Advertisement

Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 80–96 | Cite as

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

  • Jac C. Heckelman
Original Paper
  • 90 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Democracy Political rights Civil liberties Granger-causality 

JEL Classification

D72 H11 

References

  1. Barro, R. (1996). Democracy and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer, C. C. (2006). Judicial performance and the rule of law in the Mexican states. Latin American Politics and Society, 48, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, T. (2005). Political selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. American Economic Review, 96, 720–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1801–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carothers, T. (2007). The “sequencing” fallacy. Journal of Democracy, 18, 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dawson, John. (2003). Causality in the freedom-growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gleason, G. (2001). Foreign policy and domestic reform in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 20, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckelman, J. C. (2000). Economic freedom and economic growth: A short-run causal investigation. Journal of Applied Economics, 3, 71–91.Google Scholar
  13. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inkeles, A. (Ed.). (1991). On measuring democracy, its consequences and concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Knack, S. (2004). Does foreign aid promote democracy? International Studies Quarterly, 48, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Pop-Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Judicial checks and balances. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (1995). Democratization and the danger of war. International Security, 20, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5–34.Google Scholar
  20. Nieswiadomy, M. L., & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Are political freedoms converging? Economic Inquiry, 42, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Plattner, M. F. (1999). From liberalism to illiberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 10, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Puddington, A. (2006). Freedom in the world 2006: Middle East progress amid global gains. In: Freedom of the world 2006. Washington, DC: Freedom House.Google Scholar
  24. Raik, K. (2006). Promoting democracy through civil society: How to step up the EU’s policy towards the Eastern Neighborhood. CEPS Working Document 237.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stromberg, D. (2004). Radio’s impact on public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zakaira, F. (2003). The failure of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations