Gerardo L. Munck

Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Evaluating Alternative Indices

A comprehensive and integrated framework for the analysis of data is offered and used to assess data sets on democracy. The framework first distinguishes among three challenges that are sequentially addressed: conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation. In turn, it specifies distinct tasks associated with these challenges and the standards of assessment that pertain to each task. This framework is applied to the data sets on democracy most frequently used in current statistical research, generating a systematic evaluation of these data sets. The authors’ conclusion is that constructors of democracy indices tend to be quite self-conscious about methodological issues but that even the best indices suffer from important weaknesses. More constructively, the article’s assessment of existing data sets on democracy identifies distinct areas in which attempts to improve the quality of data on democracy might fruitfully be focused.

Modes of transition and democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in comparative perspective

While the literature on democratization has devoted considerable attention to the concept of modes of transition, the attempts to explain the prospects of democratic consolidation as a consequence of the mode of transition have been inconclusive. Revisiting this debate, this article argues that the mode of transition affects the pattern of elite competition, the institutional rules that are crafted during the period of transition, and the disposition of key actors to accept or reject the new rules of the game. This argument is substantiated through a cross-regional comparison encompassing the cases of Argentina, Brazil Chile, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland.

Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics An Analysis of Leading Journals

This article contributes to ongoing debates about the direction of comparative politics through an analysis of new data on the scope, objectives, and methods of research in the field. The results of the analysis are as follows. Comparative politics is a rich and diverse field that cannot be accurately characterized on the basis of just one dimension or even summarized in simple terms. In turn, the tendency to frame choices about the direction of the field in terms of a stark alternative between an old area studies approach and a new economic approach relies on largely unsupported assumptions. It is therefore advisable to focus on problematic methodological practices that, as this study shows, are widespread in comparative research and thus pose serious impediments to the production of knowledge.

The Regime Question: Theory Building in Democracy Studies

This review article assesses the accomplishments and limitations of the best of recent research on democratization and democracy in Europe, South America, and post-Soviet Eurasia with regard to the challenge of theory building. Concerning the dependent variables of this literature, the article argues that the concepts of democratic transition, democratic consolidation, and democratic quality, as currently conceptualized, do not provide a clear focus for causal theorizing. It recommends, rather, that the proper subject matter of regime analysis should be the origins and stability of regime types and suggests how the semantic field of democracy studies could be clarified through a focus on the concepts of democratic transition and democratic stability. Relatedly, it argues that democracy scholars have made unwarranted use of aggregate and dichotomous measures and advocates instead the use of more disaggregate and nuanced measures. Concerning causal theories, the article shows that researchers have identified a range of potential explanatory factors and proposed suggestive complex causal models. Nonetheless, it also argues that democracy scholars have rarely formulated clearly specified general causal models and identifies some key pitfalls to be avoided as scholars tackle two key tasks: the development of thick and general theory and the definition of causal models. The conclusion raises the need to place theory building in context and argues that scholars must also turn their attention to the demanding challenges of data generation and causal assessment.

Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis

A survey and critique of King, Keohane and Verbas (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.

What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy

Works on the quality of democracy propose standards for evaluating politics beyond those encompassed by a minimal definition of democracy. Yet, what is the quality of democracy? This article first reconstructs and assesses current conceptualizations of the quality of democracy. Thereafter, it reconceptualizes the quality of democracy by equating it with democracy pure and simple, positing that democracy is a synthesis of political freedom and political equality, and spelling out the implications of this substantive assumption. The proposal is to broaden the concept of democracy to address two additional spheres: government decision-making – political institutions are democratic inasmuch as a majority of citizens can change the status quo – and the social environment of politics – the social context cannot turn the principles of political freedom and equality into mere formalities. Alternative specifications of democratic standards are considered and reasons for discarding them are provided.

Game Theory and Comparative Politics: New Perspectives and Old Concerns

In an effort to take stock of the claims put forth by advocates of game theory, this article offers an assessment that considers game theory both as a set of theoretical principles that extends rational choice theory to interdependent decision making and as a type of formal methodology. Some important strengths of game theory are identified, such as its emphasis on actors and strategic choices and its ability to generate predictions in a logically rigorous and internally consistent manner. But many shortcomings are also discussed. One shortcoming is that the effort to develop a theory of action falls short, both in the sense of failing to provide a full explanation of actions and in the sense of not applying to domains of great significance. A second shortcoming is the failure of the procedures used in formal modeling to offer guidance pertaining to a critical step in the process of modeling: the conceptualization of the model. Thus, the challenge facing scholars in comparative politics is to consider the new perspectives offered by game theory and draw upon its strengths, but to do so without losing sight of a series of old concerns in the social sciences that game theory is not suited to tackle.

Actor Formation, Social Co-Ordination, and Political Strategy: Some Conceptual Problems in the Study of Social Movements.

A survey of the literature on social movements shows that the contributions by American and European scholars have shed considerable light on two problems: why social movements emerge with particular identities and how organisers give coherence to a movement and co-ordinate the actions of their followers. The challenge faced by movement organisers in seeking to bring about change - a challenge that forces a social movement to engage strategically as a social actor, with its political-institutional environment - has received, however, relatively little attention. Seeking to fill this gap in the literature I argue that the distinct analytical issues raised by the problem of political strategy which social movements face can only be addressed through a synthesis that builds upon, but goes beyond, the contributions made by American and European scholars. The challenge is to conceive of social movements as strategic actors, while acknowledging the implications that a movements collective identity and social nature has for an analysis of strategic action.

Who Publishes in Comparative Politics? Studying the World from the United States

Who publishes in the discipline’s leading journals is a matter of intrinsic interest to political scientists. Indeed, any discipline is first and foremost about the people who practice it. A focus on who publishes also raises important questions concerning the relationship between the characteristics of authors, such as their gender, seniority, institutional affiliation, and nationality, and the knowledge they produce. To address these issues, we analyze the three leading U.S. journals dedicated fully or largely to comparative politics — Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, and World Politics — over the 1989-2004 period.

GENERATING BETTER DATA A Response to Discussants

The comments on our article are a sign of the seriousness with which scholars are considering matters of data generation and, more specifically, the problem of conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Hence we welcome the authors’ reflections on the difficult yet essential task of generating better data. Some points of disagreement remain, and we will address them. But we mainly seek to discuss and build on the constructive suggestions provided in the commentaries and, using the basic framework we provide in our article, outline a set of issues that future research should tackle.