概念化和衡量对民主的支持:一种新方法

IF 4.2 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Comparative Political Studies Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1177/00104140241259458
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们对公众民主支持度的了解大多基于有关 "民主 "的调查问题,而 "民主 "一词在不同国家的含义各不相同,很可能会引发不加批判的支持性回答。本文提出了一种衡量民主支持度的新方法。我们提出了 17 个调查问题,涵盖了 V-Dem 项目所定义的自由民主的所有八个组成部分。然后,我们要求来自 19 个国家样本的受访者对这些权利和制度进行评价。我们发现,各国在如何整合我们的项目方面存在相当大的差异,尤其是在欠发达国家。然而,那些与对自由民主的普遍支持联系较弱的项目往往会显示出政治事件和政治人物的影响,可以说这表明了政治文化的弱点。我们进一步确定了一个由七个项目组成的简明子集,该子集能够在不同的样本中可靠、有效地衡量对自由民主的支持程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Comparative Political Studies
Comparative Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
69
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.
期刊最新文献
How Education Policies Shape Political Inequality: Analyzing Policy Feedback Effects in Germany Hitting the Sweet Spot? The Electoral Consequences of Supporting Minority Governments Revolutionaries for Railways Mobilization Capacity and Violence Against Local Leaders: Anticlerical Violence During the Spanish Civil War Social Change and Women’s Left Vote. The Role of Employment, Education, and Marriage in the Gender Vote Gap
×
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