Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Numerical Value of Democracy: League Tables, Scores and Trends

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking the Value of Democracy

Part of the book series: The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy ((PSTCD))

  • 679 Accesses

Abstract

Statistical data are today’s leading language—not just in public debates but also in academic studies of democracy. This chapter will therefore focus on the numerical value of democracy. The chapter will show that there is no real debate: there seems to be just one underlying agreed definition and only few measurements of democracy. The first part of this chapter will describe the main measures of democracy and show there is hardly any variation. Overall, the measurements of democracy in those quantitative studies mainly use one of the following two sources: the Polity IV Project and/or the Freedom House (FH). The second part of this chapter will focus on the underlying concepts of democracy, which form the foundation of these measurements. Although scholars acknowledge the contestability of the concept of democracy, the concept has not been contested in quantitative studies so far. The third part of this chapter will present some Global League Tables of Democracies, ranking the countries over a longer period. This part shows that a reverse wave away from democracy has not happened. Not yet, at least. It would be better to talk about ‘stagnation’, as not many dictatorships have democratized recently, while democracies have not yet collapsed.

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 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ake, C. (1991). Re-thinking Democracy in Africa. Journal of Democracy, 2(1), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F., & Przeworski, A. (1996). Classifying Political Regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arat, Z. F. (1991). Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battison, R. (2011). The ‘Democratic Recession’ Has Turned into a Modern Zeitgeist of Democratic Reform. OpenDemocracy. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/robert-battison/democratic-recession-has-turned-into-modern-zeitgeist-of-democratic-reform [Accessed December 6, 2017].

  • Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blastland, M., & Dilnot, A. W. (2009). The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life. New York: Gotham Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, N. (2005). Liberalism and Democracy (M. Ryle & K. Soper, Trans., from original 1985 version). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaards, M. (2009). How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), 399–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C., & Svolik, M. W. (2013). The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government: Institutions, Commitment, and Power-Sharing in Dictatorships. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1980). Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 370–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1986). Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. Human Rights Quarterly, 8(4), 567–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1993). Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1207–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Grandjean, B. D. (1981). The Dimension(s) of Democracy: Further Issues in the Measurement and Effects of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review, 46, 651–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Paxton, P. (2000). Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 33(1), 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, K., Lehoucq, F., & Mahoney, J. (2005). Measuring Political Democracy: Case Expertise, Data Adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies, 38(8), 939–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, P. (2000). Non-democratic Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, P. J. (2011). Promoting Democracy Abroad: Policy and Performance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, P. J. (2013). Promoting Democracy. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, P. J., & Youngs, R. (Eds.). (2009). New Challenges to Democratization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammack, P. (1997). Capitalism and Democracy in the Third World: The Doctrine for the Political Development. London: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (2009). Stepping Back from Democratic Pessimism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/democratic_pessimism.pdf [Accessed December 6, 2017].

  • Carothers, T. (2011). Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington: Carnegie Endowment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassani, A. (2013). Hybrid What? Partial Consensus and Persistent Divergences in the Analysis of Hybrid Regimes. International Political Science Review, 35(5), 542–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, B. (1979). Eccentrically Contested Concepts. British Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 122–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., Alvarez, A., & Maldonado, C. (2008). Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2003). Defining and Developing Democracy. In R. A. Dahl, I. Shapiro, & J. A. Cheibub (Eds.), The Democracy Sourcebook. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2008). The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State. Foreign Affairs, 87(2), 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2014). Democracy’s Deepening Recession. The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/the-deepening-recession-of-democracy/361591/ [Accessed December 6, 2017].

  • Diamond, L. (2015). Facing Up to the Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L., Linz, J., & Lipset, S. M. (1989). Democracy in Developing Countries (4 Vols.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R. (2000). Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization. World Politics, 52(3), 384–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R. (2005). Democratic Transitions: Exploring the Structural Sources During the Fourth Wave. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R. (2015). Where Are the People? A Call for People-Centered Concepts and Measurements of Democracy. Government and Opposition, 50(3), 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R., & Freyburg, T. (2014, June 19–21). Democracy Is Dead: Long Live Democracy! The Theme of Democracy in Scholarly Practice of Political Science, 1989–2014. Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Political Science Association, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R., & Nijzink, L. (2013). One-Party Dominance in African Democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R., & Nijzink, L. (2014). Party Systems and Democracy in Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R., & Pellikaan, H. (2013). Which Type of Democracy Performs Best? Acta Politica, 48(3), 237–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doornbos, M. (2001). Good Governance: The Rise and Decline of a Policy Metaphor? The Journal of Development Studies, 37(6), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. (Ed.). (1994). Democracy: The Unfinished Journey 508 BC–1993 AD. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, H., & Gurr, T. R. (1975). Patterns of Authority: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, T. S. (1939). The Idea of a Christian Society. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeden, M. (2004). Editorial: Essential Contestability and Effective Contestability. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (2014). Our History | Freedom House. New York: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest, 16, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, J., & Przeworski, A. (2007). Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. Comparative Political Studies, 40(11), 1279–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, R. D. (1990). The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. Studies in International Comparative Development, 25(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gat, A. (2007). The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2007-07-01/return-authoritarian-great-powers [Accessed December 6, 2017].

  • Gehlbach, S., Sonin, K., & Svolik, M. W. (2016). Formal Models of Nondemocratic Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschewski, J. (2013). The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannone, D. (2010). Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of Democracy: The Freedom House Case. Democratization, 17(1), 68–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (1997). Double Take: A Re-examination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Polities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(3), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, J., Bates, R. H., Epstein, D. L., Gurr, T. R., Lustik, M., Marshall, M. G., et al. (2010). A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 190–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. N. (1977). On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts. Political Theory, 5, 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gugiu, M. H., & Centellas, M. (2013). The Democracy Cluster Classification Index. Political Analysis, 21(3), 334–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunitsky, S. (2015). Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance (pp. 112–150). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R. (1974). Polity Data: Persistence and Change in Political Systems, 1800–1971. The American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1482–1504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R., Gurr, E., Gilles, R., Bishop, V., Ruttenberg, C., & Dose, J. (1978). Comparative Studies of Political Conflict and Change: Cross National Datasets. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hout, W. (2004). Political Regimes and Development Assistance. The Political Economy of Aid Selectivity. Critical Asian Studies, 36(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D., & Stephens, J. D. (1997). The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1989). The Modest Meaning of Democracy. In R. A. Pastor (Ed.), Democracy in the Americas: Stopping the Pendulum. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. (2008). The Return of History and the End of Dreams. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas, S. N. (1999). The Decay and Breakdown of Communist One-Party Systems. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köllner, P., & Kailitz, S. (2013). Comparing Autocracies: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Analyses. Democratization, 20(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurlantzick, J. (2011). The Great Democracy Meltdown. New Republic. Available at: https://newrepublic.com/article/88632/failing-democracy-venezuela-arab-spring [Accessed December 6, 2017].

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2015). The Myth of Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1968). Typologies of Democratic Systems. Comparative Political Studies, 1(1), 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1991). Constitutional Choices for New Democracies. Journal of Democracy, 2(1), 72–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty Six Countries (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, S., Brink, D., & Perez-Liñan, A. (2001). Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America: 1940–1998. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 37–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. J., & Parkinson, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2010). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2009. Fairfax: George Mason University and Center for Systemic Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T. R., & Jaggers, K. (2013). Polity IV Project Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2012, Dataset Users’ Manual (Center for Systemic Peace and Societal-Systems Research). www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf.

  • Medearis, J. (2001). Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, W. (2010). Are Dictatorships Returning? Revisiting the “Democratic Rollback” Hypothesis. Contemporary Politics, 16(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miliband, R. (1969). The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2013). Democracy and Democratization in Comparative Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenbesser, L. (2014). Elections in Hybrid Regimes: Conceptual Stretching Revived. Political Studies, 62(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. (2006). Drawing Boundaries: How to Craft Intermediary Regime Categories. In A. Schedler (Ed.), Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, A. (2003). Authoritarian Resilience. Journal of Democracy, 14(1), 6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. In S. Orwell & I. Angus (1968, Eds.), The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume IV in Front of Your Nose 1945–1950 (pp. 127–140). London: Secker and Warburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M. (2003). Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parekh, B. (1992). The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy. Political Studies, 40(1), 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1976). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pemstein, D., Meserve, S. A., & Melton, J. (2010). Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type. Political Analysis, 18(4), 426–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, M. F. (2014). The End of the Transitions Era? Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plümper, T., & Neumayer, E. (2010). The Level of Democracy During Interregnum Periods: Recoding the Polity2 Score. Political Analysis, 18(2), 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A. (2003). Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense. In R. A. Dahl, I. Shapiro, & J. A. Cheibub (Eds.), The Democracy Sourcebook. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2007). The 2006 Freedom House Survey: The Pushback Against Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 18(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2009). The 2008 Freedom House Survey: A Third Year of Decline. Journal of Democracy, 20(2), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2010). The Freedom House Survey for 2009: The Erosion Accelerates. Journal of Democracy, 21(2), 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2011). The Freedom House Survey for 2010: Democracy Under Duress. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2013). The Freedom House Survey for 2012: Breakthroughs in the Balance. Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2014). The Freedom House Survey for 2013: The Democratic Leadership Gap. Journal of Democracy, 25(2), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A., & Roylance, T. (2016). The Freedom House Survey for 2015: Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democrats. Journal of Democracy, 27(2), 86–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, D. M. (1970). Democracy Attenuated: Schumpeter, the Process Theory, and American Democratic Thought. Journal of Politics, 32(2), 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. I. (1996). Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. (1994). Democratic Theory and Indices of Democratization. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy (pp. 6–24). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (Ed.). (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1996). What Democracy Is…and Is Not. In L. Diamond & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The Global Resurgence of Democracy (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942, original publication reprinted in 1975). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoble, H., & Wiseberg, L. (1981). Problems of Comparative Research in Human Rights. In V. Nanda, J. Scarritt, & G. Shepherd Jr. (Eds.), Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures and NGO Strategies (pp. 147–171). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, I. (1989). Gross Concepts in Political Argument. Political Theory, 17(1), 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, D. C. (1994). On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research. World Politics, 47(1), 135–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Q. (1973). The Empirical Theorists of Democracy and Their Critics: A Plague on Both Their Houses. Political Theory, 1(3), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, G. (1993a). Democracy and Democratization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, G. (Ed.). (1993b). Political Conditionality. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewicz, W. J. (1980). Approaches to Democracy: Philosophy of Government at the Close of the Twentieth Century. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. (Ed.). (1995). Aid and Political Conditionality. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svolik, M. W. (2008). Authoritarian Reversals and Democratic Consolidation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svolik, M. W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Treier, S., & Jackman, S. (2008). Democracy as a Latent Variable. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhanen, T. (2000). A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37, 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. London: Bodley Head.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatter, A., Flinders, M., & Bernauer, J. (2014). A Global Trend Toward Democratic Convergence? A Lijphartian Analysis of Advanced Democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(6), 903–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigell, M. (2008). Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics. Democratization, 15(2), 230–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Renske Doorenspleet

Authors
  1. Renske Doorenspleet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renske Doorenspleet .

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

Doorenspleet, R. (2019). The Numerical Value of Democracy: League Tables, Scores and Trends. In: Rethinking the Value of Democracy. The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91656-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation