Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article analyzes the relationship between clientelism and citizens' political orientation in Latin America. Consistent political perceptions in the citizenry are central in traditional theories of political competition. This article argues that clientelism hinders the development of consistent political orientation by reducing the utility of information cues, such as left-right labels. More specifically, clientelistic parties generate indifference among their supporters toward the left-right divide by offering them an alternative voting rationale, and increase uncertainty in the political realm by making left-right labels less meaningful. Both arguments are tested with multilevel regression analyses using cross-sectional data covering 18 Latin American countries. The results indicate that clientelistic party supporters are more likely to show indifference toward the left-right dimension and, to a lesser extent, that their left-right orientation corresponds less with their political attitudes.

Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.

Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research. ; Editorial of the issue "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy", edited by Heiko Giebler (WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Germany), Saskia P. Ruth (German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Germany), and Dag Tanneberg (University of Potsdam, Germany).

Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.

Die Erfahrungen demokratischer Erosion unter populistischen Regierungen, wie etwa in Venezuela und Nicaragua, zeigen, wie weitreichend die Konsequenzen des Populismus für demokratische Regierungssysteme sein können. Es ist daher nicht überraschend, dass die Wahlen des Linkspopulisten Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) zum Präsidenten Mexikos und des Rechtspopulisten Jair Bolsonaro in Brasilien Beobachter alarmieren.
Der weltweite Aufstieg des Populismus liegt vielfach in einer Repräsentationskrise traditioneller politischer Parteien begründet. Weite Teile der Wählerschaft sprechen den demokratischen Regierungen Glaubwürdigkeit und Problemlösungsfähigkeit ab.
Populisten mobilisieren ihre Unterstützer durch "Wir-gegen-die"-Botschaften. Unabhängig von ihrer ideologischen Ausrichtung prangern sie die (angeblich) korrupte politische Elite an und betonen die Tugendhaftigkeit des Volkes.
Populistische Herausforderer versprechen, durch weitreichende Veränderungen die Politik wieder stärker an den Interessen der Bürger zu orientieren.
Umfangreiche institutionelle Reformen sind ein verbreitetes Mittel zur Umsetzung dieser Versprechen. Solche Reformen können aber auch zum Abbau demokratischer Kontrollmechanismen von Regierungshandeln führen.
Die neuen Regierungen in Mexiko und Brasilien sehen sich mit hohen Erwartungen konfrontiert. Allerdings verfügt AMLO in Mexiko über genügend Einfluss, um innerhalb demokratischer Strukturen seine politische Agenda voranzutreiben. Demgegenüber sieht sich Jair Bolsonaro in Brasilien einem höchst fragmentierten und polarisierten Kongress sowie sinkenden Zustimmungswerten gegenüber. Interne wie externe Akteure sollten sich vor allem dem polarisierenden, populistischen Diskurs widersetzen und dem Abbau demokratischer Normen und Strukturen aktiv entgegenwirken.

Abstract: In recent years, scholars have started to measure and explain populism at the micro-level, as an attitude that individuals hold about politics. Multiple scales have been proposed but, as the overview by Van Hauwaert et al. indicates, they all have limitations. Most do not capture a broad range of the phenomenon – being able to discriminate only among moderately populist and moderately not-populist individuals – and have little cross-cultural validity. Starting out with 145 items, we have used standard scale-development approaches from psychology to produce a short battery of six to nine indicators measuring populist attitudes, divided into three dimensions. The scale has conceptual breadth, and travels well across 18 samples collected in 14 different countries from Europe and the Americas.