Measuring Democracy

I always tend to be on board with scholars who are critical of the common perception on democracy. Much like in weeks past when Schmitter and Karl asked the question “what democracy is not?”, I think it is an important to try and remove yourself from the conventional wisdom and try to analyze democracy from another perspective.

Carbone does this quite well in his piece on the Consequences of Democracy. There is so much work on how amazing democracy is, and how it is going to save the world from the perils of authoritarianism. The table the author puts together is testament to the multitude of theories on the positive effects that democratization has on a society.

There are, however, consequences of democracy that are not entirely positive. Carbone does an excellent job of explaining some of the COD’s that may put the institution of democracy at risk in countries new to the regime type.

He challenges the assumption that the an expanded and all inclusive social welfare state is a direct result of democratization. The idea here is that universal adult suffrage means that everyone, rich, poor, healthy and unhealthy will have their interests represented in government, so the social welfare state will be expanded to cover everyone. But as Carbone contends, in majoritarian regimes, the majority can easily disregard the will of the minority. That is, this type of system creates distinct “winners and losers that ends up marginalizing certain groups”.

So, what is Carbone really getting at? I think he wants people to consider all of the effects of democratization. The more we understand about the topic, the better equipped we will be in participating in our own political arena, just as other  countries in the midst of democratization will better understand how to implement a new democratic regime.

Updated post

Defining democracy can be a complicated task. Just look at the volume of research dedicated to the topic; Schumpeter’s minimalist definition of democracy as leadership competition, Dahl’s polyarchy, and Collier and Levitsky’s use of democracy with adjectives. Grandma, you’re going to have a tough time with this one.

Defining democracy is complicated because “democratic” practices and institutions all vary from country to country. There is no set universal rulebook each democratizing country goes by.

Do you feel like Russia or Myanmar really operate under democratic principles, Grandma? How about the recent attempt at democracy in Iraq?

Democracy, to me, requires three main features; free and fair elections where any citizen can run for government office, every adult citizen has the right and chance to vote in those elections, and that the government offices are filled a result of those elections. I agree with Dahl’s criteria of democracy, which are:

1. Freedom to form/ join organizations
2. Freedom of expression
3. Right to vote
4. Right to run for office
5. Right to campaign
6. Access to multiple sources of information
7. Free and fair elections
8. Elections determine government

Old Post

There is no simple answer to the question of “what is democracy”, evident by the multitude of research on the very topic of coming up with a proper definition. In scholarly work, it is crucial to have a definition that fits, as your research and theories are at risk if you do not have the fundamental concept (democracy) down.

Defining democracy is so complicated because there are plethora of different types and approaches to democracy. Not only that, but some governments try to label themselves as democratic, or they may appear to be (with institutions such as “parliaments”),  but really they are far from democratic countries. Grandma, think the new “democracy” in Myanmar, or Russia: do you feel like those countries really operate under democratic principles? The issue of defining democracy is further complicated by problems of complexity within a definition (minimalist vs. complex like Dahl).

In simple conversation, democracy is best defined by freedom, whether it be in elections, citizen’s right to vote, or civil liberties. I tend to align with Dahl’s criteria for democracy, which are:

1. Freedom to form/ join organizations
2. Freedom of expression
3. Right to vote
4. Right to run for office
5. Right to campaign
6. Access to multiple sources of information
7. Free and fair elections
8. Elections determine government

To me, free and open elections with a underlying society with the universal right to vote, and the elections actually determining the government are the key components of what democracy is. Although Dahl doesn’t flat out say it, I also agree with Schmitter and Karl (and I think it is beneath the surface is Dahl’s criteria): in democracies, we are able to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.

It is usually pretty easy to be critical of democracy in the United States, but for once, it actually seems like it is working in regards to the debates on the national budget.

Obama’s initial budget proposal was shot down (as it usually is) and now the Republicans and Democrats are duking it out in Congress. The bickering hasn’t subsided, nor has the intense divide between the two parties, but there has been a decent effort on both ends to compromise on the budget.

Compromise between parties in US politics is pretty rare, especially in times when both chambers of Congress are controlled by one party. But the beauty of the current state of Congress (Republicans with a majority in the House, Democrats with the same in the Senate), both sides have to come to an agreement. Either that, or they government shuts down, which the US economy really can’t afford.

I am not going to weigh in on what I think should happen to the US budget. Rather, I am glad to see a resemblance of democracy in American politics. Democrats and Republicans are representing the broad political interests of their constituents and parties; both sides will have to come to an agreement eventually if they are to continue to run the federal government.

The Huffington Post had a great article on the current budget debates.

One thing I hate about Huff Post: there are over 20 Facebook or Twitter buttons on the one webpage. WE GET IT: you want to be liked.

UPDATE: I spoke too soon: Congressional Leaders Show Few Signs of Compromise

There are a number of things I want to talk about today. Here’s a few aspects of the data I am trying to figure out:

• Serbia is one of my countries, and that is causing huge problems because Serbia itself wasn’t independent until 2006. Every data set treats “Serbia” a different way in past years, as it prior to 2006 it was Serbia and Montenegro, and before that it was Yugoslavia. The history of the Balkans has made this super tricky… I am unclear how to best represent Serbia.
• I have read around the blogs and it seems like there are a few people encountering the same contradictory scores as I am. Greece is all across the board. In the Polity score, from just after WWII, a strong 10 in Polity IV. Then it drops to around 4, and in 1967, it plummets to -7. This pattern is evident in the rest of the rest of the scores as well, but the different comes in the period after this un-democratic 6 or so years in Greece. FH continues to give the country high scores (7 and 6) for a in 74 and 75, where as the rest of the scores are already back scoring it as a full democracy right after the conflict in 73.
• Then I have to ask myself… should I even use the data on Greece that goes that far back? With all my other countries becoming independent only 20 years ago, perhaps I just look at ’85 onward and use Greece as my benchmark for strong democracy in comparison to the other countries.
• What about scores I think do work for my region? Considering everyone one of these countries, minus greece, was under Communist control until 1989-1990 (minus Greece). The PRC measurement is great to visualize the changes in regimes in the Balkans. I also like the trichotomous nature of the measurement, and the simple way they come up with the 3 prongs of measurement. Only problem with it… it stops at 1998. But it is still somewhat useful.
• I also like Polity scores. Although in the readings this week it is accused of being too dichotomous, and that he overall score masks some of the intracies of the measurement, I think it does a good job of illustrating how countries move up and down on the scale.

Coppedge, Alvarez and Maldanado in “Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy” attempt to measure the validity of the measures of democracy used around the world. They are somewhat critical of Freedom House and Polity measures: the authors “challenge the common assumption that most existing indicators of democracy measure the same single dimension”. They use 11 different empirical tests to determine that these measures of democracy are measuring about 3/4’s of Dahl’s two fundamental dimensions of democracy: contestation and inclusiveness.

By contestation, Dahl means that citizens have the chance to make their own preferences, to identify them to the government and to citizens around them, and to have these preferences cosnidered and responded to by the government. By contestation, Dahl (and the authors) refers to the “proportion of the population entitled to participate on a more or less equal plane in controlling and contesting the conduct of government”.

The authors use confirmatory factor analysis, through 11 different tests, to show how the well the different measures of democracy address Dahl’s two dimensions. Essentially, the authors conclude that evaluating democracies through the lens of contestation and inclusion is both theoretically and empirically sound. This conclusion allows us to evaluate the major measurements of democracy, like the Polity score. In this example, the authors find that the individual data are a better measurement of democracy than the overall Polity score, as they differ across these dimensions.

I picked the Balkans for my Democracy report, only to realize that I know nothing about the region other than the fact that my family is from there, and The Popovich Brothers were a rockin’ Serbian folk band from South Chicago… who were my great uncles, or something.

Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to briefly outline what the political climate is like in the six countries I chose. And then I thought, I’ll throw it on the intrawebs.

Albania

• With about 3,000,000 residents, Albania has officially applied to be a member of the European Union. Albania is a parliamentary democracy, having establishing a constitution in 1998. The members of the legislative branch, the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, is elected by a party list proportional representation system. The Assembly elects the President by secret ballot. Executive power rests with the council of ministers, or cabinet. Albania was part of the Communist bloc, so they’ve only been trying this democracy thing for 20 or so years.

Bulgaria

• Bulgarians have been Bulgarians since the 7th century AD (they were under Ottoman rule for a bit, but the ethnicity and culture that is Bulgaria has remained in tact for centuries). The country is a member of the EU, and it appears that things have been mostly stable there since the fall of the USSR. Bulgaria is a parliamentary democracy, much the same as Albania (albeit with different democratic sounding names). Currently a three party coalition government holds a majority.

Greece

• Greece has had some serious economic problems since the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit in 2008. The EU and World Bank has given them numerous bailouts, and the economy is the Euro isn’t doing so hot. At least they seem to have the most stable of democracies out of the bunch.

There’s part one. Part II is when it gets really interesting (Bosnia and Hez, Serbia, and Croatia). Think Bosnian war and genocide.

Baseball is, in truth, pretty boring to watch (unless you are a die-hard fan of a specific team… and on that note, Go Bosox). But some of the most interesting parts of the game aren’t necessarily the play on the field, but baseball industry and its evaluation of players through statistics.

Stats are a great way to judge a player’s quality over the stretch of a season and career. Considering there are 162 games in a regular MLB season, it’s a proper sample size to get a good idea of the quality in a player. There are, however, different methods of approaching the raw numbers from a baseball season, which can have major impacts on how different teams value different players.

Consider, for example, batting statistics. Traditionally, the three core stats for batters were batting average (hits divided by at bats), run’s batted in, and home runs. For years and years, these stats were used by baseball scouts, managers, sports writers and fans to judge and compare players. But around the ’80s and ’90s, statisticians started to realize that these core stats were not necessarily the best way to measure a player’s individual production within an offense.

Take runs batted in, for example. RBI’s are credits given to a batter when a run scores as a result of his at bat (not including runs scored on errors or fielders choice). So, if Babe Ruth steps up to bat, and their are two men on, and Babe slaps a ball down the 3rd base line, the two base runners score, and Babe is given 2 RBI’s.

There are issues with the RBI as a standalone stat, as who is on base when any given batters steps into the box is largely a matter of circumstance. That is to say, Babe didn’t have anything to do with those prior two batters getting on base. If he played for a different team where the batters before him were not as productive, his RBI totals would likely be down.

According to a new method of analysis, called sabermetics, total RBI’s per team is a better judge of a teams overall offensive output, as more runs scored generates wins. For individual players stats sabermetrics uses other measurements, like on base slugging percentage to measure a players output. OPS uses a complicated equation that basically averages his ability to reach base (including walks, hit by pitchers) and his slugging percentage (total bases / at bats).

For the entire OPS equation, click here.

The Mecca of Sabermetrics: Baseball Prospectus.

Adrien Beltre’s 2010 MLB Stats (check out all the different way’s his output is represented).

The New York Times is always a decent place to get the news. A few weeks ago I wrote on an opinion piece my Kristof, a great article about the internet in China. He had an actual story, a good argument, a sound opinion. But this week’s opinion by Thomas Friedman (who I am always skeptical of) is garbage and does a poor, phone-it-in job of taking on the situation in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East.

The title really as nothing to do with the substance of his article. “China, Twitter, and 20 Year Olds vs. the Pyramids” may be an attention grabbing headline and will likely generate a lot of clicks, but it has no real correlation to what Friedman is getting at. Twitter is mentioned once in the entire two pages, more in passing about how it lets people communicate. Not good enough.

His main argument is that China, Twitter, and 20 year olds are sparking the change we now see in the Middle East. He blames China and it’s ever-expanding market for the rise in food prices, which in turn “sharpened discontent with the illegitimate regimes”. China is not solely to blame for the rise in food prices, and Friedman completely glosses over this issue.

He then says China has an impact in terms of trade as well, as the country can produce goods more cheaply than Egypt can. That’s the case for countries EVERYWHERE: China is a powerhouse right now, exporting goods all over the world. This may very well be an issue, but the author could do a much better job of addressing it, rather than devoting under 50 words to it.

He then goes on to talk about the 20 year olds, and how they are fed up with the current regimes. Facebook and Twitter help facilitate this discontent. This is nothing new here, Tom: let’s move on.

Skip to page two, and it’s like a completely different article all together. No mention of Friedman’s three drivers of change: just his Westernized opinion of what should happen next in Egypt. Not that it is a necessarily bad opinion, but to be honest, I still don’t know enough about the history of Egypt or their culture to make a judgment on the matter.

Disappointing stuff, really. Friedman tried to connect too many dots without any real logical argument. He finishes with a call for democracy in Egypt and Jordan: a point well taken, but poorly delivered.

Kapur’s and Herrera’s article on improving data quality does an excellent job of describing some of the problems and dilemmas faced in data collection. The piece begins with the authors views on what problems currently exist with data sets. They use a framework of validity, coverage, and accuracy to measure data quality where

Validity refers to the relationship between theoretical concepts and collected information; coverage refers to the completeness of data sets; and accuracy refers to the correctness or avoidance of errors in data sets (366).

The rest of the article boils down to an assessment of all the actors in the data collection process. Kapur and Herrara recognize a problem with the data sets as outlined by their above framework of validity, coverage, and accuracy, and they attempt to account for these problems with a look into the incentives and capabilities of each individual actor in the data collection process.

For example, respondents to survey’s or questionnaires have particular incentives for answering questions a certain way. They include “opportunity costs, fear of punishment, political support, and material gain” (372). A respondent’s capabilities may refer to the time available to fill out a survey, knowledge of the actual material they are being asked about, or level of physical or mental health.

Through the author’s analysis of each actor’s incentives and capabilities, the reader is able to understand the potential problems that arise from data collection. If research is conducted, and data collected, with these types of issues in mind, it can only serve to better the quality of the data and improve research in any area of study.

There is no simple answer to the question of “what is democracy”, evident by the multitude of research on the very topic of coming up with a proper definition. In scholarly work, it is crucial to have a definition that fits, as your research and theories are at risk if you do not have the fundamental concept (democracy) down.

Defining democracy is so complicated because there are plethora of different types and approaches to democracy. Not only that, but some governments try to label themselves as democratic, or they may appear to be (with institutions such as “parliaments”),  but really they are far from democratic countries. Grandma, think the new “democracy” in Myanmar, or Russia: do you feel like those countries really operate under democratic principles? The issue of defining democracy is further complicated by problems of complexity within a definition (minimalist vs. complex like Dahl).

In simple conversation, democracy is best defined by freedom, whether it be in elections, citizen’s right to vote, or civil liberties. I tend to align with Dahl’s criteria for democracy, which are:

1. Freedom to form/ join organizations
2. Freedom of expression
3. Right to vote
4. Right to run for office
5. Right to campaign
6. Access to multiple sources of information
7. Free and fair elections
8. Elections determine government

To me, free and open elections with a underlying society with the universal right to vote, and the elections actually determining the government are the key components of what democracy is. Although Dahl doesn’t flat out say it, I also agree with Schmitter and Karl (and I think it is beneath the surface is Dahl’s criteria): in democracies, we are able to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.