Re-examining thresholds of continuous democracy measures

Re-examining thresholds of continuous democracy measures
复制标题

重新审视持续民主措施的门槛

DOI:
10.1080/13569775.2021.1993564
复制
发表时间:
2021
影响因子:
2
通讯作者:
Mori Kota
Mori Kota
中科院分区:
法学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Kasuya Yuko;Mori Kota

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

学者们经常通过设定一个政权分界点来区分民主的连续指标。然而,这种截断往往缺乏理论或经验的理由,使得结果分类难以从概念上解释。我们调查了这一挑战,涉及三个主要的持续民主措施:自由之家得分(FH),政体得分,以及基于V-Dem选举民主指数(EDI)的世界政权(RoW)。我们开发了一个框架,以经验得出阈值,使用分类民主措施作为基准。我们的分析发现,与BMR、CGV和GWF分类一致性最高的截止值为:FH为3.5,Polity为5,EDI/RoW为0.39。这些水平低于传统的临界值,意味着对民主标准的要求较低。因此,传统的分界点(FH为2.5,政体为6,EDI/RoW为0.5)试图反映比这些二分法所采用的更严格的民主标准。
Scholars frequently dichotomize continuous measures of democracy by setting a regime cut-off. However, such cut-offs often lack theoretical or empirical justifications, making the resulting classifications difficult to interpret conceptually. We investigate this challenge involving three major continuous democracy measures: the Freedom House score (FH), the Polity score, and the Regime of the World (RoW) that is based on the V-Dem's Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). We develop a framework to empirically derive thresholds using categorical democracy measures as benchmarks. Our analyses find that the cut-offs that yield the highest consistency with the classifications of BMR, CGV, and GWF are 3.5 for FH, 5 for Polity and 0.39 for EDI/RoW. These levels are lower than the conventional cut-offs, implying less demanding democratic standards. Consequently, the conventional cut-offs (2.5 for FH, 6 for Polity and 0.5 for EDI/RoW) endeavour to reflect more stringent standards of democracy than what these dichotomous measures employ.
相关性与可互换性:使用高度相关数据集的民主实证研究结果的稳健性有限
DOI: --
发表时间: 2003
期刊: Political Analysis
影响因子: 5.4
作者:
Gretchen Casper;Claudiu Daniel Tufis
通讯作者: Claudiu Daniel Tufis
选举民主的词汇索引
DOI: --
发表时间: 2015
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
Svend;J. Gerring;Henrikas Bartusevičius
通讯作者: Henrikas Bartusevičius
DOI: --
发表时间: 2009
影响因子: 3.2
作者:
Leonardo Morlino
通讯作者: Leonardo Morlino
DOI: --
发表时间: 2012
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
Matthijs Bogaards
通讯作者: Matthijs Bogaards
重新审视民主多米诺骨牌
DOI: 10.1177/0022002703252373
发表时间: 2003
影响因子: 3.1
作者:
Harvey E. Starr;Christina Lindborg
通讯作者: Christina Lindborg