbiji.” Politička misao 55(3): 104–128. https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.55.3.04
Stojiljković, Zoran, and Dušan Spasojević. 2018. “Populist Zeitgeist in ‘Pro-European’ Serbia.” Political Thought 55(3): 104–128. https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.55.3.04
- What the source records
- The paper shows that populism in Serbia has several forms and can be merged with a broad, ideologically expansive party.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the actual results and the politically produced picture are intertwined through personalization of merits and unequal visibility of costs and alternatives.
- Source limitation
- He studies populism and parties, and does not independently prove that the political system is authoritarian.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Vladisavljević, Nebojša, i Aleksandra Krstić. 2023. “Competitive Authoritarianism and Populism in Serbia Under Vučić in Political Cartoons.” Europe-Asia Studies 75(9): 1429–1452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2022.2149700
Vladisavljević, Nebojša, and Aleksandra Krstić. 2023. “Competitive Authoritarianism and Populism in Serbia Under Vučić in Political Cartoons.” Europe-Asia Studies 75(9): 142952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2022.2149700
- What the source records
- The paper shows how unequal political match, media freedom and populist personalization are presented together in public criticism of the authorities.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the actual results and the politically produced picture are intertwined through personalization of merits and unequal visibility of costs and alternatives.
- Source limitation
- Caricatures are a critical cultural source and cannot replace the direct measurement of institutions or attitudes of the entire population.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →