Subjective measures of liberal democracy
By: Bollen, Kenneth A.
Contributor(s): Paxton, Pamela.
Material type:
ArticlePublisher: 2000Description: p.58-86.Subject(s): Liberalism
In:
Comparative Political StudiesSummary: Using democracy in empirical work requires accurate measurement. Yet, most policy and academic research presupposes the accuracy of available measures. This article explores judge-specific measurement errors in cros-national indicators of liberal democracy. The authors evaluate the magnitude of these errors in widely used measures of democracy and determine whether their results replicate during a 17-year period (1972 to 1988). Then, they examine the nature of these systematic errors, hypothesizing that three different processes - (a) the information available for rating, (b) the judges' processing of this information, and (c) the method by which a judge's processing decisions are translated into a rating - could create error. The authors find that for the 17-year period from 1972 to 1988, there is unambiguous evidence of judge-specific measurement errors, which are related to traits of the countries. In the conclusion, the authors discuss the implications for democracy research and for other subjective measures. - Reproduced
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | Volume no: 33, Issue no: 1 | Available | AR44406 |
Using democracy in empirical work requires accurate measurement. Yet, most policy and academic research presupposes the accuracy of available measures. This article explores judge-specific measurement errors in cros-national indicators of liberal democracy. The authors evaluate the magnitude of these errors in widely used measures of democracy and determine whether their results replicate during a 17-year period (1972 to 1988). Then, they examine the nature of these systematic errors, hypothesizing that three different processes - (a) the information available for rating, (b) the judges' processing of this information, and (c) the method by which a judge's processing decisions are translated into a rating - could create error. The authors find that for the 17-year period from 1972 to 1988, there is unambiguous evidence of judge-specific measurement errors, which are related to traits of the countries. In the conclusion, the authors discuss the implications for democracy research and for other subjective measures. - Reproduced
There are no comments for this item.