Christopher Claassen, Kathrin Ackermann, Eri Bertsou, Lucas Borba, Ryan E. Carlin, Amnon Cavari, Sirianne Dahlum, Sergiu Gherghina, Darren Hawkins, Yphtach Lelkes, Pedro C. Magalhães, Robert B. Mattes, M. Meijers, Anja Neundorf, Dániel Oross, Aykut Öztürk, R. Sarsfield, Darin Self, Ben Stanley, Tsung-han Tsai, A. Zaslove, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister
{"title":"概念化和衡量对民主的支持:一种新方法","authors":"Christopher Claassen, Kathrin Ackermann, Eri Bertsou, Lucas Borba, Ryan E. Carlin, Amnon Cavari, Sirianne Dahlum, Sergiu Gherghina, Darren Hawkins, Yphtach Lelkes, Pedro C. Magalhães, Robert B. Mattes, M. Meijers, Anja Neundorf, Dániel Oross, Aykut Öztürk, R. Sarsfield, Darin Self, Ben Stanley, Tsung-han Tsai, A. Zaslove, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister","doi":"10.1177/00104140241259458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of what we know about public support for democracy is based on survey questions about “democracy,” a term that varies in meaning across countries and likely prompts uncritically supportive responses. This paper proposes a new approach to measuring support for democracy. We develop a battery of 17 survey questions that cover all eight components of liberal democracy as defined by the V-Dem project. We then ask respondents from 19 national samples to evaluate these rights and institutions. We find considerable heterogeneity across countries in how our items cohere, especially in less developed contexts. Yet, those items that are more weakly connected with general support for liberal democracy tend to reveal the influence of political events and actors, arguably indicating weaknesses in political cultures. We further identify a concise subset of seven items that provide a reliable and valid measure of support for liberal democracy across our different samples.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceptualizing and Measuring Support for Democracy: A New Approach\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Claassen, Kathrin Ackermann, Eri Bertsou, Lucas Borba, Ryan E. Carlin, Amnon Cavari, Sirianne Dahlum, Sergiu Gherghina, Darren Hawkins, Yphtach Lelkes, Pedro C. Magalhães, Robert B. Mattes, M. Meijers, Anja Neundorf, Dániel Oross, Aykut Öztürk, R. Sarsfield, Darin Self, Ben Stanley, Tsung-han Tsai, A. Zaslove, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00104140241259458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Much of what we know about public support for democracy is based on survey questions about “democracy,” a term that varies in meaning across countries and likely prompts uncritically supportive responses. This paper proposes a new approach to measuring support for democracy. We develop a battery of 17 survey questions that cover all eight components of liberal democracy as defined by the V-Dem project. We then ask respondents from 19 national samples to evaluate these rights and institutions. We find considerable heterogeneity across countries in how our items cohere, especially in less developed contexts. Yet, those items that are more weakly connected with general support for liberal democracy tend to reveal the influence of political events and actors, arguably indicating weaknesses in political cultures. We further identify a concise subset of seven items that provide a reliable and valid measure of support for liberal democracy across our different samples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Political Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Political Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241259458\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241259458","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Conceptualizing and Measuring Support for Democracy: A New Approach
Much of what we know about public support for democracy is based on survey questions about “democracy,” a term that varies in meaning across countries and likely prompts uncritically supportive responses. This paper proposes a new approach to measuring support for democracy. We develop a battery of 17 survey questions that cover all eight components of liberal democracy as defined by the V-Dem project. We then ask respondents from 19 national samples to evaluate these rights and institutions. We find considerable heterogeneity across countries in how our items cohere, especially in less developed contexts. Yet, those items that are more weakly connected with general support for liberal democracy tend to reveal the influence of political events and actors, arguably indicating weaknesses in political cultures. We further identify a concise subset of seven items that provide a reliable and valid measure of support for liberal democracy across our different samples.
期刊介绍:
Comparative Political Studies is a journal of social and political science which publishes scholarly work on comparative politics at both the cross-national and intra-national levels. We are particularly interested in articles which have an innovative theoretical argument and are based on sound and original empirical research. We also encourage submissions about comparative methodology, particularly when methodological arguments are closely linked with substantive issues in the field.