Jump to content

Democracy-Dictatorship Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maximillion Pegasus (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 18 June 2017 (→Six-fold regime classification scheme and its rules). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Democracies and dictatorships in 1988 (Source: [1])
Democracies and dictatorships in 2008 (Source: [1])

Democracy-Dictatorship (DD)[1], index of democracy and dictatorship[2] or simply the DD index[3] or the DD datasets refers to the binary measure of democracy and dictatorship first proposed by Adam Przeworski et al. (2010), and further developed and maintained by Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2009).[4]

Based on the regime binary classification idea proposed by Alvarez in 1996[5], and the Democracy and Development (or DD measure, ACLP datatset) proposed by Przeworski et al. (2010), Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland developed a six-fold regime classification scheme, resulting what the authors called as the DD datasets. [1]: 68 

The DD dataset covers the annual data points of 199 countries from 1946 (or date of independence) to 2008. [1]: 68  The figures at the left show the results in 1998 and 2008.

Six-fold regime classification scheme and its rules

The DD index first classifies the regimes into two types: democracies and dictatorships. For democracies, it categorizes them into three types: parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential democracies. For dictatorships, monarchic, military and civilian dictatorship.[1]

Based on a “minimalist” theory of democracy, the index relies on rules regarding the existence of competitive elections[1].[3] Resorting to democratic concepts by Karl Popper and Joseph Schumpeter, Przeworkski defended the minimalist approach, citing Popper that "the only system in which citizens can get rid of governments without bloodshed" [6].

Four rules

For a regime to be considered as a democracy by the DD scheme, it must meet the requirement of four rules below:[1]: 69 [3]

  1. The chief executive must be chosen by popular election or by a body that was itself popularly elected.
  2. The legislature must be popularly elected.
  3. There must be more than one party competing in the elections.
  4. An alternation in power under electoral rules identical to the ones that brought the incumbent to office must have taken place.

Some regimes may meet the first three rules, but lack an alternation in power in its historical past; these regimes are classified as dictatorships and marked with a type II value, signalling potential classification errors where a democratic regime may be falsely classified as dictatorship[1]: 70 .

The authors acknowledged that the last rule is more complicated to implement but argued that it helps researchers to control potential errors and enhance the classification schemes' scientific reproducibility [1]: 70 .

In DD dataset, the Type II variable does not indicate cases of semi-democracy or cases of semi-dictatorship [1]: 71 .

The regimes with type2 value of 1 (2008)

For the regimes with type2 of 1, the following list compares the similarities and contrasts between the 2008 data points from the DD dataset and the Polity IV [1].

Continent subregions Regimes Polity datasets IV Polity datasets IV category DD dataset code DD dataset category DD dataset type2
Asia Southern Asia  Afghanistan -66 anocracies, special 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia Western Asia  Azerbaijan -7 autocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Western Africa  Burkina Faso 0 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Southern Africa  Botswana 8 democracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Central African Republic -1 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Cameroon -4 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  DR Congo 5 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Congo -4 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Northern Africa  Algeria 2 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Northern Africa  Egypt -3 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Eritrea -7 autocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Ethiopia -3 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Gabon -4 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Western Africa  Gambia -5 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Equatorial Guinea -5 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Americas South America  Guyana 6 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Americas Caribbean  Haiti 5 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia Central Asia  Kazakhstan -6 autocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia South-Eastern Asia  Cambodia 2 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Southern Africa  Lesotho 8 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Europe Southern Europe  Montenegro 9 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Mozambique 5 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia South-Eastern Asia  Malaysia 6 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Southern Africa  Namibia 6 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Europe Eastern Europe  Russia 4 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Rwanda -3 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia South-Eastern Asia  Singapore -2 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Seychelles — — 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Middle Africa  Chad -2 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Western Africa  Togo -4 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia Central Asia  Tajikistan -3 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Oceania Polynesia  Tonga — — 5 Royal dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Northern Africa  Tunisia -4 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Tanzania -1 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Uganda -1 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia Central Asia  Uzbekistan -9 autocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Oceania Polynesia  Western Samoa — — 5 Royal dictatorship 1[note 1]
Asia Western Asia  Yemen -2 anocracies 4 Military dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Southern Africa  South Africa 9 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Zambia 7 democracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]
Africa Eastern Africa  Zimbabwe -4 anocracies 3 Civilian dictatorship 1[note 1]

Comparison with other democracy-measuring data sets

The DD dataset is limited to 199 countries after 1946, whereas Boix, Miller, & Rosato, 2013 proposed a data set from 1800 to 2007, covering 219 countries. The 2010 version of Polity data series covers 189 countries from 1800 to 2009.[7]

Gugiu＆Centellas developed the Democracy Cluster Classification Index that integrates five democracy indicators (including the DD dataset, Polity dataset, etc.), clustering 24 American and 39 European regimes over 30 years.[2]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao Only meets the first three of the four rules of the DD index.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (April 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2). Springer: 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. JSTOR 40661005. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  2. ^ a b Ristei, Mihaiela; Centellas, Miguel (Summer 2013). "The Democracy Cluster Classification Index". Political Analysis. 21 (3). Oxford Journals: 334–349. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt004. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  3. ^ a b c William R. Keech (14 October 2013). Economic Politics in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-107-00414-6. Retrieved 24 March 2014. Specifically, the DD index (for Democracy and Dictatorship) assesses the United States as a democracy from 1946, the first measured, through 2008, the last year of measurement. ... My definition of a democracy is minimalist, like the DD definition of Cheibub, Gadhi, and Vreeland (2010), but it adds a dimension. Like DD, it considers the presence of contested elections a necessary condition of ....
  4. ^ Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert R. (August 2012). "Inequality and regime change: democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule". American Political Science Review. 106 (3). Cambridge Journals: 495–516. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000287. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  5. ^ Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. A.; Limongi, F.; & Przewroski, A. (1996). "Classifying political regimes". Studies in Comparative International Development. 31 (2): 3–36. doi:10.1007/bf02719326.
  6. ^ Przeworkski, Adam (2003). "Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense". In Robert Alan Dahl, Ian Shapiro& José Antônio Cheibub (ed.). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
  7. ^ Boix, Carles; Miller, Michael; Rosato, Sebastian (December 2013). "A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007". Comparative Political Studies. 46 (12). Sage: 1523–1554. doi:10.1177/0010414012463905. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy-Dictatorship_Index&oldid=786313279"