1932

Abstract

This article analyzes the scholarship on variation among democracies and offers a proposal intended to address the relative lack of consensus over the fundamental conceptual infrastructure underpinning this literature. The framework introduced here differentiates between four dimensions of democracy: authenticity, quality, depth and consolidation—arguing that they may vary with some independence from one another. This approach simultaneously addresses concerns of normative and empirical democratic theory, rooting the conceptualization of democracy's dimensions in central aspirations that motivate normative theorists and political actors. The distinction between authenticity and quality as formulated here centers on the difference between standards understood to be required for membership in the democratic genus and normatively valued goals that surpass such standards. Work on democratic depth, as formulated here, addresses concerns over the possible tension between “minimalist” operational definitions and the underlying idea of democracy with its emphasis on political equality and rule by the people.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015910
2016-05-11
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/19/1/annurev-polisci-042114-015910.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015910&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahlquist JS, Levi M. 2013. In the Interest of Others: Organizations and Social Activism Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcántara SM. 2004. Quality of democracy or quality of politics. See O'Donnell et al. 2004 234–38
  3. Altman D, Pérez-Liñán A. 2002. Assessing the quality of democracy: freedom, competitiveness and participation in eighteen Latin American countries. Democratization 9:85–100 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baiocchi G. 2005. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker CE. 2007. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartels LM. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Bearman P. 1993. Relations into Rhetorics New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Beetham D. 2005. Freedom as the foundation. Assessing the Quality of Democracy L Diamond, L Morlino 32–46 Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bentele KG, O'Brien EE. 2013. Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspect. Polit. 11:1088–116 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bogaards M. 2007. Measuring democracy through election outcomes: a critique with African data. Comp. Polit. Stud. 40:1211–37 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bollen KA. 1980. Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. Am. Sociol. Rev. 45:370–90 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bollen KA. 1990. Political democracy: conceptual and measurement traps. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 25:7–24 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bollen KA, Jackman RW. 1989. Democracy, stability and dichotomies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54:612–21 [Google Scholar]
  14. Burt RS. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: an Introduction to Social Capital Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Collier D, Adcock R. 1999. Democracy and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2:537–65 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coppedge M, Alvarez A, Maldonado C. 2008. Two persistent dimensions of democracy: contestation and inclusiveness. J. Polit. 70:632–47 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coppedge M, Gerring J, Altman D, Bernhard M, Fish S. et al. 2011. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: a new approach. Perspect. Polit. 9:247–67 [Google Scholar]
  18. Costa Pinto A, de Sousa L, Magalhães P. 2013. A Qualidade da Democracia em Portugal: A Visão dos Cidadãos Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciencias Sociais [Google Scholar]
  19. Crouch C. 2004. Post-Democracy Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
  20. Dahl RA. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Dahl RA. 1973. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Dahl RA. 1998. On Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Dahl RA. 2006. On Political Equality New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Davenport C, Armstrong DA II. 2004. Democracy and human rights: a statistical analysis from 1976 to 1996. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48:538–54 [Google Scholar]
  25. de Sousa Santos B. 2005. Democratizing Democracy: Beyond the Liberal Democratic Canon New York: Verso [Google Scholar]
  26. Della Porta D. 2013. Can Democracy Be Saved? Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
  27. Diamond L, Morlino L. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Democracy Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  28. Diamond L, Plattner MF. 2001. The Global Divergence of Democracies Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Diamond L, Plattner MF. 2015. Democracy in Decline? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Eckstein H. 1997. Congruence theory explained Work. pap., Cent. Stud. Democr., Univ. Calif., Irvine [Google Scholar]
  31. Elster J. 1998. Deliberative Democracy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Fernandes T. 2015. Rethinking pathways to democracy: civil society in Portugal and Spain, 1960s–2000s. Democratization 22:1074–104 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fishman RM. 2004. Democracy's Voices: Social Ties and the Quality of Public Life in Spain Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Fishman RM. 2007. On being a Weberian (after Spain's 11–14 March): notes on the continuing relevance of the methodological perspective proposed by Weber. Max Weber's ‘Objectivity’ Reconsidered L McFalls 261–89 Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Fishman RM. 2011. Democratic practice after the revolution: the case of Portugal and beyond. Polit. Soc. 39:233–67 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fishman RM. 2014. Democracy and markets: notes on a twenty-first century paradox. Reflections on Uneven Democracies: The Legacy of Guillermo O'Donnell D Brinks, M Leiras, S Mainwaring 106–20 Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Fishman RM, Gervasoni C, Jones Stater K. 2015. Inequality and the altruistic life: a study of the priestly vocations rate. J. Sci. Stud. Religion 54:3575–95 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fishman RM, Lizardo O. 2013. How macro-historical change shapes cultural taste: legacies of democratization in Spain and Portugal. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78:213–39 [Google Scholar]
  39. Font J, Navarro C. 2013. Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Adm. 91:616–31 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fung A, Wright EO. 2003. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance London: Verso [Google Scholar]
  41. Gutmann A. 1999. Democratic Education Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Rev., ed.. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  44. Heller P. 2000. Degrees of democracy: some comparative lessons from India. World Polit. 52:484–519 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huber E, Stephens JD. 2012. Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Johannsen RW. 1965. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Keyssar A. 2009. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Philadelphia: Basic Books. Rev., ed.. [Google Scholar]
  48. Knutsen CH. 2010. Measuring effective democracy. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 31:109–28 [Google Scholar]
  49. Korpi W, Shalev M. 1979. Strikes, industrial relations and class conflict in capitalist societies. Br. J. Sociol. 30:164–87 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee CW. 2015. Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Levitsky S, Way LA. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Linz JJ. 1975. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Handb. Polit. Sci. 3:175–411 [Google Scholar]
  53. Linz JJ. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Linz JJ, Miley TJ. 2012. Cautionary and unorthodox thoughts about democracy today. Problems Confronting Contemporary Democracies. Essays in Honor of Alfred Stepan D Chalmers, S Mainwaring 227–52 Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Linz JJ, Stepan A. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Mainwaring S, Pérez-Liñán A. 2005. Latin American democratization since 1978: democratic transition, breakdown and erosions. The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks F Hagopian, S Mainwaring 14–59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Mainwaring S, Pérez-Liñán A. 2013. Democracies and Dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, Survival, and Fall. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Markoff J. 1996. Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Markoff J. 1999. Where and when was democracy invented?. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 41:660–90 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mazzuca SL. 2004. Democratic quality: costs and benefits of the concept. See O'Donnell et al. 2004 249–59
  61. Medina LF. 2014. El Fénix Rojo Madrid: Catarata [Google Scholar]
  62. Merkel W. 2004. Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization 11:33–58 [Google Scholar]
  63. Morlino L. 2012. Changes for Democracy: Actors, Structures, Processes Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. Munck GL. 2009. Measuring Democracy: a Bridge between Scholarship and Politics Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Munck GL, Verkuilen J. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy evaluating alternative indices. Comp. Polit. Stud. 35:5–34 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mutz DC. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. O'Donnell GA. 2010. Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  68. O'Donnell GA, Vargas Cullel J, Iazzetta OM. 2004. The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press [Google Scholar]
  69. Przeworski A. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. Przeworski A. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Roberts KM. 1998. Deepening Democracy? The Modern Left and Social Movements in Chile and Peru Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Robertson GB. 2011. The Politics of Protest in Hybrid Regimes: Managing Dissent in Post-Communist Russia Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Sabl A. 2015. The two cultures of democratic theory: responsiveness, democratic quality and the empirical-normative divide. Perspect. Polit. 13:345–65 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sánchez-Cuenca I. 2010. Más democracia, menos liberalismo Madrid: Katz Ed. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sánchez-Cuenca I. 2014. La impotencia democrática: sobre la crisis política en España Madrid: Catarata [Google Scholar]
  77. Sartori G. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Part One: The Contemporary Debate. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House [Google Scholar]
  78. Schedler A. 2001. What is democratic consolidation?. See Diamond & Plattner 2001 149–64
  79. Schmitter PC. 2000. How to Democratize the European Union and Why Bother? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  80. Scott JC. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Seawright J, Collier D. 2014. Rival strategies of validation tools for evaluating measures of democracy. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47:111–38 [Google Scholar]
  82. Shapiro I. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Shapiro I. 2010. The Real World of Democratic Theory Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Shapiro I. 2012. On non-domination. Univ. Toronto Law J. 62:293–335 [Google Scholar]
  85. Somers MR. 2008. Genealogies of Citizenship Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Stephens JD. 1979. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. London: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  87. Tarrow S. 2012. Strangers at the Gates: Movements and States in Contentious Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Tilly C. 2004. Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Torcal M, Trechsel A. 2016. Explaining citizens' evaluations of democracy. How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy M Ferrin, H Kriesi Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  90. Valenzuela JS. 1992. Democratic consolidation in post-transitional settings: notion, process and facilitating conditions. Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective S Mainwaring, GA O'Donnell, JS Valenzuela 57–104 Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press [Google Scholar]
  91. Valenzuela JS. 2012. From town assemblies to representative democracy: the building of electoral institutions in nineteenth century Chile Kellogg Inst. Work. Pap. No. 389, Notre Dame Univ., Notre Dame, IN [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-015910
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error