2/4/2010

Transcription

1 2/4/

2 Structure of class I: Majorconcepts ofdemocraticgovernance 1.1 Electoral democracy: Joseph Schumpeter/ Przeworski 1.2 Liberal democracy: Robert Dahl/ Freedom House/ Polity IV 1.3 Good governance: World Bank/ Ibrahim Index II: Applying cases and typologies III: Evaluating measures and indicators Criteria: Munckand Verkulian Summarize the key pros and cons of each approach 2/4/

3 Required Reading Haerpfer Democratization Ch 3 Freedom House Freedom around the World, 2010 Niemi Driving Democracies Ch 3 2/4/

4 Practical issues You are asked by the African Union to compare and assess the state of democratic governance in the region during the last decade. Which states are doing well? Which are falling back? How would you conceptualize and define democratic governance? What criteria would you use to evaluate indices? How wouldyou measure the contemporary state of democratic governance? 2/4/

5 2/4/

6 Alternative concepts of democratic governance Electoral democracy Liberal democracy Good governance Schumpeter Schumpeter, Dahl Polity IV/ Dahl, Polity IV/ Ibrahim Index/ Ibrahim Index/ Przeworski/Cheibub Freedom House World Bank Minimalist Maximalist 2/4/

7 1.Electoral democracy Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism s and democracy Procedural minimalist definition "The democratic method dis that institutional i i arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote Multiparty elections at regular intervals Citizens select leaders Pros and cons of this notion? How would you measure it? 2/4/

8 2/4/

9 Pros and cons? Validity? Reflects basic commonsense notions of democracy Excludes too much? No notion of freedom of speech or assembly, civil liberties, political rights, human rights, common good, regime structure, quality of governance, policy outputs? Reliability? Institutional criteria (elections) can be observed and verified Are there multiparty competitive elections for national office? Yet what counts as a genuine competitive struggle? Electoral autocracy? Potential measurement error through misclassification 2/4/

10 Measured dby Przworski/Cheibub ib b Adam Przeworski et al Democracy and development (CUP 2000) Jose Cheibub Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy (CUP 2007) Minimalist Dichotomous classification democratic v. autocratic regime, not a continuous scale Criteria Contestation Regimes that allow some regularized competition among conflicting visions and interests Regimes in which some values or interests enjoy a monopoly buttressed by threat or the actual use of force

11 Operationalization Democracy is a regime in which government offices are filled by contested elections. p19 Democracy is a system in which incumbents lose elections and leave office when the rules dictate. p54. All other regimes are not democratic.

12 Rules 1. Chief executive must be elected directly or indirectly 2. The lower house of the legislature must be elected 3. There must be more than one party 4. (If pass above) and if incumbents subsequently held, but never lost elections, regimes are authoritarian. Cases of Singapore, Botswana, Japan, Kenya, Mexico?? Contestation rules: Ex ante uncertainty (probability that at least one member of incumbent coalition will lose) Ex post irreversibility (whoever wins election will be allowed to assume office) Repeatability y( (temporary outcomes)

13 Figure 3.1: Trends in Cheibub and Gandhi s classification of regime types, Cheibub Type of Regime Democracy Dictatorship Cou unt Year Source: José Cheibub and Jennifer Gandhi A six-fold measure of democracies and dictatorships. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science 2/4/ Association.

14 Minimalist exclusions No social or economic aspects included No measure of accountability, responsibility, responsiveness or representation No measure of freedom, liberties or human rights No measure of participation ii i eg franchise No reference to civil military relations Advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

15 2/4/

16 Democratic governance Electoral democracy Przeworski/Cheibub Liberal democracy Good governance Polity IV/ Polity IV/ Ibrahim Index/ Ibrahim Index/ Freedom House World Bank Minimalist Maximalist 2/4/

17 2. Liberal Democracy Robert Dahl A Preface to Democratic Theory Modern democratic states can be understood in practice as polyarchies Two concepts are important: Contestation and participation Polyarchies can be identified by the presence of certain key political institutions: 1) elected officials; 2) free and fair elections; 3) inclusive suffrage; 4) the right to run for office; 5) freedom of expression; 6) alternative information; and 7) associational autonomy 2/4/

18 Dahl's Conceptual Logic Liberal Democracy Contestation Participation Right to form parties Freedom of the press Right to vote Fairness of election Associational autonomy Extent of suffrage 2/4/

19 2/4/

20 Freedom House Mission Statement Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, and belief, as well as respect for the rights of minorities and women, are guaranteed. Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy and action. Founded 1942 in NY, based in Washington DC 2/4/

21 Freedom House Measure Annual Index since 1972 Political Rights and Civil Liberties Scale from 1 (most tf free) )to 7 (least free). Nations worldwide classified as Free (1 to 2.5) (established democracies) Partly free (3 to 5.5) (consolidating democracies) Not free (5.5 to 7) (non democracies) 2/4/

22 FH F.H. Checklist of Political Rights 1. Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fi fairelections? 2. Are the national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 3. Are the electoral laws and framework fair? 4. 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? 5. Is there a significant opposition vote and a realistic possibility for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections? 6. 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? 7. Do cultural, ethnic, religious, or other minority groups have full political rights and electoral opportunities? 8. Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government? 9. Is the government free from pervasive corruption? 10. Is the government accountable to the electorate between elections, and does it operate with openness and transparency? 2/4/

23 FH F.H. Checklist of Civil Liberties 1. Are there free and independent media and other forms of cultural expression? 2. Are religious institutions and communities free to practice their faith and express themselves in public and private? 3. Is there academic freedom and is the educational system free of extensive political indoctrination? 4. Is there open and free private discussion? 5. Is there freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion? 6. Is there freedom for nongovernmental organizations? (Note: This includes civic organizations, interest groups, foundations, etc.) 7. Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations? 8. Is there an independent judiciary? 9. Does the rule of law prevail in civil and criminal matters? Are police under direct civilian control? 10. 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? 11. Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population? 12. Does the state control travel or choice of residence, employment, or institution of higher education? 13. 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/organizations, or organized crime? 14. Are there personal social freedoms, including gender equality, choice of marriage partners, and size of family? 15. Is there equality of opportunity and the absence of economic exploitation? 2/4/

24 Trends in democracy, FH Freedom House categories Free Partly free Not free Year 24 Source: Freedom around the World 2/4/ Count

25 Correlates with other indicators Freedom House 7-pt Rating (reversed) Vanhanen Index of Democratization Correlation.730(**) Sig. (2-tailed).000 N 3006 Polity Combined 20-pt score Correlation.904(**) Sig. (2-tailed).000 N 4382 Cheibub Type of Regime Correlation.826(**) Sig. (2-tailed).000 2/4/ N

26 2/4/

27 Advantages of FH Measure? 1. Allows global comparison of nation states and independent territories 2. Time series analysis: 1972 date 3. Quantifiable yardstick of political development 4. Continuous measure not a simple dichotomy 5. Commonly used in research, so facilitates replicability across different studies 6. In practice the scale is strongly correlated with other common measures of democratization 2/4/

28 Disadvantages of FH Measure? 1. Reliability/subjectivity of evaluations? 2. Indicators or evaluations reflect US/Western values? 3. Consistency of evaluationsacross across timeand place? 4. Limitations of information sources in some states 5. Floor and ceiling effects: compressed scale? 6. Excludes economic dimension (?) 7. Excludes direct democracy 8. Single indicator is less useful for policy evaluation 2/4/

29 Measurement: Polity IV Monty G. Marshall, and Keith Jaggers Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, : Dataset Users Manual. Maryland: University of Maryland. Long time series ( ) annual observations Academic standard especially in IR 2/4/

30 Polity IV Concepts Democracy reflects three essential elements: The presence of institutions and procedures through which citizens can express preferences about alternative policies and leaders; The existence of institutionalized constraints on the power of the executive; and Theguarantee of civil liberties to allcitizens (although not actually measured). 2/4/

31 Polity IV measurement Thedataset constructs a ten point democracy scale by coding The competitiveness of political participation (1 3), The competitiveness of executive recruitment (1 2), The openness of executive recruitment (1), and The constraints t on the chief executive (1 4). Autocracy is measured by negative versions of the same indices. The two scales are combined into a single democracy autocracy y score varying from 10 to /4/

32 Polity IV classification The existence or absence of institutional features of the nation state. Competitive executive recruitment is measured by leadership selection through popular elections contested by twoormore or parties orcandidates candidates. The openness of recruitment for the chief executive is measured by the opportunity for all citizens to have the opportunity ty to attain the eposition o through a regularized ed process, excluding hereditary succession, forceful seizure of power, or military coups. By contrast, autocracies are seen as regimes which restrict or suppress competitive ii political i l participation, ii i in which h the chief executive is chosen from within the political elite, and, once in office, leaders face few institutional constraints on their power. 2/4/

33 Polity IV Figure 3.4: Trends in Polity IV measure of Constitutional Democracy, Mean Polity Combined 20-pt score Year Source: Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, /4/

34 2/4/

35 Democratic governance Electoral democracy Przeworski/Cheibub Liberal democracy Good governance Polity IV/ Polity IV/ Ibrahim Index/ Ibrahim Index/ Freedom House World Bank Minimalist Maximalist 2/4/

36 Good governance indices Increasingly gycommonly used in the last decade World Bank Institute: Kaufmann Kray Good governance indicators 1996 date Rule of law Government effectiveness Transparency Voice Stability Will discuss in Class 11 Ibrahim Index of African Governance / p// / 2/4/

37 Ibrahim Index 2/4/

38 eg e.g. Ibrahim Index All citizens of all countries desire to be governed well. That is what citizens i want from the nation-states in which hthey live. Thus, nation-states in the modern world are responsible for the delivery of essential political goods to their inhabitants. The essential political goods can be summarized and gathered under five categories: Safety and Security; Rule of Law, Transparency, and Corruption; Participation and Human Rights; Sustainable S i Economic Opportunity; and Human Development. Together, these five categories of political goods epitomize the performance of any government, at any level. 2/4/

39 Eg E.g. Ibrahim Index 2/4/

40 Eg Ibrahim Index 2/4/

41 2/4/

42 Key questions? How would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the normative concepts of electoral democracy, liberal democracy, deliberative democracy and good governance? Which of these concepts would you use to measure the quality of governance in your home region, for example, working in a UN agency, a national NGO, as a journalist, as an official for a bilateral donor, or as an academic analyst? How would you justify your choice of concepts and measures to a diplomatic official from, say, ASEAN, the African Union, or the UN? 2/4/

43 Leduc, Niemi and Norris 2/4/

44 Cases How would you classify the following cases and why? Belarus? Venezuela? Ghana? 2/4/

45 Typology rules Is the territory an independent d nation state? Does the nation state hold lddirect elections? Do election meet international standards d for multiparty competition? Does the regime respect full political i l rights ih and civil liberties? 2/4/

46 Step 1: Is the territory an independent nation state? hold direct elections? Dependent territories (47) Independent nation states (199) Step 2: Does the nation state hold direct elections? Absolute autocracies (6) Electoral regimes Nation states with an elected national legislature (185) (b) Step 3: Do the elections meet international standards for multiparty competition? Electoral autocracies (65) Electoral democracies Legislative elections meet international standards for multiparty competition (120) (c) Step 4: Does the regime respect full political rights and civil liberties? Electoral democracies [Limited political rights/civil liberties] (32) Liberal democracies (88) (d) More autocratic More democratic 2/4/

47 Long term change /4/

48 Absolute autocracies Korea (North) Libya Arab Jamahiriy Myanmar (Burma) Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia 2/4/

49 Electoral autocracies Afghanistan Algeria Angola Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Bhutan Bosnia & Herzegovina Brunei Darussalam Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep Chad China Comoros Congo, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire Cuba Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Gabon Gambia Guinea Guinea Bissau Haiti Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mauritania Morocco Nepal Pakistan Rwanda Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkmenistan Uganda United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zimbabwe 2/4/

50 Electoral democracies Albania Antigua & Barbuda Bolivia Colombia Congo, Democratic Republic Ecuador Georgia Guatemala Honduras Kenya Liberia Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Moldova Mozambique Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Papua New Guinea Paraguay Philippines Russian Federation Seychelles Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Thailand Trinidad & Tobago Turkey Venezuela Zambia 2/4/

51 Andorra Argentina Australia Austria Bahamas Barbados Belgium Belize Benin Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Canada Cape Verde Chile Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Estonia Finland France Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Liberal Democracies Guyana Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kiribati Korea (South) Latvia Lesotho Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius i Mexico Micronesia, Federated States Monaco Mongolia Namibia Nauru Netherlands New Zealand Norway Palau Panama Peru Poland Portugal Romania Samoa San Marino Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent & Grenadine Suriname Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tuvalu Ukraine United Kingdom United States Uruguay Vanuatu 2/4/

52 2/4/

53 Why use indicators? Diagnosis (what s wrong?) Needs assessment is the first stage in identifying priorities for reform Benchmarks can be a conditional criteria for distribution of aid e.g. used by the MCA Ranking can be an external shaming pressure mechanism on governments eg TI Can be an internal mechanism for reform dialogue Analysis (what works?) k?) Change in rankings helps to identify effective policies/strategies for reducing corruption, improving transparency, strengthening accountability, etc Performance indicators, results based management, and policy evaluation Prescription (how can good governance be strengthened?) Classifies regimes and identifies policy options and solutions 2/4/

54 Evaluating Indicators Criteria for evaluating any indicator: Valid indicator? Measures the underlying concept Comprehensive? Covers all major dimensions of concept Balanced? Not skewed towards only partial aspect Value bias? Generates consensus Reliable measures? Can be repeated consistently Equivalence Across societies/time? Measures like with like Transparent Public processes and clear decision rules Replicable? Can be recreated using the same steps Robust findings? Generates sameoutcomein repeated tests 2/4/

55 Munck and Verkuilen Challenge Task Standards Conceptualization Identify attributes Avoid maximalist def Vertical organization Avoid redundancy or conflation Measurement Select indicators Validity Reliability Aggregation Select levels Validity Aggregation rules Transparency of rules Validity/robustness Replicability 2/4/

56 Types of political indicators Structural (objective) measures: pros and cons? Eg turnout (vote/voter age population), ENPP Official statistics eg aggregate election results Perceptual (subjective) measures: pros and cons? Eg TI perceptions of corruption, Freedom House Expert judgments and target samples Representative public opinion surveys Measures: pros andcons? Continuous scales Typologies and classifications Dichotomous (binary) classifications Sources: pros and cons? Discrete Composite (compilations from other sources) 2/4/

57 Source: Governance Indicators: A Users' Guide (2nd Edition) UNDP Oslo Governance Center 2/4/

58 gu 2/4/

59 Next class Long wavesand and global patterns What are the historical trends? Are there distinct waves of democratization? Are we in a democratic recession? Haerpfer Ch 4 and 5 2/4/