Measuring the quality of democracy: Why include the citizens’ perspective?

Abstract

New indices measuring the quality of democracy constitute a significant innovation in comparative political science. They might, however, provide a biased perspective because they largely focus on macro-level criteria. Thus, the question is whether the measurement of the quality of democracy can be improved by complementing the evaluations of these indices with assessments based on individual-level survey data. Using data from 20 established democracies in the European Social Survey 2012 and the Democracy Barometer, we compare the understandings and evaluations of the quality of democracy underlying these two measurement approaches. We demonstrate that while the results coincide to a certain extent, individual-level data provide an important complementary perspective that adds to the validity of the measurement of the quality of democracy.

What drives citizens’ evaluation of democratic performance? The interaction of citizens’ democratic knowledge and institutional level of democracy

“…This raises an important question for further research, namely the criteria by which citizens who are less aware of democracy assess the democratic performance of their country. Furthermore, this study also shows that citizens who are knowledgeable about democracy are most cognitively able to assess the level of democracy in line with country-level measures of democracy (Pickel et al 2016). These results open up new theoretical and empirical perspectives for related research on support of and satisfaction with democracy as well as research on democratization.…”

The ‘sanction-policy’ linkage from the perspective of citizens and the role of the party system

“…Second, the measurement of the dependent variable as individual perceptions of government responsiveness is close to the one suggested by Powell (2004, p. 102) who considers it a reliable measure given citizens' demonstrated ability to assess potential breaks in the chain of responsiveness. Third, variables based on citizens' evaluations are more likely to grasp the nuances of the concepts because they do not apply a common set of criteria as macro-level indicators do, and they are tailored on the specific cases and account for substantial and cross-country variations (Pickel et al 2016). The last reason concerns the 'evaluative' nature of electoral accountability and responsiveness.…”

“…The choice to select three specific items is driven by theoretical and methodological reasons. Electoral accountability is, in fact, a three-dimensional concept (Morlino 2011;Pickel et al 2016;Schedler 1999). The first dimension is information, i.e.…”

“…Considering its multidimensionality, the use of accurate measures to capture the concept and to reliably test its effect on government responsiveness is of paramount importance. Following recent research which has successfully tested the consistency of three items for the measurement of the underlying concept (Pickel et al 2016;Quaranta 2017), the main explanatory variable is based on the following ones:…”

Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures

“…In connection to these more limited understandings of democracy, the suggested additions are better understood as possible causes or consequences of democracy. Pickel, Breustedt and Smolka (2016) also advocate for the inclusion of representative survey data in the measurement of democratic quality. They propose that citizen evaluations of democratic performance should complement other types of data.…”