Abstract
Why do some authoritarian regimes show greater refugee receptivity than others? Existing studies contrast democracies and autocracies, arguing autocrats lack incentives to welcome outsiders. Building on studies of authoritarian regimes and diaspora targeting, this study argues pseudo-democratic autocrats, dependent on façade elections or seemingly democratic parties, adopt restrictive asylum policies shaped by identity-based fears, while autocrats without competitive institutions are more likely to admit refugees for strategic gains. Using UNHCR inflow data, a large-N analysis tests these theoretical expectations. Findings illuminate how institutional variation among autocracies shapes asylum outcomes.