Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporary Problems and Future Perspectives of Empirical Research on Democracy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Parties, Governments and Elites

Part of the book series: Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft ((VGPO))

Abstract

This chapter, first, briefly summarizes the long-term developments of worldwide democratization and their major driving forces. It then turns to more elaborate conceptualizations of democracy and its various dimensions. In this context, it discusses the multitude of empirical measures of democracy and their respective strengths and weaknesses. This is followed by identifying major problem areas of contemporary democracies. A concluding section then points to some of the remaining challenges of empirical research on democracy, both with regard to a problem-oriented political science and practical politics.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, A. C., R. Inglehart, and C. Welzel. 2012. “Measuring Effective Democracy: A Defense.” International Political Science Review 33(1), 41-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D. 2015. Causal Case Studies: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching and Tracing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M. (Ed.). 2008. Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, D., and J. Mitchell (Eds.). 2002. Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe 1919-39. Comparative Analyses. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, D. (Ed.). 2007. Democratization – the State of the Art. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. (2nd Edn.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, D. 2008. “Neighbourhood Effects of Democratization in Europe.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 4(2), 29-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, D., and L. Cronqvist. 2012. “Calibrating and Aggregating Multi-dimensional Socio-Economic and Political Indices with Fuzzy Set Scores.” Paper prepared for the APSA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Aug. 30 – Sept. 2, 2012. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108797. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

  • Berg-Schlosser, D. 2015. “The Emergence of Democracy: Forces and Counter-Forces.” Government and Opposition 50(3), 363-363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg-Schlosser, D. forthcoming. Comparative Area Studies – the Golden Mean between Area Studies and Universalist Approaches? In Ahram, A., P. Koellner, and R. Sil (Eds.), Comparative Area Studies. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsmann Transformation Index. www.bti-project.de. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. E., and D. Collier. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. (2nd Edn.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, M., and N. van de Walle. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., and S. Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49(3), 430-451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., and W. H. Reinicke. 1990. “Measuring Polyarchy.” Studies in Comparative International Development 25(1), 51-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. 2004. Post-Democracy. Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutright, P. C. 1963. “National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis.” American Sociological Review 28(2), 253-264.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, D. 2013. Can Democracy Be Saved? Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements. Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Democracy Barometer. 2012. Democracy Barometer: A New Instrument to Measure the Quality of Democracy. http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/publications/db2012zvpw. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

  • Diamond, L. J., and L. Morlino. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, R. 2005. Democratic Transitions: Exploring The Structural Sources of the Fourth Wave. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2007. Liberty and Justice for Some. http://www.economist.com/node/8908438?zid=292&ah=165a5788fdb0726c01b1374d8e1ea285. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

  • Freedom House. 1978ff. Freedom in the World. http://www.freedomhouse.org/. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

  • Fukuyama, F. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R., K. Jaggers, and M. G. Marshall. 2002. Polity IV: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2001. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm. Accessed: 06 December 2016

  • Hadenius, A. 1992. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. 2016. “Rigour versus Relevance? Methodological Discussions in Political Science.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 57(1), 11-26.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kailitz, S., and P. Köllner. (Eds.). 2013. Autokratien im Vergleich. PVS Sonderheft 47. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. S., and P. Mair. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy. The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1(1), 5-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatib, L., and E. Lust. (Eds.). 2014. Taking to the Streets: The Transformation of Arab Activism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., R. O. Keohane, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, C. H. 2010. “Measuring Effective Democracy.” International Political Science Review 31(2), 109-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, D. S. 2011. Judicial Independence. In Badie, B., D. Berg-Schlosser, and L. Morlino (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Political Science, 1369-1372. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., and L. A. Way. (Eds.). 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, S. I. 2009. Democratization by Elections. A New Mode of Transition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J., and A. Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America and PostCommunist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J., and A. Valenzuela. (Eds.). 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy Volume 1. Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHenry, D. 2000. “Quantitative Measures of Democracy in Africa: An Assessment.” Democratization 7(2), 168-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, L. M. 2010. “Scholasticism in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2), 453-464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1911).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R. B., and K. C. Williams. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, G. 1896. Elementi di scienza politica. English edition: The Ruling Class, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. (Ed.). 2007. Regimes and Democracies in Latin America: Theories and Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. 2015. “Building Democracy …Which Democracy? Ideology and Models of Democracy in Post-Transition Latin America.” Government and Opposition 50(3), 364-393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L., and R. Snyder. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G., P. C. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharr, S. J., and R. D. Putnam. (Eds.). 2000. Disaffected Democracies. What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polity IV. 2014. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2013. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm. Accessed: 17 November 2016.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, B., and C. C. Ragin. (Eds.). 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teorell, J., and A. Hadenius. 2007. Determinants of Democratization: Taking Stock of the Large N Evidence. In Berg-Schlosser, D. (Ed.), Democratization – the State of the Art, 69-95. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. (2nd Edn.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Treier, S., and S. Jackman. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1), 201-217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transformation Research Unit (TRU). 2016. The Transformation Research Initiative. University of Stellenbosch/South Africa. http://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/arts/political-science/the-transformation-research-initiative. Accessed 17 November 2016.

  • Vanhanen, T. 1997. Prospects of Democracy. A Study of 172 Countries. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). 2016. V-Dem: Global Standards, Local Knowledge. https://v-dem.net/. Accessed 17 November 2016.

  • Welzel, C. 2013. Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2016. www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/. Accessed 17 November 2016.

  • Zartman, I. W. 1995. Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Boulder: L. Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philipps-Universtität Marburg, Obere Seeleite 6, 82237, Wörthsee, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Dirk Berg-Schlosser

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Dirk Berg-Schlosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Berg-Schlosser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politik- und Kommunikation, Universität Greifswald, Salzburg, Austria

    Philipp Harfst

  2. Tel Aviv, Israel

    Ina Kubbe

  3. Politikwissemschaft, Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Thomas Poguntke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Berg-Schlosser, D. (2017). Contemporary Problems and Future Perspectives of Empirical Research on Democracy. In: Harfst, P., Kubbe, I., Poguntke, T. (eds) Parties, Governments and Elites. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17446-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation