Rethinking Consensus vs. Majoritarian Democracy

Arend Lijphart's distinction between two dimensions of consensus and majoritarian democracy has been an influential concept. However, several scholars have reported that the distinction does not travel well to other regions or historical periods. This paper argues, more generally, that Lijphart's dimensions can be replicated only when using Lijphart's own data. If one substitutes conceptually similar indicators (in this case, mostly from V-Dem), three or four dimensions emerge, and they are not robust to different samples. Such substitutions would be necessary for anyone wishing to measure Lijphart's dimensions beyond his chosen cases. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these concepts are not generally useful. However, it is possible to construct a couple of simple indices measuring thinner related concepts.This research project was supported by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Grant M13-0559:1, PI: Staffan I. Lindberg, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation to Wallenberg Academy Fellow Staffan I. Lindberg, Grant 2013.0166, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; as well as by internal grants from the Vice-Chancellor’s office, the Dean of the College of Social Sciences, and the Department of Political Science at University of Gothenburg. We performed simulations and other computational tasks using resources provided by the Notre Dame Center for Research Computing (CRC) through the High Performance Computing section and the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at the National Supercomputer Centre in Sweden, SNIC 2017/1-407 and 2017/1-68. We specifically acknowledge the assistance of In-Saeng Suh at CRC and Johan Raber at SNIC in facilitating our use of their respective systems

V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects

For policymakers, activists, academics, and citizens around the world the conceptualization and measurement of democracy matters. The needs of democracy promoters and social scientists are convergent. We all need better ways to measure democracy. In the first section of this document we critically review the field of democracy indices. It is important to emphasize that problems identified with extant indices are not easily solved, and some of the issues we raise vis-à-vis other projects might also be raised in the context of the V-Dem project. Measuring an abstract and contested concept such as democracy is hard and some problems of conceptualization and measurement may never be solved definitively. In the second section we discuss in general terms how the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project differs from extant indices and how the novel approach taken by V-Dem might assist the work of activists, professionals, and scholars.This research project was supported by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Grant M13-0559:1, PI: Staffan I. Lindberg, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation to Wallenberg Academy Fellow Staffan I. Lindberg, Grant 2013.0166, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; as well as by internal grants from the Vice-Chancellor’s office, the Dean of the College of Social Sciences, and the Department of Political Science at University of Gothenburg. We performed simulations and other computational tasks using resources provided by the Notre Dame Center for Research Computing (CRC) through the High Performance Computing section and the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at the National Supercomputer Centre in Sweden, SNIC 2016/1-382 and 2017/1-68. We specifically acknowledge the assistance of In-Saeng Suh at CRC and Johan Raber at SNIC in facilitating our use of their respective systems

Introduction: absorbing the four methodological disruptions in democratization research?

This article introduces the special issue on methodological trends in democratization research by taking stock of the overall development of methods practices and situating the findings of the individual article contributions within the broader developments. As has the broader discipline, democratization research has experienced four methodological "disruptions" over the past 60 years: the behavioural revolution of statistical methodology; the introduction of formal theory; the sophistication of qualitative, set-theoretic and multi-method research; and the increasing use of experimental methods. Surveying the methods practices in the past quarter century, we find that quantitative and multi-method research have been growth areas in recent years, but that the bulk of research is still done in comparative or single case studies. Formal theory as well as set-theoretic methods have gained a foothold in the field, but it is still a small one. In sum, democratization research is, methodologically speaking, still rather traditional. Moreover, the individual contributions to this special issue show that much of the empirical literature underutilizes the best available advice about how to develop and test theory, including standards on causal inference, case-selection, and generalization. We conclude with a plea for more transparency, humility, and collaboration within and across methodological traditions

Experts, Coders, and Crowds: An analysis of substitutability

Recent work suggests that crowd workers can replace experts and trained coders in common coding tasks. However, while many political science applications require coders to both and relevant information and provide judgment, current studies focus on a limited domain in which experts provide text for crowd workers to code. To address potential over-generalization, we introduce a typology of data producing actors - experts, coders, and crowds - and hypothesize factors which affect crowd-expert substitutability. We use this typology to guide a comparison of data from crowdsourced and expert surveys. Our results provide sharp scope conditions for the substitutability of crowd workers: when coding tasks require contextual and conceptual knowledge, crowds produce substantively dierent data from coders and experts. We also find that crowd workers can cost more than experts in the context of cross-national panels, and that one purported advantage of crowdsourcing - replicability - is undercut by an insucient number of crowd workers

Making embedded knowledge transparent: How the V-Dem dataset opens new vistas in civil society research

We show how the V-Dem data opens new possibilities for studying civil society in comparative politics. We explain how V-Dem was able to extract embedded expert knowledge to create a novel set of civil society indicators for 173 countries from 1900 to the present. This data overcomes shortcomings in the basis on which inference has been made about civil society in the past by avoiding problems of sample bias that make generalization difficult or tentative. We begin with a discussion of the reemergence of civil society as a central concept in comparative politics. We then turn to the shortcomings of the existing data and discusses how the V-Dem data can overcome them. We introduce the new data, highlighting two new indices—the core civil society index (CCSI) and the civil society participation index (CSPI)—and explain how the individual indicators and the indices were created. We then demonstrate how the CCSI uses embedded expert knowledge to capture the development of civil society on the national level in Venezuela, Ghana, and Russia. We close by using the new indices to examine the dispute over whether post-communist civil society is “weak.” Time-series cross-sectional analysis using 2,999 country-year observations between 1989 and 2012 fails to find that post-communist civil society is substantially different from other regions, but that there are major differences between the post-Soviet subsample and other post-communist countries both in relation to other regions and each other

Variedades da Democracia no Brasil

Neste artigo apresentamos resultados coletados pelo projeto Variedades da Democracia para o Brasil. Descrevemos a evolução histórica da democracia brasileira entre 1900 e 2015 enfocando seus cinco principais componentes (eleitoral, liberal, participativo, deliberativo e igualitário) e duas dimensões adjacentes ao regime (corrupção e partidos políticos). Por fim, nós comparamos os dados para o Brasil com resultados obtidos para outros países da América do Sul. A análise dos dados aponta: a. a existência de uma trajetória “em espiral” dos regimes políticos no Brasil, na qual novas experiências democráticas tendem a superar experiências anteriores em todos os quesitos; b. os avanços e limites da experiência democrática contemporânea em que se combinam bons resultados nos indicadores eleitoral, liberal e deliberativo da democracia, e resultados menos elevados nos componentes igualitário e participativo do regime, bem como em suas dimensões adjacentes

Experts, coders and crowds: An analysis of substitutability

Political scientists increasingly use crowdworkers to produce data, predominantly in the context of coding researcher-curated text or to retrieve simple data from the internet. In this article, we provide a theoretical and empirical basis for understanding when crowdworkers can provide data of sufficient quality to substitute for other types of coders. First, we introduce a typology of data-producing actors – experts, trained coders and crowds – and hypothesize factors that affect the substitutability of crowdworkers. We then examine how crowdworkers perform across coding tasks that vary along multiple dimensions of difficulty: information verifiability, availability and complexity. The results provide scope conditions bounding the substitutability of crowdworkers in political science applications. Although crowds can substitute for trained coders in the context of relatively simple information retrieval tasks, there is little evidence that crowdworkers can substitute for experts, whose tasks require both information retrieval and data synthesis.publishedVersio