Measures of democracy are regularly employed in the statistical analysis of economic, political, and social policy. This paper reviews the measures" setup, strength, and weaknesses across the three most prominent democracy datasets: PolityIV, Freedom House, and Varieties of Democracy. The measures developed by the Varieties of Democracy project outperform Polity2 and Freedom House Index with respect to the underlying definition and measurement scale, as well as the theoretical justification of the aggregation procedure. The three indices display a high level of agreement for those observations included in all three datasets. The most substantial differences between the indices lie in the indices’ coverage, i.e. in their non-missing observations (in Polity2 coding, for example, years during which a country is occupied by foreign powers constitute missing values), the availability of disaggregate data and the above mentioned key areas. This paper clarifies when to proceed with caution, but for the most part advocates the use of Varieties of Democracy in the statistical analysis of democracy.
AcemogluDNaiduSRestrepoPet al. (2014) Democracy does cause growth. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
BoeseVAKaminK (2018) ’tis but thy name that is my enemy: On the construction of macro panel datasets in peace economics. Economics of Peace and Security Journal (forthcoming).
3.
BogaardsM (2010) Measures of democratization: From degree to type to war. Political Research Quarterly63(2): 475–488.
4.
BoixCMillerMRosatoS (2013) A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies46(12): 1523–1554.
5.
BollenK (1993) Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1207–1230.
6.
BollenKA (1980) Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 45(3): 370–390.
7.
BollenKAJackmanRW (1985) Political democracy and the size distribution of income. American Sociological Review 50(4): 438–457.
8.
BollenKAJackmanRW (1989) Democracy, stability, and dichotomies. American Sociological Review 54(4): 612–621.
9.
BollenKAPaxtonP (2000) Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies33(1): 58–86.
10.
BushSS (2017) The politics of rating freedom: Ideological affinity, private authority, and the freedom in the world ratings. Perspectives on Politics15(3): 711–731.
11.
CasperGTufisC (2003) Correlation versus interchangeability: The limited robustness of empirical findings on democracy using highly correlated data sets. Political Analysis11(2): 196–203.
12.
CheibubJAGandhiJVreelandJR (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice143(1–2): 67–101.
13.
CoppedgeMAlvarezAMaldonadoC (2008) Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics70(3): 632–647.
14.
CoppedgeMGerringJAltmanDet al. (2011) Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics9(2): 247–267.
15.
CoppedgeMGerringJLindbergSIet al. (2017a) V-dem comparisons and contrasts with other measurement projects. V-Dem Working Paper 2017:45. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2951014## (accessed 21 December 2017).
EcksteinH (1973) Authority patterns: A structural basis for political inquiry. American Political Science Review67(4): 1142–1161.
25.
ElffMZiajaS (2018) Method factors in democracy indicators. Politics and Governance6(1): 92–104.
26.
ElkinsZ (2000) Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 293–300.
27.
FearonJDLaitinDD (2003) Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review97(1): 75–90.
28.
FrancoÁÁlvarez-DardetCRuizMT (2004) Effect of democracy on health: Ecological study. British Medical Journal329(7480): 1421–1423.
29.
GatesSHegreHJonesMPet al. (2006) Institutional inconsistency and political instability: Polity duration, 1800–2000. American Journal of Political Science50(4): 893–908.
30.
GleditschKSWardMD (1997) Double take: A reexamination of democracy and autocracy in modern polities. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(3): 361–383.
31.
GoertzG (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
GoldstoneJABatesRHEpsteinDLet al. (2010) A global model for forecasting political instability. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 190–208.
33.
GurrTR (1974) Persistence and change in political systems, 1800–1971. American Political Science Review68(4): 1482–1504.
34.
HegreH (2001) Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review95(1): 33–48.
35.
HögströmJ (2013) Does the choice of democracy measure matter? Comparisons between the two leading democracy indices, Freedom House and Polity IV. Government and Opposition48(2): 201–221.
HøylandBMoeneKWillumsenF (2012) The tyranny of international index rankings. Journal of Development Economics97(1): 1–14.
39.
HuntingtonSP (1993) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, volume 4. University of Oklahoma Press.
40.
InkelesA (1991) On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
41.
KnutsenCH (2010) Measuring effective democracy. International Political Science Review31(2): 109–128.
42.
KnutsenCH (2011) The economic effects of democracy and dictatorship. PhD Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
43.
LindbergSICoppedgeMGerringJet al. (2014) V-dem: A new way to measure democracy. Journal of Democracy25(3): 159–169.
44.
MainwaringSBrinksDPérez-LiñánA (2007) Classifying political regimes in Latin America, 1945–2004. In: Gerardo LM (ed) Regimes and Democracy in Latin America: Theories and Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.123–160.
45.
MarquardtKLPemsteinD (2018) IRT models for expert-coded panel data. Political Analysis 26(4): 431–456.
46.
MarshallMGGurrTRJaggersK (2017a) Polity IV project: Dataset users’ manual—political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2016. Available at http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html (accessed 06 July 2017).
47.
MarshallMGGurrTRJaggersK (2017b) Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2016. Available at http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html (accessed 06 July 2017).
48.
MunckGL (2009) Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
MunckGLVerkuilenJ (2002) Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies35(1): 5–34.
50.
PemsteinDMeserveSAMeltonJ (2010) Democratic compromise: A latent variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis18(4): 426–449.
51.
PrzeworskiAAlvarezMCheibubJAet al. (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990, volume 3. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SchmitterPCKarlTL (1991) What democracy is… and is not. Journal of Democracy2(3): 75–88.
53.
SchumpeterJA (1976 [1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London and New York: Routledge.
54.
TreierSJackmanS (2008) Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science52(1): 201–217.
55.
VanhanenT (2000) A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research37(2): 251–265.
56.
VreelandJR (2008) The effect of political regime on civil war: Unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(3): 401–425.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
