Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships among democratic freedoms in the former Soviet Republics: a causality analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Constitutional Political Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical studies often use Freedom House ratings for Political Rights and/or Civil Liberties as institutional proxies for the degree of democracy. In this study, Granger-causality tests are used which reveal that Political Rights tend to precede Civil Liberties, but not the reverse, in a panel data set of former Soviet Republics. For transition nations, Freedom House also publishes a separate breakdown of democratic characteristics. Empirical tests suggest Civil Society and Judicial Framework Granger-cause Electoral Process, Governance Granger-causes Civil Society, and all four components Granger-cause Independent Media. Each measure of democracy is related to at least one other but no evidence for dual causation is found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although widely used, the Freedom House democracy ratings are not without their share of critics. See for example, Scoble and Wiseberg (1981); Stohl et al. (1986); Inkeles (1991); Munck and Verkuilen (2002).

  2. Nieswiadomy and Strazicich (2004) show that the average level of political freedoms is increasing overall from 1972–2001, and also exhibit diminishing variation across countries during this time. However, their sample excludes the former Soviet republics which are the focus of this study.

  3. The Freedom House classification scheme is detailed in a later section.

  4. For example, Beer (2006) argues judicial independence influences respect for the rule of law, both of which are components of the Civil Liberties index (category F1 and F2).

  5. Beginning in 2004, Freedom House replaced the Governance rating with separate National Democratic Governance and Local Democratic Governance scores. It is not clear if the previous Governance rating necessarily treated national and local governance equally, so the analysis here only uses ratings through 2004 rather than continuing the Governance series with the average of the national and local governance ratings.

  6. In considering the relationships between economic freedom indicators and economic growth, Heckelman (2000) presented Granger-causality tests utilizing up to the maximum number of 3 lags on a data set consisting of only four data points per nation, but included far more countries (94) in the panel than are used here.

  7. The lag of Independent Media was always included as a Granger control in all tests presented in Table 6.

References

  • Barro, R. (1996). Democracy and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, D., & Hunter, W. (1997). Market structures, political institutions, and democratization: The Latin American and East European experiences. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 87–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, C. C. (2006). Judicial performance and the rule of law in the Mexican states. Latin American Politics and Society, 48, 33–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T. (2005). Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. American Economic Review, 96, 720–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1801–1824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (2007). The “sequencing” fallacy. Journal of Democracy, 18, 12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clague, C. (2003). The international campaign against corruption: An institutionalist perspective. In J. C. Heckelman & D. Coates (Eds.), Collective choice: Essays in honor of Mancur Olson (pp. 187–217). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, John. (2003). Causality in the freedom-growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 479–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, W. K., Lord, R. A., & Wolfenbarger, J. L. (1998). Economic freedom, political freedom, and economic well-being: A causality analysis. Cato Journal, 18, 247–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, G. (2001). Foreign policy and domestic reform in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 20, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckelman, J. C. (2000). Economic freedom and economic growth: A short-run causal investigation. Journal of Applied Economics, 3, 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkeles, A. (Ed.). (1991). On measuring democracy, its consequences and concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. (2004). Does foreign aid promote democracy? International Studies Quarterly, 48, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Pop-Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Judicial checks and balances. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & Chu, C.-S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (1995). Democratization and the danger of war. International Security, 20, 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieswiadomy, M. L., & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Are political freedoms converging? Economic Inquiry, 42, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, M. F. (1999). From liberalism to illiberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 10, 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2006). Freedom in the world 2006: Middle East progress amid global gains. In: Freedom of the world 2006. Washington, DC: Freedom House.

  • Raik, K. (2006). Promoting democracy through civil society: How to step up the EU’s policy towards the Eastern Neighborhood. CEPS Working Document 237.

  • Scoble, H. M., & Wiseberg, L. S. (1981). Problems of comparative research on human rights. In V. P. Nanda, J. R. Scarritt, & G. W. Shephard Jr. (Eds.), Global human rights: Public policies, comparative measures, and NGO strategies (pp. 147–171). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, M., Carleton, D., Lopez, G., & Samuels, S. (1986). State violation of human rights: Issues and problems of measurement. Human Rights Quarterly, 8, 592–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromberg, D. (2004). Radio’s impact on public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 189–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaira, F. (2003). The failure of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wake Forest University, 110 Carswell Hall, Winston-Salem, NC, 27109, USA

    Jac C. Heckelman

Authors
  1. Jac C. Heckelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jac C. Heckelman.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Political rights and civil liberties checklist

1.1 Political rights

  1. A.

    Electoral process

    1. 1.

      Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?

    2. 2.

      Are the national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?

    3. 3.

      Are the electoral laws and framework fair?

  2. B.

    Political pluralism

    1. 1.

      Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system open to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?

    2. 2.

      Is there a significant opposition vote and a realistic possibility for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?

    3. 3.

      Are the people’s political choices free from domination by the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies, or any other powerful group?

    4. 4.

      Do cultural, ethnic, religious, or other minor groups have full political rights and electoral opportunities?

  3. C.

    Functioning of government

    1. 1.

      Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?

    2. 2.

      Is the government free from pervasive corruption?

    3. 3.

      Is the government accountable to the electorate between elections, and does it operate with openness and transparency?

1.2 Civil liberties

  1. D.

    Freedom of expression and belief

    1. 1.

      Are there free and independent media and other forms of cultural expression?

    2. 2.

      Are religious institutions and communities free to practice their faith and express themselves in public and private?

    3. 3.

      Is there academic freedom and is the educational system free of extensive political indoctrination?

    4. 4.

      Is there open and free private discussion?

  2. E.

    Associational and organizational rights

    1. 1.

      Is there freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion?

    2. 2.

      Is there freedom for nongovernmental organizations?

    3. 3.

      Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?

  3. F.

    Rule of law

    1. 1.

      Is there an independent judiciary?

    2. 2.

      Does the rule of law prevail in civil and criminal matters? Are police under direct civilian control?

    3. 3.

      Is there protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment, exile, or torture, whether by groups that support or oppose the system? Is there freedom from war and insurgencies?

    4. 4.

      Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population?

  4. G.

    Personal autonomy and individual rights

    1. 1.

      Does the state control travel or choice of residence, employment, or institution of higher education?

    2. 2.

      Do citizens have the right to own property and establish private businesses? Is private business activity unduly influenced by government officials, the security forces, political parties/organization, or organized crime?

    3. 3.

      Are there personal social freedoms, including gender equality, choice of marriage partners, and size of family?

    4. 4.

      Is there equality of opportunity and the absence of economic exploitation?

Appendix 2: Description of components in democracy index for transition countries

2.1 Electoral process

Examines national executive and legislative elections, electoral processes, the development of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process.

2.2 Civil society

Assesses the growth of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), their organizational capacity and financial sustainability, and the legal and political environment in which they function; the development of free trade unions; and interest group participation in the policy process.

2.3 Independent media

Addresses the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, editorial independence, the emergence of a financially viable private press, and Internet access for private citizens.

2.4 Governance

Considers the stability of the governmental system; the authority of legislative bodies; decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and management of local governmental bodies; and legislative and executive transparency.

2.5 Judicial framework and independence

Highlights constitutional reform, human rights protections, criminal code reform, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heckelman, J.C. Relationships among democratic freedoms in the former Soviet Republics: a causality analysis. Const Polit Econ 21, 80–96 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9073-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9073-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation