Measuring Effective Democracy
Measuring Effective Democracy
复制标题
衡量有效的民主
DOI：
10.1177/0192512110364736
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
C. Knutsen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Knutsen
本文讨论了与民主的实质性定义操作化有关的方法论问题。文章认为，指数建设者需要特别注意的测量水平的问题。否则，它们的指标可能面临严重的可靠性和有效性问题，这反过来又可能使利用指标进行的实证分析产生偏差。这篇文章特别关注罗纳德英格尔哈特和克里斯蒂安·韦尔策尔提出的“有效民主”衡量标准。英格尔哈特和韦尔策尔在几项研究中使用了这一衡量标准，特别是对从他们的现代化理论版本中推导出的假设进行实证检验。这些测试产生了非常强有力的结果，支持该理论。这篇文章赞同英格哈特和韦尔策尔的目标，即捕获“实质性”而非“形式”民主，但对提出的具体措施持批评态度。该措施有几个不幸的理论和分配属性;该措施产生的经验分数往往具有高度误导性。实证分析表明，该指数是有偏见的，富裕的西方国家尤其受到青睐。因此，在统计分析中使用该度量可能导致错误的推断。
This article discusses methodological problems related to operationalizing substantive definitions of democracy. The article argues that index-constructors need to be particularly conscious of measurement level issues. If not, their indexes may face severe reliability and validity problems, which in turn may bias empirical analyses utilizing the indexes. The article focuses particularly on the “effective democracy” measure developed by Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel. The measure has been used by Inglehart and Welzel in several studies, particularly for empirically testing hypotheses deduced from their version of modernization theory. These tests have generated very strong results in favor of the theory. The article is sympathetic to Inglehart and Welzel’s goal of capturing “substantive” rather than “formal” democracy, but is critical of the specific measure proposed.The measure has several unfortunate theoretical and distributional properties; the empirical scores generated by the measure are often highly misleading. Empirical analysis suggests the index is biased, and that rich, Western countries are particularly favored. Utilization of the measure in statistical analysis may therefore lead to false inferences.