Measuring Democracy: A Multidimensional, Tiered, and Historical Approach

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. I 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/

Perspectives on Politics 9 (2): 247-267, 2011

In the wake of the ColdWar, 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.

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.

International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2013

The central research question for this article is: How can democracy and the quality of democracy be measured globally and empirically? Certainly, democracy measurement represents a wider research field; however, this article wants to contribute to it by offering to the reader an introduction and by giving first views about the ideas of democracy measurement in a global comparison and world-wide approach. The article contrasts different approaches to the measurement of democracy, with a focus on three macro-models of democracy measurement as well as the democratic indices (indicators) that they apply specifically: Freedom House, Democracy Index and Democracy Ranking. All three initiatives want to measure a large number of democracies over a longer period of time. In conclusion, it could, at least implicitly, be argued for Freedom House: the higher the freedom evaluation of a country, the greater the chances are or the more there is an expectation of a tendency for an advanced qualit...

Measuring characteristics of democracy is not an easy task, but anyone who does empirical research on democracy needs good measures. In this article, we present the Democracy Barometer, a new measure that overcomes the conceptual and methodological shortcomings of previous indices. It allows for a description and comparison of the quality of thirty established democracies in the timespan between 1995 and 2005. The article examines its descriptive purposes and demonstrates the potential of this new instrument for future comparative analyses.

The central research question for this article is: How can democracy and the quality of democracy be measured globally and empirically? Certainly, democracy measurement represents a wider research field; however, this article wants to contribute to it by offering to the reader an introduction and by giving first views about the ideas of democracy measurement in a global comparison and worldwide approach. The article contrasts different approaches to the measurement of democracy, with a focus on three macro-models of democracy measurement as well as the democratic indices (indicators) that they apply specifically: Freedom House, Democracy Index and Democracy Ranking. All three initiatives want to measure a large number of democracies over a longer period of time. In conclusion, it could, at least implicitly, be argued for Freedom House: the higher the freedom evaluation of a country, the greater the chances are or the more there is an expectation of a tendency for an advanced quality of democracy.

A comprehensive and integrated framework for the analysis of data is offered and used to assess data sets on democracy. The framework first distinguishes among three challenges that are sequentially addressed: conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation. In turn, it specifies distinct tasks associated with these challenges and the standards of assessment that pertain to each task. This framework is applied to the data sets on democracy most frequently used in current statistical research, generating a systematic evaluation of these data sets. The authors' conclusion is that constructors of democracy indices tend to be quite self-conscious about method-ological issues but that even the best indices suffer from important weaknesses. More constructively, the article's assessment of existing data sets on democracy identifies distinct areas in which attempts to improve the quality of data on democracy might fruitfully be focused. T he study of democracy—a core concern within comparative politics and international relations—increasingly has drawn on sophisticated statistical methods of causal inference. This is a welcome development, and the contributions of this quantitative literature are significant. However, with a few notable exceptions, 1 quantitative researchers have paid sparse attention to the quality of the data on democracy that they analyze. Indeed, the assessments that have been carried out are usually restricted to fairly informal discussions of alternative data sets and somewhat superficial examinations of 5 AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank

Society, 2011

The issue of measurement has seized the public eye more than ever before. The computer, communication, and information revolutions have produced a veritable flood of facts and observations on every imaginable topic and subject from every nook and cranny on earth, and beyond. Information overload challenges both our sensibilities and our abilities to process and organize knowledge; everything must be measured, compared, rated, and ranked. The demand for informational order has grown far faster than the ability to deliver. The public obsession with order and ordering to the minutest detail can be both consuming and obscuring. On the surface, inaccurate and inappropriate measures command the same allusion to mathematical precision as the more accurate and reliable measures. The focus of measurement in the social sciences is on identifying common metrics that accurately capture the essential quality of key factors and attributes that define complex, social phenomena. Objective and subjective assessments must be separated to the degree possible. Similarly, in social processes, means and ends must be distinguished in order to gauge performance. Governance and social order are, to a greater degree than any other social phenomena, based in commonalities of collective action and response. These constitute the means of history and should be distinguished from the ends so we can better understand how the past got us to the present and what we might make of the future. From a secular perspective, the purpose of democracy is to define and refine democratic purpose, the success of which can be measured as a conflict management function. Factionalism and the polarization of dissent present major impediments to the consolidation of democracy.

A comprehensive and integrated framework for the analysis of data is offered and used to assess data sets on democracy. The framework first distinguishes among three challenges that are sequentially addressed: conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation. In turn, it specifies distinct tasks associated with these challenges and the standards of assessment that pertain to each task. This framework is applied to the data sets on democracy most frequently used in current statistical research, generating a systematic evaluation of these data sets. The authors' conclusion is that constructors of democracy indices tend to be quite self-conscious about methodological issues but that even the best indices suffer from important weaknesses. More constructively, the article's assessment of existing data sets on democracy identifies distinct areas in which attempts to improve the quality of data on democracy might fruitfully be focused.

Global Quality of Democracy as Innovation Enabler

This Chapter focuses on the method of our empirical model of measurement of democracy and quality of democracy in global comparison and consists of four sections. The first section (Sect. 2.1) refers to the country sample in the model (a total country sample of 160 countries). The second section (Sect. 2.2) provides further methodic details for the applied framework of analysis. Section three (Sect. 2.3) indicates possible empirical definitions for democracy, semi-democracy and nondemocracy. The final section four (Sect. 2.4) discusses the identified countries and country groups. 2.1 Country Sample and Total Sample of 160 Countries The empirical model of measurement covers, in principle, all countries with a population of one million or more (per year) during the period 2002-2016. As empirical basis for the determination of population figures, the World Development Indicators (WDI) were being used 2 The Empirical Macro-Model: How to Measure Democracy and the Quality of Democracy in Global Comparison