| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Coppedge, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
The Methodology of “Varieties of Democracy” (V-Dem)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMS Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/ Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique. - : SAGE Publications. - 0759-1063 .- 2070-2779. ; 143, s. 107-133
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article describes and discusses the new generation of methodological responses to measuring democracy and related issues generated by Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). V-Dem is distinct in several regards in addition to its unique level of disaggregation, by the combination of: historical data extending back to 1900 and for a large selection among them to 1789 for many countries in the world; use of multiple, independent coders for each evaluative question; inter-coder reliability tests incorporated into a custom designed Bayesian item-response theory measurement model; provision of confidence bounds for all point estimates associated with expert-coded questions as well as for all indices; multiple indices reflecting varying theories of democracy; fully transparent aggregation procedures; and that all data are made freely available, including original coder-level judgments (exclusive of any personal identifying information).
|
|
| 3. |
- Knutsen, Carl Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding
- 2023
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper addresses three interrelated questions. First, how strong is the evidence that democracy has declined globally over the last decade? Second, how should we best measure (change in) democracy? Third, given that much of the recent evidencefor global backsliding comes from measurement projects that rely on expert ratings, is there evidence that experts have become harsher judges of democratic quality in recent years? We begin our analysis with a discussion of how to conceptualize democracy and democratic backsliding, stressing that for contested concepts such as democracy, no one operationalization is likely to reign supreme. We then dissect the distinction between “subjective” and “objective” measures, examining how measurement error can affect even seemingly objective indicators, and highlight how subjectivity pervades all measurement enterprises. Next, focusing on V–Dem’s methodology, we show—through both theoretical considerations and empirical tests—that it is highly unlikely that time-varying expert biases drive recent declines in estimates of the state of global democracy. Finally we evaluate Little and Meng’s (2023) recent attempt to assess the prevailing case for global backsliding using “objective” measures. We demonstrate multiple issues that make their measurement strategy ill-suited to studying trends in global democracy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Knutsen, Carl Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding
- 2024
-
Ingår i: PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS. - 1049-0965 .- 1537-5935.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that "objective" measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M's specific data and conclusions.
|
|
| 5. |
- Lindberg, Staffan I., 1969, et al.
(författare)
-
Data for Politics: Creating an International Research Infrastructure Measuring Democracy.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Patterns. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-3899. ; 1:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Questions such as how democratic a country is, how free are its media, or how independent is its judiciary are highly important to researchers and decision makers. We describe a research infrastructure that produces the world's largest dataset on democracy, governance, human rights, and related topics. The dataset is far more resolved and accurate than previous efforts, currently covers 202 political units from 1789 until the present, and is regularly updated each spring. The infrastructure involves an online survey of over 3,000 experts from 180 countries. Survey design and advanced statistical techniques are crucial for assuring data validity. The infrastructure also provides reports and analyses based on the data and easy-to-use tools for exploring and graphing the data.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lindberg, Staffan I, 1969, et al.
(författare)
-
Successful and Failed Episodes of Democratization: Conceptualization, Identification, and Description
- 2018
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What explains successful democratization? Answering this requires that researchers identify not only countries that successfully transitioned to democracy, but also those that began to liberalize—that initiated institutional reforms that move it towards democracy—but failed to transition. In this paper, we propose a solution that allows researchers more fully to capture the liberalization period and then classify these episodic events according to their outcome: successful, failed, or censored episodes of democratization. We identify the appropriate procedures and data necessary for operationalization of such episodes and present the first ever dataset of the full universe of democratization episodes 1900-2017, compare them to existing measures and assess construct validity. We also demonstrate the value of this approach showing how we can substantially improve upon what we know about democratization, including their relationship to development, state capacity, underlying temporal features, and the relationship between patterns of liberalization and whether a country successfully transitions to democracy.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Medzihorsky, Juraj
(författare)
-
Rethinking the D'Hondt method
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Political Research Exchange: An ECPR Journal. - 2474-736X. ; 1:1, s. 1-15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The D'Hondt method is the most popular proportional apportionment procedure, as well as one of the oldest. Despite this, the method is not fully understood, with serious normative and empirical implications for democratic representation. This paper provides insights into the D'Hondt method through a generalization that is based on a finite mixture model, extends to situations with missing data (e.g. imperfect records), and applies to allocation problems outside of elections. The generalization disproves several widely accepted beliefs, clarifying that the method maximizes the fraction of exactly proportionally represented votes, and providing intuitive measures of overall and party-level disproportionality. The crucial insights of this interpretation are easily communicated in natural language without any mathematical formalisms, which makes it particularly useful for lay audiences and civic education. I illustrate these features with the 1999–2014 British European Parliament elections.
|
|
| 9. |
- Medzihorsky, Juraj, et al.
(författare)
-
Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Party Politics. - 1354-0688. ; 30:3, s. 420-434
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The recent increase of democratic declines around the world - "the third wave of autocratization" - has sparked a new generation of studies on the topic. Scholars tend to agree that the main threat to contemporary democracy arises from democratically elected rulers who gradually erode democratic norms. Is it possible to identify future autocratizers before they win power in elections? Linz (1978) and Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) suggest that a lacking commitment to democratic norms reveals would-be autocratizers before they reach office. This article argues that the concept of anti-pluralism rather than populism or extreme ideology captures this. We use a new expert-coded data set on virtually all relevant political parties worldwide from 1970 to 2019 (V-Party) to create a new Anti-Pluralism Index (API) to provide the first systematic empirical test of this argument. We find substantial evidence validating that the API and Linz's litmus-test indicators signal leaders and parties that will derail democracy if and when they come into power.
|
|
| 10. |
- Pemstein, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data
- 2020
-
Ingår i: SSRN Electronic Journal. - Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet. - 1556-5068.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project relies on country experts who code a host of ordinal variables, providing subjective ratings of latent- that is, not directly observable- regime characteristics over time. Sets of around five experts rate each case (country-year observation), and each of these raters works independently. Since raters may diverge in their coding because of either differences of opinion or mistakes, we require systematic tools with which to model these patterns of disagreement. These tools allow us to aggregate ratings into point estimates of latent concepts and quantify our uncertainty around these point estimates. In this paper we describe item response theory models that can that account and adjust for differential item functioning (i.e. differences in how experts apply ordinal scales to cases) and variation in rater reliability (i.e. random error). We also discuss key challenges specific to applying item response theory to expert-coded cross-national panel data, explain the approaches that we use to address these challenges, highlight potential problems with our current framework, and describe long-term plans for improving our models and estimates. Finally, we provide an overview of the different forms in which we present model output.
|
|
