Английская Википедия:Democracy indices

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Democracy Democracy indices are quantitative and comparative assessments of the state of democracy[1] for different countries according to various definitions of democracy.[2]

The democracies indices differ in whether they are categorical, such as classifying countries into democracies, hybrid regimes, and autocracies,[3][4] or continuous values.[5] The qualitative nature of democracy indices enables data analytical approaches for studying causal mechanisms of regime transformation processes.

Democracy indices differ in scope and weighting of different aspects of democracy, including the breadth of core democratic institutions, competitiveness and inclusiveness of polyarchy, freedom of expression, various aspects of governance, democratic norm transgressions, co-option of opposition, electoral system manipulation, electoral fraud, and popular support of anti-democratic alternatives.[6][7][8]

Prominent democracy indices

Operating

  • The Economist Democracy Index, by the UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit, is an assessment of countries' democracy. Countries are rated as full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, or authoritarian regimes. The index is based on five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture.[9]
  • V-Dem Democracy indices by V-Dem Institute distinguishes between five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, and quantifies these principles.[10] The V-Dem Democracy indices include the Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index, which indicates the strength of direct democracy and the presidentialism index, which indicates higher concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.
  • Bertelsmann Transformation Index by the Bertelsmann Stiftung evaluates the development status and governance of political and economic transformation processes on the path to constitutional democracy and a market economy for developing and transition countries around the world. Bertelsmann Transformation Index categorizes countries into: hard-line autocracy, moderate autocracy, very defective democracy, defective democracy, consolidating democracy.[11]
  • The Global State of Democracy Indices by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance assesses democratic performance using different types of sources: expert surveys, standards-based coding by research groups and analysts, observational data and composite measures.[12]

Indices measuring aspects of democracy

Other measured aspects of democracy include voter turnout, efficiency gap, wasted vote, and political efficacy.[18][19]

Historical

Maps of indices

Шаблон:Further

Difficulties in measuring democracy

Because democracy is an overarching concept that includes the functioning of diverse institutions which are not easy to measure, limitations exist in quantifying and econometrically measuring the potential effects of democracy or its relationship with other phenomena—whether inequality, poverty, education etc.[28] Given the constraints in acquiring reliable data with within-country variations on aspects of democracy, academics have largely studied cross-country variations, yet variations in democratic institutions can be large within countries. Another way of conceiving the difficulties in measuring democracy is through the debate between minimalist versus maximalist definitions of democracy. A minimalist conception of democracy defines democracy by primarily considering the essence of democracy; such as electoral procedures.[29] A maximalist definition of democracy can include outcomes, such as economic or administrative efficiency, into measures of democracy.[30] Some aspects of democracy, such as responsiveness[31] or accountability, are generally not included in democracy indices due to the difficulty measuring these aspects. Other aspects, such as judicial independence or quality of the electoral system, are included in some democracy indices but not in others.

Some measures of democracy, notably Freedom House and Polity IV, deploy a maximalist understanding of democracy by analyzing indicators that go beyond electoral procedure.[32] These measures attempt to gauge contestation and inclusion; two features Robert Dahl argued are essential in democracies that successfully promote accountable governments.[33][34] The democratic rating given by these mainstream measures can vary greatly depending on the indicators and evidence they deploy.[35] The definition of democracy utilized by these measures is important because of the discouraging and alienating power such ratings can have, particularly when determined by indicators which are biased toward Western democracies.[36]

Dieter Fuchs and Edeltraud Roller suggest that, in order to truly measure the quality of democracy, objective measurements need to be complemented by "subjective measurements based on the perspective of citizens".[37] Similarly, Quinton Mayne and Brigitte Geißel also defend that the quality of democracy does not depend exclusively on the performance of institutions, but also on the citizens' own dispositions and commitment.[38]

Critiques of measures of democracy

Data on democracy, and particularly global indices of democracy, have been scrutinized and criticized by various scholars. Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen questioned various aspects of the data produced by Freedom House and Polity, such as the concept of democracy they measured, the design of indicators, and the aggregation rule.[39] Political scientists Andrew T. Little and Anne Meng "highlight measurement concerns regarding time-varying bias in expert-coded data" such as Freedom House and V-Dem and encourage improving expert-coding practices.[40] Knutsen et al.[41] didn't see evidence for time-varying bias in their expert-coded data and note the application of item response theory, factor analysis and estimates of uncertainties to limit expert biases while discussing concerns in operationalization of observer-invariant measures of democracy.

See also

Шаблон:Portal

References

Шаблон:Reflist

Further reading

Шаблон:Refbegin

Шаблон:Refend

External links

Шаблон:Politics country lists

  1. Шаблон:Cite journal
  2. Шаблон:Cite web
  3. Шаблон:Cite book
  4. Шаблон:Cite book
  5. Шаблон:Cite web
  6. Шаблон:Cite web
  7. Шаблон:Cite web
  8. Democracy and Autocracy, Why do Democracies Develop and Decline, Vol. 21(1) June 2023, Democracy and Autocracy Section, American Political Science Association
  9. Шаблон:Cite web
  10. Шаблон:Citation
  11. Шаблон:Cite web
  12. Шаблон:Cite web
  13. Шаблон:Cite web
  14. Шаблон:Cite web
  15. Шаблон:Cite journal
  16. Шаблон:Cite web
  17. Шаблон:Cite web
  18. Шаблон:Cite journal
  19. Шаблон:Cite web
  20. Шаблон:Cite web
  21. Шаблон:Cite web
  22. Шаблон:Cite web
  23. Шаблон:Cite web
  24. Шаблон:Cite journal
  25. Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
  26. Шаблон:Cite web
  27. Шаблон:Cite journal
  28. Шаблон:Cite journal
  29. Dahl, Robert A., Ian Shapiro, José Antônio Cheibub, and Adam Przeworski. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” Essay. In The Democracy Sourcebook, 12–17. Cambridge, MA, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
  30. Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy is.. . and is Not." Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75-88
  31. Esaiasson, Peter, and Christopher Wlezien. "Advances in the study of democratic responsiveness: An introduction." Comparative political studies 50.6 (2017): 699-710.
  32. Coppedge, Michael, Angel Alvarez, and Claudia Maldonado. 2008. "Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness." The Journal of Politics70 (3): 632-647.
  33. Samuels, David. “Chapter 3: Democratic Political Regimes.” Essay. In Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013.
  34. Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona Nadenichek Golder. “Chapter 5: Economic Determinates of Democracy.” Chapter. In Foundations of Comparative Politics, 351–92.
  35. Högström, John. “Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV.” Government and Opposition 48, no. 2 (2013): 201–21. doi:10.1017/gov.2012.10.
  36. Piironen, Ossi. 2005. "Minimalist Democracy without Substance? an Evaluation of the Mainstream Measures of Democracy." Politiikka 47 (3): 189-204.
  37. Шаблон:Cite journal
  38. Шаблон:Cite journal
  39. Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,” Comparative Political Studies 35, 1 (2002): 5-34. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.3177&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  40. Шаблон:Cite journal
  41. Шаблон:Cite journal