Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Power-Sharing and Consociational Theory

  • 317 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lustick (1997, p. 90).

  2. 2.

    Lijphart (1998, p. 149; 2000, p. 425).

  3. 3.

    Lijphart (1984, p. 15).

  4. 4.

    Lustick (1997, p. 99).

  5. 5.

    Lustick (1997, pp. 99–100).

  6. 6.

    Lustick (1997, p. 105).

  7. 7.

    Nordlinger (1972, pp. 15, 69, 90–92).

  8. 8.

    Butenschøn (1985, p. 99), Van Schendelen (1984, pp. 31, 32), Halpern (1986, p. 194), and Steiner (1981, p. 341).

  9. 9.

    Lustick (1997, p. 105).

  10. 10.

    Lakatos (1978, p. 32).

  11. 11.

    Lakatos (1978, p. 36).

  12. 12.

    Lakatos (1978, p. 32).

  13. 13.

    Lakatos (1978, p. 49).

  14. 14.

    Lustick (1997, pp. 115–116).

  15. 15.

    Lustick (1997, p. 89).

  16. 16.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 87).

  17. 17.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 87).

  18. 18.

    Lijphart (1981, p. 355).

  19. 19.

    Steiner (1981, pp. 343–344).

  20. 20.

    Steiner (1981, pp. 343–344).

  21. 21.

    Steiner (1981, p. 344).

  22. 22.

    Steiner (1981, p. 343).

  23. 23.

    Lijphart (1981, p. 357).

  24. 24.

    Lijphart (1981, p. 357).

  25. 25.

    Lijphart (1977, p. 2).

  26. 26.

    Lijphart (1977, p. 185).

  27. 27.

    Barry (1975, pp. 481–490).

  28. 28.

    Some examples of works which have examined the claim that Switzerland is consociational are: Bohn (1980, 1981), Daalder (1971), Dunn (1972), Hughes (1978), Lehner (1984), Kriesi (1990), Linder (1994), and Steiner (1983, 1991).

  29. 29.

    Lustick (1997, p. 101).

  30. 30.

    Lijphart (1985, pp. 90–91).

  31. 31.

    Barry (1975, pp. 490–491, 501).

  32. 32.

    Barry (1975, pp. 495, 493, 499).

  33. 33.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 94).

  34. 34.

    Lustick (1997, p. 103).

  35. 35.

    Van Schendelen (1984, p. 36).

  36. 36.

    Van Schendelen (1983, pp. 23, 25; 1984, p. 48).

  37. 37.

    Van Schendelen (1983, p. 14).

  38. 38.

    Some works which have discussed Belgium in relation to consociational theory are: Covell (1981), Deshouwer (1994), Dierickx (1978), Dunn (1972), Hooghe (1993), and Pijnenburg (1984).

  39. 39.

    Halpern (1986, p. 181).

  40. 40.

    Halpern (1986, p. 181).

  41. 41.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 119).

  42. 42.

    Barry (1975, p. 487).

  43. 43.

    Lijphart (1977, p. 81).

  44. 44.

    Lijphart (1977, pp. 73, 75).

  45. 45.

    Graziano (1980, p. 349).

  46. 46.

    Graziano (1980, p. 349).

  47. 47.

    Kieve (1981, p. 332).

  48. 48.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 98).

  49. 49.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 98).

  50. 50.

    Daalder (1974, pp. 612–613).

  51. 51.

    Daalder (1974, pp. 612–613).

  52. 52.

    Daalder (1974, p. 613).

  53. 53.

    Bogaards (1998, p. 478).

  54. 54.

    Bogaards (1998, p. 480).

  55. 55.

    Bogaards (1998, p. 480).

  56. 56.

    Pappalardo (1981, p. 363).

  57. 57.

    Pappalardo (1981, p. 364).

  58. 58.

    Van Schendelen (1984, p. 43).

  59. 59.

    Bogaards (1998, p. 478).

  60. 60.

    Van Schendelen (1983, pp. 10–11).

  61. 61.

    Van Schendelen (1983, p. 11).

  62. 62.

    Van Schendelen (1983, p. 11).

  63. 63.

    Lustick (1997, p. 107).

  64. 64.

    Lijphart (1985, pp. 114–116).

  65. 65.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 116).

  66. 66.

    Lijphart (1977, p. 54).

  67. 67.

    Van Schendelen (1984, p. 34).

  68. 68.

    Barry (1975, p. 500).

  69. 69.

    King et al. (1994, pp. 7–9).

  70. 70.

    Lustick (1997, p. 112).

  71. 71.

    Lijphart (1985, p. 88).

  72. 72.

    Powell (1982, pp. 63, 64).

  73. 73.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, pp. 1551, 1554).

  74. 74.

    Norris (2008, p. 32).

  75. 75.

    & The cases that are quantitatively analyzed were compiled through reference to the MAR dataset, rather than datasets constructed through reference to fractionalization data. Evidence supporting this decision is provided on the website.

  76. 76.

    Walter (2002, p. 62).

  77. 77.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1549).

  78. 78.

    Hartzell and Hoddie (2003, p. 318).

  79. 79.

    Hartzell and Hoddie (2005, p. 103).

  80. 80.

    Hartzell and Hoddie (2003, p. 320; 2007, p. 160).

  81. 81.

    Hartzell and Hoddie (2007, p. 160).

  82. 82.

    Walter (2002, p. 5).

  83. 83.

    Walter (2002, p. 160).

  84. 84.

    Walter (2002, p. 161).

  85. 85.

    Walter (2002, p. 94).

  86. 86.

    Walter (2002, p. 94).

  87. 87.

    Walter (2002, p. 94).

  88. 88.

    Walter (2002, p. 80).

  89. 89.

    Walter (2002, p. 84).

  90. 90.

    Walter (2002, pp. 79, 84).

  91. 91.

    Walter (2002, pp. 79, 84).

  92. 92.

    Walter , (2002, pp. 62–63).

  93. 93.

    Walter (2002, pp. 80–81), Hartzell and Hoddie (2005, pp. 102, 103), Mattes and Savun (2009, p. 754).

  94. 94.

    Walter (2002, pp. 79, 84), Mattes and Savun (2009, p. 754).

  95. 95.

    Mattes and Savun (2009, p. 749).

  96. 96.

    Mattes and Savum (2009, p. 749).

  97. 97.

    Lijphart (1977, p. 42), Horowitz (1985, pp. 613–619).

  98. 98.

    Walter (2002, p. 64), Mattes and Savun (2009, p. 749).

  99. 99.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1564).

  100. 100.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1564).

  101. 101.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1549).

  102. 102.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1562).

  103. 103.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1551).

  104. 104.

    Selway and Templeman (2012, p. 1550).

  105. 105.

    Norris (2008, pp. 130, 184–185; 2002, p. 230).

  106. 106.

    Norris (2002, pp. 207–208).

  107. 107.

    Norris (2002, p. 218).

  108. 108.

    Norris (2002, p. 237).

  109. 109.

    Norris (2002, p. 230).

  110. 110.

    Norris (2002, p. 233).

  111. 111.

    Norris (2002, pp. 233–236).

  112. 112.

    Norris (2008, p. 32).

  113. 113.

    Norris (2008, p. 34).

  114. 114.

    Norris (2008, pp. 130, 184–185).

  115. 115.

    Norris (2002, p. 237).

  116. 116.

    Norris (2008, p. 211).

  117. 117.

    Norris (2008, p. 32).

  118. 118.

    The example of Papua New Guinea and its treatment by the Minorities at Risk (MAR) team illustrates the difference between Norris’ and Lijphart’s notions of plural societies. Papua New Guinea is widely believed to constitute the most ethnically diverse country on earth. However, it is not included in the MAR dataset presumably because its minorities are not deemed to fit its definition of “at risk,” which involves discrimination and/or “political mobilization and action in defense or promotion of its self-defined interests” (Gurr 1993, pp. 6–7).

  119. 119.

    Norris (2008, p. 41).

  120. 120.

    Powell (1982, pp. 2, 63, 64).

  121. 121.

    Powell (1982, p. 64).

  122. 122.

    Powell (1982, pp. 61, 62).

  123. 123.

    Norris (2002, p. 237).

References

  • Barry, Brian. “Review Article: Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science. 5:4 (1975) 477–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaards, Matthijs. “The Favourable Factors for Consociational Democracy: A Review.” European Journal of Political Research. 33 (1998) 475–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, David Earle. “Consociational Democracy and the Case of Switzerland.” Journal of Politics. 42:1 (February, 1980) 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, David Earle. “Consociation and Accommodation in Switzerland.” Journal of Politics. 43:4 (November, 1981) 1236–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butenschøn, Nils A. “Conflict Management in Plural Societies: The Consociational Democracy Formula.” Scandinavian Political Studies. 8:1–2 (June, 1985) 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covell, Maureen. “Ethnic Conflict and Ethnic Bargaining: The Case of Belgium.” West European Politics. 4:3 (October, 1981) 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalder, Hans. “On Building Consociational Nations: The Cases of the Netherlands and Switzerland.” International Social Science Journal. 23:3 (1971) 355–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalder, Hans. “The Consociational Democracy Theme.” World Politics. 26:4 (July, 1974) 604–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dierickx, Guido. “Ideological Oppositions and Consociational Attitudes in the Belgian Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly. 3:1 (February, 1978) 133–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Graziano, Luigi. “The Historic Compromise and Consociational Democracy: Toward a ‘New Democracy?’” International Political Science Review. 1:3 (1980) 345–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, Ted Robert. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, Sue M. “The Disorderly Universe of Consociational Democracy.” West European Politics. 9:2 (1986): 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hooghe, Liesbet. “Belgium: From Regionalism to Federalism.” Regional Politics and Policy. 3:1 (Spring, 1993) 44–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kieve, Ronald A. “Pillars of Sand: A Marxist Critique of Consociational Government in the Netherlands.” Comparative Politics. (April 1981) 313–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, Hanspeter. “Federalism and Pillarization: The Netherlands and Switzerland Compared.” Acta Politica. 4 (October, 1990) 433–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, Imre. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. “Comment: Consociational Theory: Problems and Prospects: A Reply.” Comparative Politics. 13:3 (April, 1981) 355–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. “The Politics of Accommodation: Reflections—Fifteen Years Later.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. Power-Sharing in South Africa. Berkeley: Institute of International Affairs, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. “South African Democracy: Majoritarian or Consociational?” Democratization. 5:4 (Winter, 1998) 144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. “Definitions, Evidence, and Policy: A Response to Matthijs Bogaards’ Critique.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 12:4 (2000) 425–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, Wolf. Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustick, Ian. “Lijphart, Lakatos, and Consociation.” World Politics. 50 (October, 1997) 88–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nordlinger, Eric A. Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Center for International Affairs, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Norris, Pippa. Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pijnenburg, B. “Pillarized and Consociational-Democratic Belgium: The Views of Huyse.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. Bingham. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selway, Joel and Kharis Templeman. “The Myth of Consociationalism? Conflict Reduction in Divided Societies.” Comparative Political Studies. 45:12 (2012) 1542–1571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Jürg. “Review Article: The Consociational Theory and Beyond.” Comparative Politics. 13:3 (April, 1981) 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Van Schendelen, M.P.C.M. “Critical Comments on Lijphart’s Theory of Consociational Democracy.” Politikon. 10:1 (June, 1983) 6–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schendelen, M.P.C.M. “The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 19–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, Barbara F. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Pennsylvania, Swarthmore, PA, USA

    Brighid Brooks Kelly

Authors
  1. Brighid Brooks Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kelly, B.B. (2019). Comparison of this Project’s Quantitative Findings with Others’ Evaluations of Consociation’s Effects. In: Power-Sharing and Consociational Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14191-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation