Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type

  • Daniel Pemstein (a1), Stephen A. Meserve (a2) and James Melton (a3)
Abstract

Using a Bayesian latent variable approach, we synthesize a new measure of democracy, the Unified Democracy Scores (UDS), from 10 extant scales. Our measure eschews the difficult—and often arbitrary—decision to use one existing democracy scale over another in favor of a cumulative approach that allows us to simultaneously leverage the measurement efforts of numerous scholars. The result of this cumulative approach is a measure of democracy that, for every country-year, is at least as reliable as the most reliable component measure and is accompanied by quantitative estimates of uncertainty in the level of democracy. Moreover, for those who wish to continue using previously existing scales or to evaluate research performed using those scales, we extract information from the new measure to perform heretofore impossible direct comparisons between component scales. Specifically, we estimate the relative reliability of the constituent indicators, compare the specific ordinal levels of each of the existing measures in relationship to one another and assess overall levels of disagreement across raters. We make the UDS and associated parameter estimates freely available online and provide a detailed tutorial that demonstrates how to best use the UDS in applied work.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
e-mail: dan.pemstein@vanderbilt.edu (corresponding author)
Footnotes
Hide All

Authors' note: The authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order, indicating equal contribution to the article. The authors would like to thank Bill Bernhard, Jose Antonio Cheibub, Josh Clinton, Zach Elkins, Brian Gaines, Jim Kuklinski, Kevin Quinn, seminar participants at the University of Illinois, participants at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, our reviewers, and the editors of Political Analysis for helpful comments. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.
Alvarez, Michael, Antonio Cheibub, José, Limongi, Fernando, and Pzeworski, Adam. 1996. Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative Political Development 31: 137.
Arat, Zehra F. 1991. Democracy and human rights in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 45: 370–90.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 2001. Cross-national indicators of liberal democracy, 1950-1990. 2nd ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/02532.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Jackman, Robert W. 1989. Democracy, stability, and dichotomies. American Sociological Review 54: 612–21.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Paxton, Pamela. 2000. Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33: 5886.
Bowman, Kirk, Lehoucq, Fabrice, and Mahoney, James. 2005. Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies 38: 939–70.
Casper, Gretchen, and Tufis, Claudiu. 2002. Correlation versus interchangeability: The limited robustness of empirical findings on democracy using highly correlated datasets. Political Analysis 11: 111.
Cheibub, José, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143: 65101.
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lapinski, John S. 2006. Measuring legislative accomplishment, 1877-1994. American Journal of Political Science 50: 232–49.
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lewis, David E. 2007. Export opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis 15: 320.
Collier, David, and Adcock, Robert. 1999. Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537–65.
Coppedge, Michael. 2002. Democracy and dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. Comparative Political Studies 35: 35–9.
Coppedge, Michael, Alvarez, Angel, and Maldonado, Claudia. 2008. Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics 70: 632–47.
Coppedge, Michael, and Reinicke, Wolfgang H. 1991. Measuring polyarchy. In On measuring democracy: Its consequences and concomitants, ed. Inkeles, Alex, 4768. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Dahl, Robert A. 1972. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Elkins, Zachary. 2000. Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science 44: 287–94.
Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World. http://www.freedomhouse.org.
Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1996. An overview of the political regime change data set. Comparative Political Studies 29: 469–83.
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., and Rubin, Donald B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Ward, Michael D. 1997. Double take: A reexamination of democracy and autocracy in modern polities. The Journal of Conflice Resolution 41: 361–8.
Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackman, Simon. 2004. What do we learn from Graduate Admissions Committees?: A multiple-rater, latent variable model with incomplete discrete and continuous indicators. Political Analysis 12: 400–24.
Johnson, Valen E. 1996. On Bayesian analysis of multirater ordinal data: An application to automated essay grading. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 4251.
Johnson, Valen E., and Albert, James H. 1999. Ordinal data modeling. New York: Springer.
Marshall, Monty G., Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 2006. Polity IV: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2004. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/.
Munck, Gerardo L., and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35: 534.
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Antonio Cheibub, José, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and development: Political regimes and economic well-being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, Kevin M. 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis 12: 338–53.
Ray, James Lee 2000. Democracy: On the level(s), does democracy correlate with peace? In What do we know about war?, ed. Vasquez, John, 299316. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Reich, Gary. 2002. Categorizing political regimes: New data for old problems. Democratization 9: 124.
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science 52: 201–17.
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. Democratization: A comparative analysis of 170 countries. New York: Routledge.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Pemstein et al. supplementary material
Tutorial

 PDF (51 KB)
51 KB
PDF
Supplementary materials

Pemstein et al. supplementary material
Appendix

 PDF (67 KB)
67 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed