Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach
|
|
⅜
Research Articles
Conceptualizing and Measuring
Democracy: A New Approach
Michael Coppedge and John Gerring, with David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen
Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, Staffan I. Lindberg, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Holli A.
Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, and Jan Teorell.1
In the wake of the Cold War, democracy has gained the status of a mantra. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. In this prescriptive article, we argue for a new approach to conceptualization and measurement. We first review some of the weaknesses among traditional approaches.
We then lay out our approach, which may be characterized as historical, multidimensional, disaggregated, and transparent. We end by reviewing some of the payoffs such an approach might bring to the study of democracy.
n the wake of the Cold War, democracy has gained the status of a mantra. Perhaps no other concept is as central to policymakers and scholars. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. Skeptics may wonder if such comparisons are possible at all.
While this conclusion may seem persuasive, one must also consider the costs of not comparing in a systematic fashion. Without some way of analyzing regime types through time and across countries we have no way to mark progress or regress on this vital matter, to explain it, to reveal its consequences, or to affect its future course.
This may account for the ubiquity of crossnational indices such as Freedom House, Polity, and Democracy/
I
Michael Coppedge is Professor of Political Science and a
Faculty Fellow of the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame
(coppedge.1@nd.edu). He has served as Chair of the APSA
Task Force
|
⅜
Research Articles
Conceptualizing and Measuring
Democracy: A New Approach
Michael Coppedge and John Gerring, with David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen
Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, Staffan I. Lindberg, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Holli A.
Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, and Jan Teorell.1
In the wake of the Cold War, democracy has gained the status of a mantra. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. In this prescriptive article, we argue for a new approach to conceptualization and measurement. We first review some of the weaknesses among traditional approaches.
We then lay out our approach, which may be characterized as historical, multidimensional, disaggregated, and transparent. We end by reviewing some of the payoffs such an approach might bring to the study of democracy.
n the wake of the Cold War, democracy has gained the status of a mantra. Perhaps no other concept is as central to policymakers and scholars. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. Skeptics may wonder if such comparisons are possible at all.
While this conclusion may seem persuasive, one must also consider the costs of not comparing in a systematic fashion. Without some way of analyzing regime types through time and across countries we have no way to mark progress or regress on this vital matter, to explain it, to reveal its consequences, or to affect its future course.
This may account for the ubiquity of crossnational indices such as Freedom House, Polity, and Democracy/
I
Michael Coppedge is Professor of Political Science and a
Faculty Fellow of the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame
(coppedge.1@nd.edu). He has served as Chair of the APSA
Task Force
References: Abbott, Andrew. 1995. “Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas.” Annual Review of Sociology 21: 93–113. Abbott, Andrew, and Angela Tsay. 2000. “Sequence Analysis and Optimal Matching Methods in Acuna-Alfaro, Jairo. 2005. “Measuring Democracy in Latin America (1972–2002).” Working Paper No Altman, David, and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.” Democratization 9(2): 85–100. American Political Science Association. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System Arat, Zehra F. 1991. Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries Arndt, Christiane, and Charles Oman. 2006. Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators Arneson, Richard J. 2004. “Democracy Is Not Intrinsically Just.” In Justice and Democracy, ed. Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman. Bächtiger, André, ed. 2005. Acta Politica 40(1–2). Special issue: “Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Democracy.” Bagehot, Walter. 1963 [1867]. The English Constitution. Barber, Benjamin. 1988. The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times Beetham, David, ed. 1994. Defining and Measuring Democracy _. 1999. Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity. _. 2004. “Towards a Universal Framework for Democracy Assessment.” Democratization 11(2): Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2004a. “Indicators of Democracy and Good Governance as Measures of the Quality of _. 2004b. “The Quality of Democracies in Europe as Measured by Current Indicators of Democratization and Good Governance.” Journal of Communist Berman, Sheri. 1997. “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic.” World Politics 49(3): 401–29. Bernhard, Michael, Timothy Nordstrom, and Christopher Reenock. 2001. “Economic Performance, Institutional Intermediation, and Democratic Survival.” Journal of Politics 63: 775–803. Besancon, Marie. 2003. “Good Governance Rankings: The Art of Measurement.” World Peace Foundation Bohman, James. 1998. “Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Boix, Carles, and Sebastian Rosato. 2001. “A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–1999.” Chicago: Boix, Carles, and Susan C. Stokes. 2003. “Endogenous Democratization.” World Politics 55(4): 517–49. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.” American _. 1993. “Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method