Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-mhx7p Total loading time: 0.278 Render date: 2022-05-16T10:14:52.094Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2019

Kevin L. Cope
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Charles Crabtree*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Christopher J. Fariss
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ccrabtr@umich.edu

Abstract

Until recently, researchers who wanted to examine the determinants of state respect for most specific negative rights (i.e., physical integrity and empowerment rights) needed to rely on data from the CIRI or the Political Terror Scale (PTS). The new Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset offers scholars a potential alternative to the individual human rights variables from CIRI. We analyze a set of key Cingranelli–Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project and V-Dem negative rights indicators, finding unusual and unexpectedly large patterns of disagreement between the two sets. First, we discuss the new V-Dem dataset by comparing it to the disaggregated CIRI indicators, discussing the history of each project, and describing its empirical domain. Second, we identify a set of disaggregated human rights measures that are similar across the two datasets and discuss each project’s measurement approach. Third, we examine how these measures compare to each other empirically, showing that they diverge considerably across both time and space. These findings point to several important directions for future work, such as how conceptual approaches and measurement strategies affect rights scores. For the time being, our findings suggest that researchers should think carefully about using the measures as substitutes.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carroll, JB (1961) The nature of the data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika 26(4), 347372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, DL and Richards, DL (2010) The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project. Human Rights Quarterly 32(2), 401424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, DL, Richards, DL and Clay, KC (2015) ‘The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project Coding Manual Version 2014.04.14’. Available at http://www.humanrightsdata.com/p/data-documentation.html, accessed 12 March 2017.Google Scholar
Conrad, CR, Haglund, J and Moore, WH (2013) Disaggregating torture allegations: introducing the ill-treatment and torture (ITT) country-year data. International Studies Perspectives 14(2), 199220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, KL and Creamer, C (2016) Disaggregating the human rights treaty regime. Virginia Journal of International Law 55, 459480.Google Scholar
Coppedge, M, Gerring, J, Altman, D, Bernhard, M, Fish, S, Hicken, A, Kroenig, M, Lindberg, SI, McMann, K, Paxton, P and Semetko, HA (2011) Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: a new approach. Perspectives on Politics 9(02), 247267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, M, Gerring, J, Altman, D, Bernhard, M, Fish, MS, Hicken, A, Kroenig, M, Lindberg, SI, McMann, K, Paxton, P, Semetko, HA, Skaaning, S-E, Staton, J and Teorell, J (2015) “V-Dem Dataset v5.” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Available at https://www.v-dem.net/en/data/data-version-5/ Google Scholar
Fariss, CJ (2014) Respect for human rights has improved over time: modeling the changing standard of accountability in human rights documents. American Political Science Review 108(2), 297318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, RJ (1978) Political Repression in Modern America, From 1870 to Present. Cambridge, MA: G. K. Hall.Google Scholar
Hathaway, OA (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law Journal 111(8), 19352042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, DW Jr and Jones, ZM (2014) An empirical evaluation of explanations for state repression. American Political Science Review 108(3), 661687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, LC (2012) Political Repression Courts and the Law. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Landman, T (2004) Measuring human rights: principle, practice, and policy. Human Rights Quarterly 26(4), 906931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee Rodgers, J and Nicewander, WA (1988) Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician 42(1), 5966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, M-HM, Nordgren, LF and Loewenstein, G (2011) Torture in the eyes of the beholder: the psychological difficulty of defining torture in law and policy. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 44(2011), 87122.Google Scholar
Pemstein, D, Marquardt, KL, Tzelgov, E, Wang, Y-T and Miri, F (2015) ‘The V-Dem measurement model: latent variable analysis for cross-national and cross-temporal expert-coded data’. Working Paper. Available at http://www.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3167764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemstein, D, Meserve, SA and Melton, J (2010) Democratic compromise: a latent variable analysis to ten measure of regime type. Political Analysis 18(4), 426449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnakenberg, KE and Fariss, CJ (2014) Dynamic patterns of human rights practices. Political Science Research and Methods 2(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J (2005) Torture and positive law: jurisprudence for the White House. Columbia Law Review 105(6), 16811750.Google Scholar
Wood, RM and Gibney, M (2010) The Political Terror Scale (PTS): a re-introduction and comparison. Human Rights Quarterly 32(2), 367400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Cope et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Cope et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 89 KB
7
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression
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? *