Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Konzeptualisierung von Demokratie

Robert Dahl, Larry Diamond und gängige Demokratiemessungen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie

Zusammenfassung

Im Mittelpunkt der vergleichenden Demokratieforschung stehen drei Fragen: Was sind förderliche und hinderliche Bedingungen für die Herausbildung, das Funktionieren und die Stabilität von Demokratien? Welche Typen von Demokratien gibt es? Welche Wirkungen haben verschiedene Typen von Demokratie sowie Demokratien im Vergleich zu Autokratien oder wie leistungsfähig sind sie? Zu allen diesen Fragen sind eine Vielzahl, teilweise konkurrierender empirischer Demokratietheorien entwickelt worden wie beispielsweise die Modernisierungstheorie (Lipset 1959) und die Akteurstheorie (O’Donnell/Schmitter 1986) zur Erklärung der Entstehung und Herausbildung von Demokratien oder die Selektoratstheorie zur Erklärung der Performanz von Demokratien und Autokratien (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003).

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
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.

Literatur

  • Alvarez, Mike et al. (1996): Classifying Political Regimes. In: Studies in Comparative International Development 31(2), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arat, Zehra F. (1991): Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder/CO: Lynne Rinner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Arthur S. (1971): Cross-Polity Time-Series Data. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Arthur S./ Textor, Robert B. (1963): A Cross-Polity Survey. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsmann Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2012): Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2012. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix, Carles/ Miller, Michael/ Rosato, Sebastiano (2013): A Complete Dataset of Political Regimes, 1800–2007. In: Comparative Political Studies 46(12), 1523–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • – (1991): Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps. In: Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg.): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publishers, 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2009): Liberal Democracy Series I, 1972–1988: Definition, Measurement, and Trajectories. In: Electoral Studies 28(3), 368–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce et al. (2003): The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühlmann, Marc et al. (2012): Demokratiebarometer. Ein neues Instrument zur Messung von Demokratiequalität. In: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6, 115–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, José Antonio/ Gandhi, Jennifer/ Vreeland, James Raymond (2010): Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. In: Public Choice 143(2–1), 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David/ Levitsky, Steven (1997): Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. In: World Politics 49(3), 430–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael (2002): Democracy and Dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. In: Comparative Political Studies 35(1), 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2012): Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael/ Reinicke, Wolfgang H. (1991): Measuring Polyarchy. In: Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg.): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publisher, 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael/ Gerring, John et al. (2011): Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. In: Perspective on Politics 9(2), 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutright, Phillips (1963): National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis. In: American Sociological Review 28, 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • – (1989): Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven et al.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (1998): On Democracy. New Haven et al.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2006): On Political Equality. New Haven et al.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A./ Levi, Margaret (2009): A Conversation with Robert A. Dahl. In: Annual Review of Political Science 12, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A./ Lindblom, Charles E. (1953): Politics, Economics and Welfare: Planning and Politico-Economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes. Chicago et al.: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2001): Democracy, Fat and Thin. In: Clarke, Paul Barry/ Foweraker, Joe (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. London et al.: Routledge, 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2002): Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. In: Journal of Democracy 13(2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Larry/ Morlino, Leonardo (Hrsg.): (2005): Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, Harry/ Gurr, Ted R. (1975): Patterns of Authority: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foweraker, Joe/ Krznaric, Roman (2001): Indicators of Democracy. In: Clarke, Paul Barry/ Foweraker, Joe (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. London et al.: Routledge, 351–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (2013a): Freedom in the World 2013– Methodology. Unter: http://www.freedomhouse.org [10.12.2013].

  • – (2013b): About Us. Unter: http://www.freedomhouse.org/about-us [10.12.2013].

  • Fuchs, Dieter/ Roller, Edeltraud (2008): Die Konzeptualisierung der Qualität von Demokratie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eine kritische Diskussion aktueller Ansätze. In: Brodocz, André/ Llanque, Marcus/ Schaal, Gary S. (Hrsg.): Bedrohungen der Demokratie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorowski, Mark J. (1991): The Political Regimes Project. In: Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg.): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publishers, 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (1996): An Overview of the Political Regime Change Dataset. In: Comparative Political Studies 29(4), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, Raymond Duncan (1991): The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. In: Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg.): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publisher, 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, Barbara/ Wright, Joseph/ Frantz, Erica (2012): New Data on Autocratic Regimes. Manuskript unter: http://dictators.la.psu.edu/pdf/pp10.pdf [10.12.2013].

  • Gurr, Ted Robert (1974): Persistence and Change in Political Systems, 1800–1971. In: American Political Science Review 68(4), 1482–1504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, Ted Robert/ Jaggers, Keith/ Moore, Will H. (1991): The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy, Autocracy, and State Power since 1800. In: Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publishers, 69–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, Axel (1992): Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Held, David (2006): Models of Democracy. 3. Aufl. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel P. (1991): The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman et al.: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkeles, Alex (Hrsg.): (1991): On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick et al.: Transaction Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl, Terry Lynn (1990): Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America. In: Comparative Politics 23(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2004): Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, Daniel (1958): The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, Scott/ O’Donnell, Guillermo/ Valenzuela, J. Samuel (Hrsg.): (1992): Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective. Notre Dame/Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Monty G./ Gurr, Ted Robert/ Jaggers, Keith (2013): Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2012. Dataset Users’ Manual. Center for Systemic Peace. Unter: www.systemicpeace.org [10.12.2013].

  • Marshall, Monty G. et al. (2002): Polity IV, 1800–1999. Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. In: Comparative Political Studies 35, 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, Wolfgang et al. (2003): Defekte Demokratie. Bd. 1: Theorie. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morlino, Leonard (2012): Changes for Democracy: Actors, Structures, Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Thomas/ Pickel, Susanne (2007): Wie lässt sich Demokratie am besten messen? Zur Konzeptqualität von Demokratie-Indizes. In: Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48(3), 511–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, Gerardo L./ Snyder, Richard (2007): Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, Gerardo L./ Verkuilen, Jay (2002a): Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. In: Comparative Political Studies 35(1), 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2002b): Generating Better Data: A Response to Discussants. In: Comparative Political Studies 35(1), 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo/ Schmitter, Philippe C. (1986): Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Baltimore et al.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, Roland J. (1979): Democratic Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickel, Susanne/ Pickel, Gert (2006): Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Manfred G. (2010): Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung. 5. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1950): Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. Tübingen: Franke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teorell, Jan (2010): Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhanen, Tatu (1984): The Emergence of Democracy. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.

    Google Scholar 

  • – (2003): Democratization: A Comparative Analysis of 170 Countries. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Michael D. (2002): Green Binders in Cyberspace: A Modest Proposal. In: Comparative Political Studies 35(1), 46–51.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politikwissenschaft Bereich Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 55099, Mainz, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Edeltraud Roller

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Edeltraud Roller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edeltraud Roller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Jena Rechtswissenschaftliche Fak., Jena, Germany

    Oliver W. Lembcke

  2. Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität/ Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Claudia Ritzi

  3. Helmut-Schmidt Univ./ Inst. f. Politikwissenschaft, Hamburg, Germany

    Gary S. Schaal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roller, E. (2016). Konzeptualisierung von Demokratie. In: Lembcke, O., Ritzi, C., Schaal, G. (eds) Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06363-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06363-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-06362-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-06363-4

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation