Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Women’s suffrage in the measurement of democracy: Problems of operationalization

  • Research Forum: Substantive Entailments of Graded Versus Categorical Measures
  • Published:
Studies in Comparative International Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although definitions of democracy commonly include all adults, measures of democracy often fail to include women. In this article, I demonstrate that this incorrect operationalization can affect: (1) our measurement of transition dates to democracy, (2) our description of the emergence of democracy, and (3) our understanding of the causes of democratization. I begin by outlining the disjuncture between the definition of democracy and its measurement in a number of studies, (e.g., Muller, 1988, Huntington 1991, and Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens, 1992). I then illustrate the consequences of omission in these studies and finish with the suggestion that a possible solution lies in graded measures of democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arat, Zehra F. 1991.Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1948.The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt and Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle [322BC] 1977. “The Generation of Animals” and “Politics.” Pp. 43–54 inHistory of Ideas on Woman: A Source Book, ed. Rosemary Agonito. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1990. “Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps.”Studies in Comparative International Development, 25 (Spring): 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1993. “Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures of Liberal Democracy.”American Journal of Political Science, 37 (November): 1207–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1998. “Cross-National Indicators of Liberal Democracy, 1950 to 1990.” Codebook. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth A., Robert W. Jackman, and Hyojoung Kim. 1996. “Suffrage, Registration, and Turnout: A Comparative Analysis.” Unpublished paper, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

  • Bollen, Kenneth A. and Robert Jackman. 1989. “Democracy, Stability and Dichotomies.”American Sociological Review, 54, (August): 612–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhart, Ross E. and Michael S. Lewis-Beck 1994. “Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis.”American Political Science Review, 88 (December): 903–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David and Robert Adcock 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts.”Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 537–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David and Steven Levitsky 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.”World Politics, 49 (April): 430–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. [1871] 1977. “The Descent of Man.” Pp. 251–266 inHistory of Ideas on Woman: A Source Book, ed. Rosemary Agonito. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L., Linz, J. J., and Lipset, S. M., Eds. 1990.Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. 1986. “Liberalism and, World Politics.”American Political Science Review, 80 (December): 1151–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dye, Thomas and Harmon Zeigler. 1970.The Irony of Democracy. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, Raymond D. 1988.Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1987–1988. New York: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, Carol 1982.In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R. 1990.Polity II: Political Structures and Regime Change, 1800–1986. Ann Arbor: ICPSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, Georg. [1821] 1977. “The Philosophy of Right.” Pp. 161–170 inHistory of Ideas on Woman: A Source Book, ed. Rosemary Agonito. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, Christopher. 1977. “The Effect of Political Democracy and Social Democracy on Equality in Industrial Societies: A Cross-National Comparison.”American Sociological Review, 42 (June): 450–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humana, Charles. 1992.World Human Rights Guide, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel. 1981.American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel. 1991.The Third Wave: Democratization in the late 20th Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkeles, A. Ed. 1991.On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggers, Keith and Ted Robert Gurr 1996.Polity III: Regime Type and Political Authority, 1800–1994 [computer file]. ICPSR 6695 Boulder, CO: Keith Jaggers/College Park, MD; Ted Robert Gurr [producters]. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ollie A., III. 1999. “Pluralist Authoritarianism in Comparative Perspective: White Supremacy, Male Supremacy, and Regime Classification.”National Political Science Review, vol. 7, special issue on “Race and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective,” ed. Georgia A. Persons.

  • Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1996.Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1960.Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Zeev Nasrin Abdolali. 1989. “Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976.”Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33 (March): 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCammon, Holly J., Karen E. Campbell, Ellen M. Granberg, and Christine Mowery. forthcoming. “How movements win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and the State Women’s Suffrage Movements 1866 to 1919.”American Sociological Review.

  • Mill, John Stuart. [1831] 1975.three Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Barrington. 1966.The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Edward. 1995. “Income Inequality and Democracy Revisited: Reply to Bollen and Jackman.”American Sociological Review, 60 (December): 990–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1988. “Democracy, Economic Development and Income Inequality.”American Sociological Review, 53 (February): 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986.Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, Susan Moller. 1979.Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, Pamela 1997. “Women in National Legislatures: A Cross-National Analysis.”Social Science Research, 26 (December): 442–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Anne. 1991.Engendering Democracy. Pennsylvania State University Press.

  • Przewoski, Adam and Fernando Limongi 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”World Politics, 49 (January): 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, Francisco O., Yasemin Soysal and Suzanne Shanahan. 1997. “The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women’s Suffrage Rights, 1890–1990.”American Sociological Review, 62 (October): 735–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1755] 1979.Emile: or, On Education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992.Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl 1991. “What Democracy is...and is Not.”Journal of Democracy 2 (Summer): 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer, Arthur. [1851] 1977. “Studies in Pessimism” Pp. 193–206 inHistory of Ideas on Woman: A Source Book, ed. Rosemary Agonito. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivard, R. 1985.Women: a World Survey. Washington, D.C.: World Priorities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavris, Carol. 1992.The Mismeasure of Woman. New York: Simon and Schuster. De Tocqueville, Alexis. [1840] 1990.Democracy in Ameica. New York: Vintage Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhanen, Tatu 1997.Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Kathryn B. 1993. “Reconceptualizing World System Theory to Include Women.” Pp. 43–68 in England, Paula ed.,Theory on Gender, Feminism on Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Pamela Paxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Pamela Paxton is an assistant professor of sociology at the Ohio State University. Her research interests include political sociology, quantitative methodology, and prosocial behavior. She is currently working on projects that include comparing political participation across a large cross-national sample and relating social capital to democracy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paxton, P. Women’s suffrage in the measurement of democracy: Problems of operationalization. St Comp Int Dev 35, 92–111 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699767

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699767

Keywords

Search

Navigation