| 1. |
- Bizzarro, Fernando, et al.
(författare)
-
Party Strength and Economic Growth
- 2015
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- While a large literature suggests an important role for political parties in economic development, this is the first attempt to lay out a comprehensive theory and a reasonably comprehensive empirical test of the proposition. We argue that strong parties broaden the constituencies to which policy makers respond and help politicians solve coordination problems. These features help ensure better economic management, public services, and political stability. And this, in turn, enhances economic growth. Drawing on a novel measure of party strength from the Varieties of Democracy dataset, we test this theory on data drawn from more than 150 countries, observed annually from 1900–2012. We identify a sizeable effect which is robust to various specifications, estimators, and samples. The effect operates in both democracies and autocracies and is fairly stable across regions and time periods. We also find provisional evidence in favor of causal mechanisms pertaining to public services and political stability.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bizzarro, Fernando, et al.
(författare)
-
Party Strength and Economic Growth
- 2018
-
Ingår i: World Politics. - 0043-8871 .- 1086-3338. ; 70:2, s. 275-320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © Trustees of Princeton University 2018. While a large literature suggests an important role for political parties in development, this article is the first attempt to layout and test a comprehensive theory connecting parties to economic growth. The authors argue that strong parties broaden the constituencies to which policymakers respond and help politicians solve coordination problems. These features help to ensure better economic management, public services, and political stability. And this, in turn, enhances economic growth. Drawing on a novel measure of party strength from the Varieties of Democracy data set, the authors test this theory on data drawn from more than 150 countries observed annually from 1901-2010. They identify a sizeable effect that is robust to various specifications, estimators, and samples. The effect operates in both democracies and autocracies, and is fairly stable across regions and time periods.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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).
|
|
| 4. |
- Coppedge, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects
- 2017
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- For policymakers, activists, academics, and citizens around the world the conceptualization and measurement of democracy matters. The needs of democracy promoters and social scientists are convergent. We all need better ways to measure democracy. In the first section of this document we critically review the field of democracy indices. It is important to emphasize that problems identified with extant indices are not easily solved, and some of the issues we raise vis-à-vis other projects might also be raised in the context of the V-Dem project. Measuring an abstract and contested concept such as democracy is hard and some problems of conceptualization and measurement may never be solved definitively. In the second section we discuss in general terms how the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project differs from extant indices and how the novel approach taken by V-Dem might assist the work of activists, professionals, and scholars.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Cornell, Agnes, 1981, et al.
(författare)
-
Civil Society, Party Institutionalization, and Democratic Breakdown in the Interwar Period
- 2016
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The relationship between the strength of civil society and democratic survival in the interwar period has been much debated. Prominent studies have questioned the existence of a positive association, arguing that the relationship is conditioned by the level of party institutionalization. This revisionist perspective has been vindicated by case studies of important European cases, in particular Germany and Italy. But due to a lack of cross - national data, neither the direct effect of civil society nor the alternative perspective has so far been subjected to a comprehensive statistical analysis. In this paper we enlist novel data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project that enable us to carry out such an assessment of all democratic spells in the interwar years. Our survival analysis demonstrates that a vibrant civil society generally contributed to democratic survival in this period and that this effect was not moderated by the level of party institutionalization.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cornell, Agnes, 1981, et al.
(författare)
-
Political Regimes
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Andrew Denning and Heidi J.S. Tworek (eds.) The Interwar World. - London : Routledge. - 9780367616847
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 9. |
- Eckerberg, Katarina, 1953-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of the Social Sciences in Norway : Report from Panel 3 – Political Science
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Panel 3 evaluated 53 units in all, 22 institutional units and 31 research groups. The evaluation included university departments of political science, political scientists working in interdisciplinary units at universities and university colleges, and political scientists working at interdisciplinary research institutes.Broadly speaking, Norwegian Political Science is doing well. Our assessments of the scientific output across institutes and research groups show that the impact varies between fair and excellent, even though we underline the limitations of such an oversimplified classification scheme. The panel observes variation in the scientific quality impact of institutions, especially within the Oslo region compared with most other parts of Norway. The majority of subdisciplines are well covered. A substantial number of studies focus on conflict, peace and policy studies (food, climate, energy etc.). Much of the research focuses on Norway and is directly relevant to Norwegian society. Some of the work makes significant theoretical contributions, but most of it mainly offers a strong empirical dimension.However, some areas receive relatively little attention, such as classical and modern political theory, political economy and political history. The range of comparative work could also be broader. Given the available human capital, funding and other resources, the panel finds that Political Science in Norway is not realising its full potential. There is a tendency – at both the research institutes and universities – to rely too much on policy-oriented research funding, which might be an obstacle to pursuing more innovative and ground-breaking conceptual work. Likewise, the recruitment of a new generation of political scientists in the form of PhD students and postdocs is largely driven by project funding, thereby limiting their scope to develop their own topics or ideas. A few institutions have accessed international (mainly EU) funding, but the many smaller units lack the scale and resources required to compete for such funds. These researchers would do well to develop (counter-) strategies that enable them to participate in larger projects, including H2020 proposals. Diversification of funding is a general recommendation for the majority of evaluated units.The panel’s assessment of research groups revealed considerable variation between the institutes with regard to their purpose and ‘social life’. The panel considers a constructive and enabling research environment to be the most valuable function of a research group, while at the same time ensuring that individual researchers have autonomy to develop their own research agendas. The panel notes that many of the high-scoring research groups have a good support structure within their departments or institutions, whereas some of the weaker ones lack such support. Joint activities aimed at raising scientific quality, such as regular work-in-progress seminars, article or book manuscript review sessions, mock research grant interviews, staff retreats, and (international) guest speakers, are ways of going forward. More could also be done to target high-profile international journals and publishers, while maintaining a broader perspective on modes of scientific output beyond peer-reviewed articles.In light of the considerable organisational fragmentation of Political Science in Norway, and corresponding problems of scale, more collaboration across institutions within the country is generally desirable. Researcher mobility within Norway and internationally could also be expanded. This could to help to bring political science environments closer together, both in their research and in PhD and postdoc training, thereby strengthening Political Science as a discipline.
|
|
| 10. |
- Gerring, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Democracy and human development: issues of conceptualization and measurement
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 28:2, s. 308-332
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study attempts to reconcile competing positions in an important debate about the relationship between regime type and human development. We contend that this empirical relationship is contingent upon issues of conceptualization and measurement in democracy. First, the relationship is more likely to be perceived when democracy is measured in a nuanced fashion, taking account of gradations of democracy and autocracy. Second, some aspects of democracy–those associated with competitive elections–are more strongly associated with human development than others. Third, the components of electoral democracy interact in a reinforcing manner. Finally, the impact of democracy on human development is a distal relationship that depends upon a country’s entire regime history. Our approach draws on several new datasets that interrogate change across a century, enhancing empirical leverage on this important question. To measure human development, we employ the Gapminder project, covering most sovereign countries from 1900 to 2012. To measure democracy, we draw on Varieties of Democracy data, which measure democracy in a highly differentiated fashion for most sovereign countries from 1900 to the present. An extensive set of analyses offer strong corroboration for the argument.
|
|
