Advertisement

Comparison of this Project’s Quantitative Findings with Others’ Evaluations of Consociation’s Effects

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly
Chapter

Abstract

The significance of this project’s quantitative results is further elucidated through their comparison with common critiques of consociational theory and similar projects’ methodologies and findings. The operationalization and scientifically sound statistical treatment of Lijphart’s theory illustrate that it is not correct to assert that it is unfalsifiable. Analysis of six favorable conditions identified by Lijphart through control variables suggests many insights regarding their relationship to consociation, which has been qualitatively analyzed in a wide range of publications. The quantitative studies most similar to this one are not designed to precisely represent this theory but most of their findings involving related concepts do not contradict those derived from this dataset.

References

  1. Barry, Brian. “Review Article: Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science. 5:4 (1975) 477–505.Google Scholar
  2. Bogaards, Matthijs. “The Favourable Factors for Consociational Democracy: A Review.” European Journal of Political Research. 33 (1998) 475–496.Google Scholar
  3. Bohn, David Earle. “Consociational Democracy and the Case of Switzerland.” Journal of Politics. 42:1 (February, 1980) 165–179.Google Scholar
  4. Bohn, David Earle. “Consociation and Accommodation in Switzerland.” Journal of Politics. 43:4 (November, 1981) 1236–1240.Google Scholar
  5. Butenschøn, Nils A. “Conflict Management in Plural Societies: The Consociational Democracy Formula.” Scandinavian Political Studies. 8:1–2 (June, 1985) 85–103.Google Scholar
  6. Covell, Maureen. “Ethnic Conflict and Ethnic Bargaining: The Case of Belgium.” West European Politics. 4:3 (October, 1981) 197–218.Google Scholar
  7. Daalder, Hans. “On Building Consociational Nations: The Cases of the Netherlands and Switzerland.” International Social Science Journal. 23:3 (1971) 355–370.Google Scholar
  8. Daalder, Hans. “The Consociational Democracy Theme.” World Politics. 26:4 (July, 1974) 604–621.Google Scholar
  9. Deschouwer, Kris. “The Decline of Consociation and the Reluctant Modernization of Belgian Mass Parties.” How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies. Eds. Richard Katz and Peter Mair. London: Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. Dierickx, Guido. “Ideological Oppositions and Consociational Attitudes in the Belgian Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly. 3:1 (February, 1978) 133–160.Google Scholar
  11. Dunn, James A. “‘Consociational Democracy’ and Language Conflict: A Comparison of the Belgian and Swiss Experiences.” Comparative Political Studies. 5:1 (April, 1972) 3–39.Google Scholar
  12. Graziano, Luigi. “The Historic Compromise and Consociational Democracy: Toward a ‘New Democracy?’” International Political Science Review. 1:3 (1980) 345–368.Google Scholar
  13. Gurr, Ted Robert. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. Halpern, Sue M. “The Disorderly Universe of Consociational Democracy.” West European Politics. 9:2 (1986): 181–197.Google Scholar
  15. Hartzell, Caroline A. and Matthew Hoddie. “Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars.” American Journal of Political Science. 47:2 (2003) 318–332.Google Scholar
  16. Hartzell, Caroline and Matthew Hoddie. “Power Sharing in Peace Settlements: Initiating the Transition from Civil War.” Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy After Civil Wars. Eds. Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Hartzell, Caroline A. and Matthew Hoddie. Crafting Peace: Power-Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Hooghe, Liesbet. “Belgium: From Regionalism to Federalism.” Regional Politics and Policy. 3:1 (Spring, 1993) 44–68.Google Scholar
  19. Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. Hughes, Christopher J. “What Is the Lesson of Swiss Solutions to Pluralist Problems for South Africa?” Intergroup Accommodation in Plural Societies. Ed. Nic J. Rhoodie. London: Macmillan, 1978.Google Scholar
  21. Kieve, Ronald A. “Pillars of Sand: A Marxist Critique of Consociational Government in the Netherlands.” Comparative Politics. (April 1981) 313–337.Google Scholar
  22. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. Kriesi, Hanspeter. “Federalism and Pillarization: The Netherlands and Switzerland Compared.” Acta Politica. 4 (October, 1990) 433–450.Google Scholar
  24. Lakatos, Imre. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1978.Google Scholar
  25. Lehner, Franz. “Consociational Democracy in Switzerland: A Political-Economic Explanation and Some Empirical Evidence.” European Journal of Political Research. 12:1 (March, 1984) 25–42.Google Scholar
  26. Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. Lijphart, Arend. “Comment: Consociational Theory: Problems and Prospects: A Reply.” Comparative Politics. 13:3 (April, 1981) 355–360.Google Scholar
  28. Lijphart, Arend. “The Politics of Accommodation: Reflections—Fifteen Years Later.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 9–18.Google Scholar
  29. Lijphart, Arend. Power-Sharing in South Africa. Berkeley: Institute of International Affairs, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. Lijphart, Arend. “South African Democracy: Majoritarian or Consociational?” Democratization. 5:4 (Winter, 1998) 144–150.Google Scholar
  31. Lijphart, Arend. “Definitions, Evidence, and Policy: A Response to Matthijs Bogaards’ Critique.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 12:4 (2000) 425–431.Google Scholar
  32. Linder, Wolf. Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  33. Lustick, Ian. “Lijphart, Lakatos, and Consociation.” World Politics. 50 (October, 1997) 88–117.Google Scholar
  34. Mattes, Michaela and Burcu Savun. “Fostering Peace After Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design.” International Studies Quarterly. 53:3 (2009) 737–759.Google Scholar
  35. Nordlinger, Eric A. Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Center for International Affairs, 1972.Google Scholar
  36. Norris, Pippa. “Ballots Not Bullets: Testing Consociational Theories of Ethnic Conflict, Electoral Systems, and Democratization.” The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy. Ed. Andrew Reynolds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, Pippa. Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  38. Pappalardo, Adriano. “The Conditions for Consociational Democracy: A Logical and Empirical Critique.” European Journal of Political Research. 9:4 (December, 1981) 365–390.Google Scholar
  39. Pijnenburg, B. “Pillarized and Consociational-Democratic Belgium: The Views of Huyse.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 57–71.Google Scholar
  40. Powell, G. Bingham. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  41. Selway, Joel and Kharis Templeman. “The Myth of Consociationalism? Conflict Reduction in Divided Societies.” Comparative Political Studies. 45:12 (2012) 1542–1571.Google Scholar
  42. Steiner, Jürg. “Review Article: The Consociational Theory and Beyond.” Comparative Politics. 13:3 (April, 1981) 339–354.Google Scholar
  43. Steiner, Jürg. “Conclusion: Reflections on the Consociational Theme.” Switzerland at the Polls: The National Elections of 1979. Ed. Howard R. Penniman. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1983.Google Scholar
  44. Steiner, Jürg. “Power-Sharing: Another Swiss ‘Export Product’?” Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. Ed. Joseph V. Montville. New York: Lexington Books, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. Van Schendelen, M.P.C.M. “Critical Comments on Lijphart’s Theory of Consociational Democracy.” Politikon. 10:1 (June, 1983) 6–32.Google Scholar
  46. Van Schendelen, M.P.C.M. “The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 19–55.Google Scholar
  47. Walter, Barbara F. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of DemocracyUniversity of PennsylvaniaSwarthmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations