Suchergebnisse

Landene i Mellemøsten demonstrerer komparativt set et stort demokratisk un-derskud i forhold til niveauet i de fleste andre verdensregioner, og den verdens-omspændende Tredje Demokratiseringsbølge har i stort omfang forbigået regio-nen. En global analyse af demokratiniveauet i perioden 2000 til 2004 viser, at en model baseret på strukturelle forklaringsfaktorer samlet indfanger de relative po-sitioner godt. Modernisering og naboskabsdemokrati har en positiv indvirkning på tilstedeværelsen af demokratiske praksisser, muslimsk og arabisk befolknings-flertal samt olieproduktion udviser en negativ samvariation, mens religiøs og et-nisk homogenitet ikke lader til at spille nogen generel rolle. Samlet set indfanger modellen de relative positioner godt. Resultaterne indikerer, at de fleste mellem-østlige lande er særdeles strukturelt underprivilegerede med hensyn til sandsyn-ligheden for fremvæksten af liberalt demokrati, hvilket illustrerer vanskeligheden ved internt og eksternt initierede demokratiseringsbestræbelser i regionen.

AbstractA review of three books shows that the crisis of democracy literature is exceptionally diverse. It ranges from overconfident postulations and proposals without systematic arguments and comparative analysis on the one hand to novel theorizing and balanced accounts, including cautious use of historical evidence, on the other hand. Accordingly, there is much variation in how much the different contributions succeed in drawing lessons from historical developments to better understand and reduce contemporary challenges.

Different measures of democracy rely on different types of data. Some exclusively rely on observational data, others rely on judgement-based data in the form of in-house coded indicators or expert surveys. A third set of democracy measures combines information from indicators based on different types of data, some of them also data from representative surveys of the mass public. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these different types of data for the measurement of electoral and liberal democracy. The discussion is based on the premise that the main priorities must be to establish a high degree of concept-measure consistency, i.e. indicators capture relevant aspects of the core concept of interest in a precise and unbiased manner, and to provide high coverage. The basic argument of the article is that no type of data is superior to others in all respects. The article draws on examples from extant datasets to illustrate the tradeoffs and it offers suggestions about how to reduce some of the potential drawbacks.

Different measures of democracy rely on different types of data. Some exclusively rely on observational data, others rely on judgement-based data in the form of in-house coded indicators or expert surveys. A third set of democracy measures combines information from indicators based on different types of data, some of them also data from representative surveys of the mass public. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these different types of data for the measurement of electoral and liberal democracy. The discussion is based on the premise that the main priorities must be to establish a high degree of concept-measure consistency, i.e. indicators capture relevant aspects of the core concept of interest in a precise and unbiased manner, and to provide high coverage. The basic argument of the article is that no type of data is superior to others in all respects. The article draws on examples from extant datasets to illustrate the tradeoffs and it offers suggestions about how to reduce some of the potential drawbacks.

This article offers a comparative review of seven rule of law measures. It demonstrates that the measures differ in both form and appropriateness and that the differences have consequences for the empirical results. The shortcomings are, among others, restrictions in scope and availability of disaggregate data, insufficient codebooks, and unjustified aggregation procedures. In most cases, the task of conceptualization is not grounded in theory, and key principles of the rule of law are left out while more inappropriate elements are included. These findings suggest that more precaution is required in the construction and employment of rule of law measures. Adapted from the source document.

This article offers a comparative review of seven rule of law measures. It demonstrates that the measures differ in both form and appropriateness and that the differences have consequences for the empirical results. The shortcomings are, among others, restrictions in scope and availability of disaggregate data, insufficient codebooks, and unjustified aggregation procedures. In most cases, the task of conceptualization is not grounded in theory, and key principles of the rule of law are left out while more inappropriate elements are included. These findings suggest that more precaution is required in the construction and employment of rule of law measures.