TY - JOUR A1 - Schlenkrich, Oliver T1 - Identifying Profiles of Democracies: A Cluster Analysis Based on the Democracy Matrix Dataset from 1900 to 2017 JF - Politics and Governance N2 - This study examines types of democracies that result from trade-offs within the democratic quality. Recently, the existence and relevance of trade-offs has been widely discussed. The idea is that the functions associated with the quality of democracy cannot all be maximized simultaneously. Thus, trade-offs are expressed in distinct profiles of democracy. Different profiles of democracy favour certain democracy dimensions over others due to their institutional design. Conceptually, we differentiate between four different democracy profiles: a libertarian-majoritarian (high political freedom, lower political equality, and lower political and legal control values), an egalitarian-majoritarian (high equality combined with lower freedom and control values), as well as two control-focused democracy profiles (high control values either with high degrees of freedom or high degrees of equality). We apply a cluster analysis with a focus on cluster validation on the Democracy Matrix dataset—a customized version of the Varieties-of-Democracy dataset. To increase the robustness of the cluster results, this study uses several different cluster algorithms, multiple fit indices as well as data resampling techniques. Based on all democracies between 1900 and 2017, we find strong empirical evidence for these democracy profiles. Finally, we discuss the temporal development and spatial distribution of the democracy profiles globally across the three waves of democracy, as well as for individual countries. KW - cluster analysis KW - democracy KW - democracy profiles KW - quality of democracy KW - trade-offs Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-150882 SN - 2183-2463 VL - 7 IS - 4 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kestler, Thomas A1 - Lucca, Juan Bautista A1 - Krause, Silvana T1 - 'Break-In Parties' and Changing Patterns of Democracy in Latin America JF - Brazilian Political Science Review N2 - Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits. KW - break-in parties KW - types of government KW - Latin America KW - democracy KW - informality Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-171333 VL - 10 IS - 1 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Lauth, Hans-Joachim A1 - Schlenkrich, Oliver T1 - Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations about the Relationship between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings JF - Politics and Governance N2 - Whereas the measurement of the quality of democracy focused on the rough differentiation of democracies and autocracies in the beginning (e.g. Vanhanen, Polity, Freedom House), the focal point of newer instruments is the assessment of the quality of established democracies. In this context, tensions resp. trade-offs between dimensions of democracy are discussed as well (e.g. Democracy Barometer, Varieties of Democracy). However, these approaches lack a systematic discussion of trade-offs and they are not able to show trade-offs empirically. We address this research desideratum in a three-step process: Firstly, we propose a new conceptual approach, which distinguishes between two different modes of relationships between dimensions: mutual reinforcing effects and a give-and-take relationship (trade-offs) between dimensions. By introducing our measurement tool, Democracy Matrix, we finally locate mutually reinforcing effects as well as trade-offs. Secondly, we provide a new methodological approach to measure trade-offs. While one measuring strategy captures the mutual reinforcing effects, the other strategy employs indicators, which serve to gauge trade-offs. Thirdly, we demonstrate empirical findings of our measurement drawing on the Varieties of Democracy dataset. Incorporating trade-offs into the measurement enables us to identify various profiles of democracy (libertarian, egalitarian and control-focused democracy) via the quality of its dimensions. KW - control-focused democracy KW - democracy KW - egalitarian democracy KW - libertarian democracy KW - Varieties of Democracy KW - Democracy Matrix KW - measurement of democracy KW - profile of democracy KW - quality of democracy KW - trade-off Y1 - 2018 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-159588 VL - 6 IS - 1 ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Lauth, Hans-Joachim A1 - Kauff, Oliver T1 - Demokratiemessung: Der KID als aggregiertes Maß für die komparative Forschung. Empirische Befunde der Regimeentwicklung von 1996 bis 2010 T1 - Measurement of Democracy: The Combined Index of Democracy (CID) as an aggregated measurement for Comparative Research. Empirical Findings of Regime Formation between 1996 and 2010 N2 - Der Kombinierte Index der Demokratie (KID) und der Kombinierte Index der Demokratie 3 Dimensionen (KID3D ) messen die Regimequalität von 161 Ländern über den Zeitraum von 1996 bis 2010. Dabei werden die Datenreihen von Freedom House, Polity und den Governance Indicators der Weltbank gezielt zu zwei Meta-Indizes kombiniert, um deren Defizite zu kompensieren. Der KID3D beruht auf einem dreidimensionalen Demokratieverständnis, das sich auf die Dimensionen der Freiheit, Gleichheit und politischen und rechtlichen Kontrolle erstreckt. Während durch den Einbezug der Daten der Political Rights-Skala von Freedom House und der DEMOC-Skala von Polity maßgeblich die Dimensionen der Freiheit und der Gleichheit abgebildet werden, wird mit dem Index „rule of law“ der Governance-Indikatoren der Weltbank die Kontrolldimension und damit Aspekte der horizontalen Accountability und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit aufgenommen. Beim KID wird der Faktor „Staatlichkeit“ zusätzlich in den Demokratie¬index einbezogen. Bei Freedom House und Polity sowie bei den Governance-Indikatoren zu rule of law ist dies aufgrund der Indikatoren nur sehr begrenzt gegeben. Auch in diesem Fall liefert die Governance-Datenreihe der Weltbank mit „Political Stability” einen Indikator, der den Aspekt eines funktionsfähigen Gewaltmonopols aufgreift. Die Skala des KID3D und KID umfasst die Werte von 0 bis 10. Während 0 ein stark autokratisches System bezeichnet, steht die 10 für ein umfassend demokratisches System. Die KID3D-Schwellenwerte liegen für eine defizitäre beziehungsweise funktionierende Demokratie bei den Werten sechs und acht; beim KID bei fünf und sieben. Das Arbeitspapier stellt nach dem konzeptionellen Teil die empirischen Befunde vor: Wie haben sich die Regime von 1996 bis 2010 entwickelt? Angesprochen werden sowohl Regimewechsel als auch der Wandel in der Qualität der Demokratie. Welcher Trend lässt sich in den einzelnen Weltregionen verzeichnen und kann von einer Regression der De-mokratie gesprochen werden? Dieser Teil enthält zudem eine externe Validitätsprüfung, die auf einem Abgleich mit Werten zur Korruptions¬entwicklung basiert. Darüber hinaus werden die Übereinstimmung verschiedener Demokratie-Indizes mit dem KID3D und KID getestet sowie abweichende Falleinschätzungen diskutiert. Die kompletten Daten des KID finden sich schließlich im Anhang und auf: www.politikwissenschaft.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrbereiche/vergleichende/forschung/kombinierter_index_der_demokratie_kid/ N2 - The Combined Index of Democracy (CID) measures the quality of regimes in 161 states between 1996 and 2010. Our two meta-indices – the CID3D (Combined Index of Democracy 3 dimensions) and the CID – result from combining data from Freedom House, Polity and the Governance Indicators collected by the World Bank in order to overcome shortcomings of those indices. First we will discuss different existing approaches of measuring democracy and then introduce our own propositions – CID3D and CID. The CID3D is based on a three di-mensional concept of democracy including the dimensions freedom, equality, political and judicial control. The data of the dimensions ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ are derived from Freedoms House’s Political Rights Rating and Polity’s DEMOC indicator. The data of the third dimension is based on the ‘rule of law’ index of the World Bank’s Governance Indicators. It encloses control and thereby aspects of horizontal accountability and rule of law. The CID also includes stateness as an additional factor. Freedom House, Polity and the Governance Indicators of ‘rule of law’ fall short in providing adequate indicators for this factor. The Word Bank’s Governance dataset furnishes information about an effec-tive state monopoly on the use of force with the ‘political stability’ indicator. CID3D and CID scores can range from a scale of 0 to 10. The lowest score describes an intensely autocratic regime, the highest score relates to a full democratic system. CID3D scores of six and eight and the CID scores of five and seven mark thresholds for defective respectively functioning democracies. In the second part of our paper we present empirical results: In which direction have regimes developed between 1996 and 2010? We discuss regime changes as well as altera-tion regarding the quality of democracy. What trends can be observed in different world regions and is there any regression of democracy? The third part of the paper will undertake an external validity check comparing scores with those of corruption development. We also test CID3D and CID compliance with other democracy indices and discuss deviate results. CID’s complete data is provided in the appendix. www.politikwissenschaft.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrbereiche/vergleichende/forschung/kombinierter_index_der_demokratie_kid/ T3 - Würzburger Arbeitspapiere zur Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie (WAPS) - 2 KW - Demokratie KW - Vergleichende politische Wissenschaft KW - Demokratieforschung KW - Tatu Vanhanen KW - Demokratiemessung KW - Freedom House KW - Polity KW - Robert Dahl KW - Würzburg KW - democracy KW - CID Y1 - 2012 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-73033 ER -