Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV

Högström, John

doi:10.1017/gov.2012.10

Cited by 54 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed above, the striking differences between the seven-point FH index and other continuous democracy estimates are likely to stem from theoretical differences in the democracy proxies. Importantly, due to the emphasis that the FH index places on political rights and civil liberties, the index is often charged with being a better indicator of freedom rather than democracy (Hogstrom, 2013). To the extent that these claims are true, variation in the country-specific effects of democratization on emissions might be driven by the level of political freedoms in a country rather than the level of democratic stock.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation

Clulow

2018

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does democratization help countries mitigate climate change? On the one hand, by increasing the value placed on quality of life, creating more opportunity for environmental actors to influence policymaking and holding elected politicians accountable, an increase in democratic institution and process should promote emissions reduction. On the other hand, the desire to safeguard individual freedom presumably brings with it an aversion to intervene in lifestyle and market decisions, thereby raising the risk of climate inaction. This outcome is further encouraged by the political need to balance (conflicting) environmental and energy interests.This article evaluates the thesis that democratization promotes mitigation in light of national emissions levels from 1990 to 2012. Using data from the Freedom House, Polity IV and V-Dem indices, World Bank World Development Indicators and the World Resources Institute Climate Data Explorer it conducts a large-N investigation of the emissions levels of 147 countries. Although several quantitative studies have found that domestic political regimes affect emissions levels, this article goes beyond existing research by building a more sophisticatedmultilevel-research design to determine whether democracy: (a) continues to be an important driver of emissions when country-level clustering is accounted for and (b) has uniform effects across countries. The results indicate that, even after controlling for country-level clustering and holding constant the other confounding factors, democracy is indeed a significant driver. More strikingly, they reveal that while democracies tend to have lower emissions than non-democracies, democratization spells within the same country do not have the same kind of inhibitory effects as they do between countries. This article also finds tentative evidence that the type of electoral system plays a critical role in shaping the effect of democratization on individual countries. Key policy insights. Democracies tend to perform better in terms of emission levels than nondemocracies. . Democratization has non-uniform effects across different countries, with the type of electoral system playing a key role in determining the effect that democratization has on national emissions. . Further research is needed to develop our understanding of how the political context influences emissions, especially with regard to the influence of pro and anti-decarbonisation actors.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation

Clulow

2018

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The democracy score in 1989, i.e. the year when the Berlin wall fell, was 10 (Full Democracy) in Sweden and − 7 (Autocracy) in Bulgaria according to the Polity IV index (range: -10 to + 10) [13], which is currently one of the most widely used indexes measuring democracy/autocracy [14]. The democracy score in 2016 was still 10 (Full Democracy) in Sweden but increased from − 7 to 9 (Democracy) in Bulgaria with the major change from − 7 to 8 between 1989 and 1990 after the fall of communism and the restoration of democratic institutions.…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Esteem in Adolescents: A Two-Wave Time-Lag Study across the Iron Curtain

Antonson¹,

Thorsén²,

Berg³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim was to conduct a time-lag study on how democracy and dictatorship may influence self-esteem in adolescents. Methods: Adolescents (aged 15-16) from Sweden and Bulgaria were compared using the 'I Think I Am' questionnaire measuring self-esteem 1989-1991 (T1) when Bulgaria was a communistic dictatorship and Sweden a parliamentary democracy and 2015-16 (T2) when both countries were democracies. Results: The lower global self-esteem in Bulgaria compared to Sweden at T1 equalised at T2, which mainly was related to the sub-scales ' Relations with others' and ' Psychological well-being '. Both global self-esteem and ' Relations with others ' had a significant interaction between time and country, indicating that the country differences in self-esteem were modified by time, i.e. our proxy for governance. The differences that existed between the sexes in Sweden at T1 equalised at T2. The girls in both countries had lower results in the sub-scale ' Psychological well-being ' than the boys at both time-points. Conclusion: The prior differences in selfesteem between a democracy and a communistic dictatorship equalised over a generation of democracy. We suggest that the amelioration self-esteem in the former dictatorship is due to decrease of social stressors. This lower self-esteem related to others could be seen as 'Dictatorship damage'. Background Different forms of governance, i.e. dictatorship or democracy, form different compatriots [1-4] and how dictatorships impact the well-being among its citizens has been discussed since the time of the ancient Greeks [5]. Despite this, few studies have been conducted on the psychological impact of governance. This scarcity of studies is at least partially related to the difficulties of getting permission to examine an autocratic state as dictators tend to fear criticism and opposition [4]. A wave of democratic changes swept over Europe in the early 1990s after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. These changes cleared a path for the formation or restoration, in some cases, of liberal democratic institutions in Europe, as well as elsewhere in the world [6].Our previous study [7] compared levels of self-esteem in adolescents in Bulgaria and Sweden, two countries on either side of the Berlin Wall before it fell in 1989; the study was cross-sectional in design. In our previous study, we found that the adolescents in Bulgaria had a lower global selfesteem related to relations to others than their Swedish counterparts, which was suggested as being related to the higher presence of dictatorship-related macro-environmental stressors in the communistic dictatorship Bulgaria and to a more equal distribution between the sexes in the Bulgarians [7].Self-esteem is often defined as a personality characteristic that mirrors the level of global regard that one has for oneself as a person [8,9]. It is widely recognised that self-esteem is strongly and closely related to psychopathology in adolescents where low levels of self-estee...

show abstract

“…One way of quantifying democracy and autocracy (dictatorship) is through the Polity IV Index with an 11-point scale on democracy and an 11-point scale on autocracy that is combined into a 21-point Polity score based on Eckstein and Gurr's research in the 1970's and elaborated by Marshall (Marshall, Gurr, & Jaggers, 2018). This index is currently one of the most widely used indexes measuring democracy/autocracy (Hogstrom, 2013) and reports governance characteristics from the year 1800 for purposes of global comparative analyses (Marshall et al, 2018). The democracy score in 1989, i.e.…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy, Dictatorship, and Adolescent Self-Esteem: A Cross-Sectional Comparison Across the Iron Curtain

Antonson¹,

Thorsén²,

Berg³

et al. 2019

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Democracy and dictatorship are opposite forms of governance and may influence children differently, partly through the school curriculum.Methods: Data were collected in the communistic dictatorship of Bulgaria before the fall of the Berlin wall and in the West-European democracy of Sweden. The aims were to compare self-esteem between Swedish and Bulgarian adolescents, examine sex differences and investigate potential interactions between country and sex. We used the well-validated self-reporting questionnaire 'I Think I Am' scale (ITIA) measuring self-esteem.

show abstract

Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV

Cited by 54 publications

References 33 publications

Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation

Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation

Self-Esteem in Adolescents: A Two-Wave Time-Lag Study across the Iron Curtain

Democracy, Dictatorship, and Adolescent Self-Esteem: A Cross-Sectional Comparison Across the Iron Curtain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About