Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.214 Render date: 2021-12-03T23:58:36.846Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Daniel Pemstein*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University, PMB 407712, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37240-7712
Stephen A. Meserve
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 240 Computer Applications Building, 605 East Springfield Ave., Champaign, IL 61820. e-mail: meserve@illinois.edu
James Melton
Affiliation:
Economics and Institutional Change, IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, Piazza San Ponziano 6, 55100 Lucca, Italy. e-mail: james.melton@imtlucca.it
*
e-mail: dan.pemstein@vanderbilt.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

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.

References

Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Antonio Cheibub, José, Limongi, Fernando, and Pzeworski, Adam. 1996. Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative Political Development 31: 137.Google Scholar
Arat, Zehra F. 1991. Democracy and human rights in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 45: 370–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Jackman, Robert W. 1989. Democracy, stability, and dichotomies. American Sociological Review 54: 612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Paxton, Pamela. 2000. Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33: 5886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Kirk, Lehoucq, Fabrice, and Mahoney, James. 2005. Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies 38: 939–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cheibub, José, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143: 65101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lapinski, John S. 2006. Measuring legislative accomplishment, 1877-1994. American Journal of Political Science 50: 232–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lewis, David E. 2007. Export opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis 15: 320.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Adcock, Robert. 1999. Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 2002. Democracy and dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. Comparative Political Studies 35: 35–9.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, Alvarez, Angel, and Maldonado, Claudia. 2008. Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics 70: 632–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1972. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary. 2000. Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science 44: 287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World. http://www.freedomhouse.org.Google Scholar
Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1996. An overview of the political regime change data set. Comparative Political Studies 29: 469–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., and Rubin, Donald B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Valen E., and Albert, James H. 1999. Ordinal data modeling. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
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/.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35: 534.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Kevin M. 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis 12: 338–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Reich, Gary. 2002. Categorizing political regimes: New data for old problems. Democratization 9: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science 52: 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. Democratization: A comparative analysis of 170 countries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Pemstein et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Pemstein et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 67 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Pemstein et al. supplementary material

Tutorial

Download Pemstein et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 51 KB
You have Access
236
Cited by

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
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *