V-Dem Dataset V9

Coppedge, Michael; Gerring, John; Knutsen, Carl Henrik; Lindberg, Staffan I.; Teorell, Jan; Altman, David; Bernhard, Michaël; Fish, M. Steven; Glynn, Adam; Hicken, Allen; Lührmann, Anna; Marquardt, Kyle L.; McMann, Kelly M.; Paxton, Pamela; Pemstein, Daniel; Seim, Brigitte; Sigman, Rachel; Skaaning, Svend-Erik; Staton, Jeffrey K.; Wilson, Steven Lloyd; Cornell, Agnes; Gastaldi, Lisa; Gjerløw, Haakon; Ilchenko, Nin; Krusell, Joshua; Maxwell, Laura; Mechkova, Valeriya; Medzihorský, Juraj; Pernes, Josefine; Römer, Johannes von; Stepanova, N.; Sundström, Aksel; Tzelgov, Eitan; Wang, Yiting; Wig, Tore; Ziblatt, Daniel

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3441052

Cited by 97 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the cutoff point admittedly is arbitrary (Cheibub et al 2010), and other thresholds have been adopted (Bogaards 2012), our specification classifies the more ambiguous, and often controversial, cases as non-democracies. Finally, we use a categorical measure based on V-Dem data (Coppedge et al 2019), namely the "Regimes of the World" measure in Lührmann et al (2018), which we dichotomize (electoral democracies and liberal democracies are counted as democracies). To count as an electoral democracy, a country must pass three thresholds on indicators of multiparty elections ( v2elmulpar_osp > 2 ), free and fair elections ( v2elfrefair_osp > 2 ), and an Electoral Democracy index ( v2x_polyarchy > 0.5 ).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of democracy: a sensitivity analysis

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies-operating with diverse model specifications, samples and empirical measures-suggest different economic, social, cultural, demographic, institutional and international determinants of democracy. We distinguish between democratization and democratic survival and test the sensitivities of 67 proposed determinants by varying the control variable set, democracy measure, and sample time period. Furthermore, we go beyond existing sensitivity analyses and unpack the aggregate results by analyzing how theoretically motivated control variables affect sensitivity for two prominent determinants in the democracy literature: income and Islam. Overall, our results reveal a far larger number of robust determinants of democratization than of democratic survival. For democratic survival, the only robust factors are income and a law-abiding bureaucracy. In addition, our results highlight uncertainty surrounding the relationship between income and democratization, but show that broader development processes enhance the chances of democratization. Moreover, chances of democratization are lower in countries with large Muslim populations, but that relationship is sensitive to controlling for natural resources, education and neighborhood characteristics. Other results of the sensitivity analysis show that political protests, a democratic neighborhood, and the global proportion of democracies positively influence democratization, while natural resources, majoritarian systems, and long-tenured leaders make countries less likely to democratize.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of democracy: a sensitivity analysis

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, if a species is endemic to a country (i.e., the entire range is within country borders), it adds 1 unit to the country’s species richness, and if 10% of a species range is within a country this species adds 0.1. We then combined this per country species richness with data on species threat level (www.iucn.org) and with information on the state of democracy in each country for the year 2017 from V-Dem (https://v-dem.net) 7 for the visualizations in Figure 1. For plants we approximated the species range with data from the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP, https://wcsp.science.kew.org).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 A country’s level of democracy is determined by multiple dimensions, including suffrage (the fraction of citizens entitled to vote), quality of elections, freedom of expression and association, and constraints on executive power. 6,7 Although these aspects co-vary to a certain extent, the significant variation across countries demonstrates that individual dimensions of democracy may affect the availability of biodiversity data (and also biodiversity conservation) differently. For this reason, it is misleading to use uni-dimensional indicators (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We quantify the proportion of global biodiversity that is managed by different regime types 12 and explore the relationship between the availability of primary biodiversity occurrence data (geo-referenced natural history specimens and species observations; obtained from www.gbif.org) and various democratic institutions, indexes and categories. 7 Specifically, we ask three questions: 1) Which fraction of the global biodiversity is managed by democratic or autocratic regimes? ; 2) How does the availability of primary biodiversity data relate to the political situation across countries?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the impact of political regimes on biodiversity

Zizka

Rydén

Edler

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18National governments are the main actors responsible for mapping and protecting their 19 biodiversity, but countries differ in their capacity, willingness, and effectiveness to do so. We 20 quantify the global biodiversity managed by different regime types and developed a tool to 21 explore the links between level of democracy and other key socio-economic variables with the 22 number of natural history specimens registered within country boundaries. Using this tool, 23 distinct and previously unknown patterns emerge around the world, that urge for increased 24 collaboration between the natural and social sciences to further explore these patterns and 25 their underlying processes. 26 28 85 the exploration of how regime change, as well as armed conflict, affect the availability of 86 primary biodiversity data. Taking Cambodia as an example, we find a decrease of new 87 biodiversity data records by two orders of magnitude in the 1970s, coinciding with the 88 beginning of a period of conflicts and autocratization (Fig. 2c). The end of this period 89 and the corresponding increase in the level of democracy led to a sudden increase in data 90 availability. Similarly, in India political turmoil and a related decrease in the level of 91 democracy in 1975 and 1976 led to an abrupt decrease in the availability of biodiversity data 92 from national institutions (Fig. 2d). Despite historical turmoil and a minor recent decline 93 in the level of democracy, Cambodia and India mirror most other countries in exhibiting a 94 general increase in biodiversity data, probably attributable to the widespread use of citizen 95 science applications for mobile phones such as iNaturalist. 96 The relationships between political differences, socio-economic variables and biodiversity 97 knowledge are multi-faceted. 1 These links are also likely to be multi-directional. Increasing 98 societal concerns for environmental protection are likely to affect political processes and the 99 gathering of biodiversity data. In general, a causal interpretation of the observed patterns 100 is difficult, due to indirect or unclear mechanisms, and the large number of potentially 101 confounding factors. 1 The Bio-Dem app and its underlying data sources provide a useful 102 platform for research at a global and regional scale and over time. We hope it will foster 103 increased collaborations between biologists, conservationists and political and other social 104 scientists. 15 105 Material and Methods 106 Commented scripts for all analyses are available in the electronic supplement of this article 107 and the source code of the Bio-Dem app is available at https://github.com/Antonelli 108 Lab/Bio-Dem under a MIT license.109We used two datasets of species geographic distributions to estimate the fraction of 110 species covered by regime type. For amphibians, non-marine birds and mammals, we used 111 112 of Nature (www.iucn.org) together with country borders as provided by Naturalearth 113 (www.naturalearth.org) to estimate the range-weighted species endemi...

show abstract

“…To measure and compare the quality of democracy across the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, we need to ascertain not only whether democracy is present in the form of institutions and norms of polyarchy, but to what extent it fulfils its core promise of popular rule. The most comprehensive comparative source for this purpose is the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset (Pemstein, Marquardt, Tzelgov, Wang, et al 2019;Coppedge, Gerring, Knutsen, Lindberg, et al 2019), which aggregates expert scores to provide measures of democracy on five distinct indexes.…”

Section: Measuring the Quality Of Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Backsliding Away? The Quality of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

Stanley¹

2019

JCER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence in Central and Eastern Europe of populist and illiberal political parties, some of which have succeeded in gaining power and implementing controversial reforms, has prompted concern about the condition of democracy in countries of the region and attempts to theorise and explain these changes. Starting from the premise that neither overly negative nor overly positive assessments of democratic quality give an adequate picture of reality, this paper draws upon comparative data measuring several aspects of democracy to identify broad patterns of democratic development in the region. It concludes that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe fall into three broad categories: those where consolidated democracy is currently stable; those where there is clear evidence of backsliding from consolidated democracy; and those where there is evidence of backsliding prior to full consolidation of democracy. These differences notwithstanding, it is clear that the quality and durability of democracy in the region is more fragile and provisional than commonly assumed.

show abstract

V-Dem Dataset V9

Cited by 97 publications

References 0 publications

The determinants of democracy: a sensitivity analysis

The determinants of democracy: a sensitivity analysis

Exploring the impact of political regimes on biodiversity

Backsliding Away? The Quality of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About