Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding

C. Knutsen, Kyle L. Marquardt, Brigitte Seim, M. Coppedge, Amanda B. Edgell, Juraj Medzihorský, Daniel Pemstein, Jan Teorell, J. Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg
{"title":"Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding","authors":"C. Knutsen, Kyle L. Marquardt, Brigitte Seim, M. Coppedge, Amanda B. Edgell, Juraj Medzihorský, Daniel Pemstein, Jan Teorell, J. Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg","doi":"10.1017/s104909652300077x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that “objective” measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M’s specific data and conclusions.","PeriodicalId":515403,"journal":{"name":"PS: Political Science & Politics","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PS: Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909652300077x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that “objective” measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M’s specific data and conclusions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估民主倒退的概念和测量问题
在过去的十年中,利用几种民主衡量标准进行的分析表明,全球范围内出现了民主萎缩的趋势。虽然这些民主测量方法大相径庭,但大多数都部分或完全依赖主观判断来估算国家内部的民主水平。这些项目一直在努力平衡概念覆盖面和可能出现的偏差(Munck 和 Verkuilen,2002 年;Przeworski 等人,2000 年)。Little 和 Meng(L&M)(2023 年)重新提出了这一争论,认为 "客观 "的民主衡量标准几乎没有显示出近期全球民主倒退的证据。在本文中,我们将讨论 (1) 有关民主测量和民主倒退的广泛争论,以及 (2) L&M 的具体数据和结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Surveying the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Political Science Education Citations to the Publications of Male and Female Political Scientists Revisited State Municipal Associations as Intermediaries in Service Learning Codes of Conduct at Political Science Conferences: Prevalence and Content Developing a Critical Understanding of Environmental Activism through Active Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1