Measuring the quality of democracy

Author(s): Brigitte Geissel, Marianne Kneuer and Hans-Joachim Lauth

Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique
, Vol. 37, No. 5, Measuring the Quality of Democracy (November 2016), pp. 571-579
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26556872

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
669141
research-article2016
IPS0010.1177/0192512116669141International Political Science ReviewGeissel et al.

Article

International Political Science Review

2016, Vol. 37(5) 571­–579
Measuring the quality of © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
democracy: Introduction sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512116669141
ips.sagepub.com

Brigitte Geissel
Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany

Marianne Kneuer
University of Hildesheim, Germany

Hans-Joachim Lauth
University of Würzburg, Germany

Abstract
This introductory article discusses current challenges in quality of democracy research, explains the
objectives of this Special Issue, and provides a brief overview of controversies in existing indices that are
considered by the contributors to this Special Issue.

Keywords
Democracy, quality of democracy, theory, political institutions, citizens

Introduction
Within the last couple of years, scholarly interest in measuring democracy experienced a shift.
While ‘classical’ indices like Polity or Freedom House aim at capturing the variety of regimes
types – mostly in nuanced scale from democracies to autocracies – more recent approaches are
taking a closer look at those democracies that are regarded as consolidated. Examples are the
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU, 2012), the Democracy Barometer (Bühlmann et al., 2013),
and the Varieties of Democracy Project (Coppedge et al., 2011). Measuring the quality of con-
solidated democracies is a young yet very dynamic field of research, with the number of indices
growing considerably. Today, more than a dozen different measurements claim to evaluate the
quality of democracy. However, there is no consensus about underlying models of democracy,

Corresponding author:
Brigitte Geissel, Institute of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6,
60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Email: geissel@soz.uni-frankfurt.de

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
572 International Political Science Review 37(5)

concepts, variables, yardsticks and methods. This research field is still in its fledgling stages
(e.g. Munck, 2016).
This Special Issue has a conceptual orientation that seeks to structure as well as to broaden the
research agenda by introducing hitherto neglected, yet, in our view, crucial aspects. It therefore
does not intend to supplement the methodological debate that accompanies the research area of
democracy measurement ever since its emergence. The guiding idea is rather to offer a fresh look,
with conceptual contributions clarifying current debates and challenging existing conceptualiza-
tions. Hence, these objectives cannot be reached at one stroke with one single edition, but the
articles provide crucial steps and substantial progress in the direction of developing an overarching
framework for the quality of democracy research.
Before providing detail, we want to clarify our understanding of measuring the quality of
democracy, which seems diffuse at times. Measuring democracy pursues two aims, firstly, to clas-
sify whether a regime is a democracy and, secondly, if it is, to determine the degree of democracy
(Lauth, 2004). The second task requires analyzing whether empirical findings meet the standard
defined in the respective definitions of democracy. If the results conform to this standard, the
democracy is assessed as of high quality. If the definition of democracy involves only a low stand-
ard, then differences among established democracies can hardly be identified. In other words,
gradations of democratic quality cannot be detected. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a stand-
ard that enables gradations. Given this demanding task, the current conceptual controversies are
not surprising.
A central issue which runs like a thread through the debate on measuring the quality of democ-
racy constitutes the question of which definition of democracy to identify as the basis. The theo-
retical task of defining democracy is directly connected to what Munck and Verkuilen call ‘concept
specification’ (Munck and Verkuilen, 2002: 7–14). This is a basic and controversial topic that can-
not easily be resolved. Since democracy is a contested concept, it is rather unlikely to expect agree-
ment on the ‘one’ concept. In a nutshell: The debate oscillates between narrow or broad definitions,
between more parsimonious (‘thin’) or more substantial (‘thick’) concepts of democracy. The con-
tributions to this Special Issue reflect a tendency to advocate for a broader or more comprehensive
conception, as will be shown later.
This introductory article discusses current challenges in quality of democracy research, explains
the objectives of this Special Issue, and provides a brief overview of controversies in existing indi-
ces that are considered by the contributors to this Special Issue.

Quality of democracy research – current challenges

Research trying to evaluate the quality of democracies currently faces three major challenges.

(1) The first and most important challenge concerns changes in real democracies. New develop-
ments – such as globalization, mediatization and digitalization, increasing citizens’ partici-
patory demands, dissatisfaction with institutions of representative democracy, growing
ethnic–cultural heterogeneity and social inequality, global financial turbulence and demo-
cratic malaises (e.g. Geissel and Newton, 2012; Papadopoulos, 2013) – are among the cru-
cial changes that democracies confront today. Globalization, for example, challenges
democracies, because democratic institutions are still mainly based in nation states whereas
multinational global players, including financial markets, have gone global. These changes
are making it increasingly difficult to navigate nations by democratic means (Streeck, 2014).
Closely related literature emphasizes the growing façade-like character of democracy
(Crouch, 2004; Streeck, 2014). It is claimed that democratic institutions work only in a

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geissel et al. 573

formal sense and that significant decisions are made outside of parliament. These critiques
require a closer look at the actual functioning of democratic institutions and processes. Other
examples are both increasing heterogeneity and the disappearance of group-based represen-
tation of interests. Whereas for decades political parties were considered as the mouthpiece
of interest groups, this connection has widely vanished. At the same time new populist par-
ties have entered the political arena, which have an ambivalent impact on the democratic
process. Current developments of mediatization and digitalization – including the potential
for social media to provide novel spaces for communicative interaction between politicians
and citizens, political deliberation, and participation – challenge today’s democracy (Kriesi
et al., 2013; Wilhelm, 2000). These changes imply a variety of new research topics and ques-
tions which quality of democracy measurements have only recently started to embrace (e.g.
Varieties of Democracy Project, see contribution by Skaaning et al.).
(2) The second challenge is the lack of communication between the democratic quality measure-
ment community and other subfields of democracy research, such as democratic theory and
philosophy, or studies of political behavior and democratic attitudes. All these communities and
debates share several epistemic interests. For example, the meaning of democracy is a common
field for scholars elaborating on democracy measurement as well as for scholars involved in
democratic theory and those conducting empirical research on democracy. It would be worth-
while to connect these threads. It is inexplicable that, for example, participatory and deliberative
theories of democracy, which are proliferating, have until now had no impact on quality of
democracy measurements; the quality of democracy community is still focusing mainly on the
liberal–pluralist concept of democracy (exception: Varieties of Democracy Project). Similarly,
from the perspective of empirical research, the gaps are surprising. There is, for instance, little
communication between quality of democracy measurements and current research on the role
of citizens’ political attitudes for democratic developments (e.g. Welzel and Inglehart, 2008).
The mismatches between democratic quality research and related fields of democracy studies
are detrimental to the development of democratic quality measurements.
(3) Finally, due to insufficient exchange between different strands of the democratic quality
research community, the field still provides a scattered and fragmentary picture. Even
though the topic of measuring the quality of democracy has been the focus of many inter-
national conferences (International Political Science Association, American Political
Science Association, and European Consortium for Political Research) in the last years,
there is little debate among the proponents of different approaches. The last comprehensive
issue on ‘Quality of democracy’ was published by the Journal of Democracy in 2004. As a
result of the debates on the ‘Varieties of Democracy Project’, communication became
stronger, but a wide range of controversies have not yet been extensively analyzed. Such
debates include the various stages of measuring the quality of democracy, beginning with
the conceptual task and the development of a conceptual tree, followed by operationaliza-
tion and measurement, and finally specifying the method of aggregating data. Each of the
three phases is characterized by competing theoretical and methodological approaches –
with insufficient communication among these approaches. Relevant points of this commu-
nicative gap are highlighted in the following description of the Special Issue as well as in
the overview on the measurement of the quality of democracy below.

Objectives of the Special Issue

The major aim of this Special Issue is to address these challenges by stimulating theoretical devel-
opment and providing insights for conceptual applications. The ultimate objective is to foster the

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
574 International Political Science Review 37(5)

development of better and more comprehensive measurements for evaluating the quality of democ-
racy. In this Special Issue, internationally recognized colleagues reflect about existing approaches,
concepts, variables, and yardsticks, as well as discuss methodological issues, often in controversial
ways. They contrast the democratic quality research paradigm with other democracy research com-
munities, and seek to identify shortcomings, controversies, and desiderata as well as innovative
approaches. Accordingly, this Special Issue provides a comprehensive research platform in which
competing points of view are spelled out without always being able – at this point – to develop
consensus. However, the Special Issue pools the theoretical and empirical knowledge of experts in
the field, explores different conceptions of democratic quality, and discusses controversial varia-
bles as well as tools for evaluation. Hence, it contributes to a more complete and comprehensive
understanding of democratic quality and formulates future research desiderata.
The Special Issue’s focus on elaborating arguments and contested points of views differs from
conventional Special Issues. It provides a forum to facilitate debate among scholars of opposing
approaches who provide a theoretical rationale and empirical evidence to support their point of
view. Because we seek to give a variety of scholars the opportunity to raise their voices and make
their arguments heard, this Special Issue comprises a higher number of shorter articles than other
Special Issues. A result is to bring together scholars and arguments not normally in communica-
tion. Thus, the Special Issue is the first to combine relevant and crucial, yet hitherto often unre-
lated, strands of research. In doing so, it is more than a state-of-the-art compilation. It triangulates
the evaluation of the quality of democracy from different and until now disconnected theoretical as
well as empirical points of view.
This Special Issue tackles its topic not for the academic world alone but also for ‘real politics’.
In the real world of politics, many millions of euros and dollars and other (foreign) aid are spent on
promoting and consolidating democracy around the world. Therefore, policy-makers need to know
how democratic quality can be measured in order to adequately assess the quality of democracy in
a given country. When the Committee on Evaluation of USAID Democracy Assistance Program
reviewed existing democracy promotion, they expressed the goal of ‘seeking an operational meas-
ure of democracy to track changes over time’ (National Research Council, 2008: 72). Incomplete
and inadequate measurements and indices lead to wrong results and investments in the wrong
dimensions of democratic life. Hence, the price could be much higher than investing in convincing
measurements. The spirited arguments in this issue will hopefully contribute to meeting the current
demand of policy-makers for evaluations of democracy.

Overview on controversies in current indices measuring the quality of democracy

To provide the context for this Special Issue, we briefly summarize existing indices or, more pre-
cisely, review current relevant debates. This overview does not intend to give a comprehensive
picture of all quality-of-democracy-indices and does not capture all debates, distinctions and speci-
fications. However, the following overview identifies the main trends and hints at crucial contro-
versies and discrepancies (e.g. Munck and Verkuilen, 2002: 8, 10).
The overwhelming majority of the discussion focuses on conceptual questions. One decisive
question is which attribute is part of the defining properties of the concept of democracy or marks
a conditioning quality (Møller and Skanning, 2010). All existing quality-of-democracy indices
agree on the necessity of elections. The minimal standard of democracy is that there exist institu-
tions that permit citizens to exercise self-government via elections. The point refers to Dahl’s
(1971) minimalist version consisting of participation and contestation. Most authors also consider
political liberties and democratic rights as part of the defining root concept, especially freedom of
information and organization (Berg-Schlosser, 2004: 32; Collier and Levitsky, 1997: 434, 442;

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geissel et al. 575

Diamond and Morlino, 2004: 23). As Pippa Norris notes, “[c]ompetitive elections alone […] are
insufficient to establish liberal democratic states. For electoral competition to be meaningful, other
conditions need to be established, including freedom of expression, the availability of alternative
sources of information (freedom of the media), and associational autonomy” (Norris, 2012: 51).
The Index of Freedom, published annually by Freedom House since 1973, is arguably one of the
most frequently used indices for measuring democratic quality and focusses on civil liberties as
indicators of democratic quality.
Far more contested are the topics ‘rule of law’ and ‘effective state’. While some authors (Lauth,
2015; Merkel, 2004)1 conceive these as a defining property of democracy, other authors understand
rule of law and effective state as preconditions (Alexander et al., 2012; O’Donnell, 2004). This
distinction is challenging. If the rule of law and an effective state are necessary preconditions for a
good democracy, then the quality of democracy cannot increase by enhancing the quality of these
two dimensions. An autocratic regime remains an autocracy even if both components improve.
However, if we conceive rule of law in the context of rights, it makes more sense to define it as a
property of democracy. Related to this debate is the question of what type of rule system fits per-
fectly with democracy. Thin and thick concepts of the rule of law have been proposed (Møller and
Skaaning, 2012).
As mentioned in the beginning, a central issue involves both the number of relevant dimensions
and the relationship between them. In a recent famous proposal, Diamond and Morlino (2004)
identify eight dimensions: rule of law; vertical and horizontal accountability; participation; compe-
tition; responsiveness; freedom; and equality. Their proposal goes considerably further than Robert
Dahl’s pioneering suggestion (Dahl, 1971) that proposed two dimensions: competition and partici-
pation. Their approach highlights not only the question of the ‘right’ selection of dimensions, but
also the difficulty of understanding how the dimensions are related. Some scholars understand the
highest quality of democracy to result when all dimensions are developed to highest democratic
standards. However, other scholars suggest that possible trade-offs between dimensions should be
considered (see the debate between Giebler and Merkel, and Lauth, in this Special Issue).
The next contention is quite similar to what Collier and Levitsky (1997: 443) describe as
expanding the root concept. Apart from merely looking at competition, participation, political
rights or rule of law, supplementary yardsticks are introduced pointing to the link between citi-
zens and their representatives. Several components mentioned in quality-of-democracy-indices
fit under this umbrella; for example, vertical accountability, responsiveness (e.g. Bühlmann
et al., 2008; Collier and Levitsky, 1997: 445)2 or descriptive representation of gender and
minority groups, that is, the social stratification of legislatures (Democracy Barometer;
Campbell et al., 2015). Also a wider range of procedures and structures that constrain or inform
elite decision-making between elections, for example via active interest- and civil society
groups, have been proposed as appropriate variables (Arat, 1991; Bollen,1980; Bühlmann
et al., 2013; Marshall et al., 2014).
There are two opposing positions in the debate about whether the output-dimension should be
included in quality of democracy measurements: a parsimonious versus a broader conception of
democracy.3 According to the broader conception, democracy is more than a procedural procedure.
It must include aspects of performance, such as welfare production (social democracy) or sustain-
ability. This approach, sometimes labelled as ‘substantial’ or ‘materialist’, argues that the quality
of democracy should be judged in part by outcomes. In this context, scholars refer to concepts such
as ‘good democracy’ and the ‘result dimension’ (Diamond and Morlino, 2005: X, XXIX), and ask
what democracies actually ‘deliver and produce’ (Campbell et al., 2015; Ringen, 2007: 14). It is
not surprising that no consensus exists on the precise understanding of what reasonable output
should be linked to the quality of democracy.4

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
576 International Political Science Review 37(5)

Closely related is the debate about the importance of social standards and social inclusion. Their
absence involves establishing a ‘low intensive citizenship’ (O’Donnell, 1998). Several questions
arise in regard to this issue. Are social standards a precondition of democracy or an inherent com-
ponent? Which social standards are necessary for high quality democracy? Do low standards
always signify a low quality of democracy? Should the same standards prevail in all regions? There
are two versions of this discussion. The narrower version focuses only on material conditions
(income, and income distribution); the more demanding version also includes social relationships,
that is, the mutual recognition of all citizens.
From the ‘social inclusion of the citizens,’ it is only a slight move to the most recent develop-
ment, the debate about the inclusion of citizens in the concept of measurement. A few indices
already comprise citizens’ evaluations of democratic institutions (e.g. Democracy Barometer,
Varieties of Democracy Project, Index of Democracy by the Economist Intelligence Unit; see also
Lindsay, 1943). However, an institutional perspective focusing on macro-level phenomena pre-
dominates in quality of democracy indices while the micro-level, that is, the perspective of citi-
zens, is generally neglected. Several contributions in our Special Issue highlight this individual
level and advocate considering citizens’ perspectives when measuring the quality of democracy.
Susanne Pickel, Wiebke Breustedt and Theresia Smolka claim that citizens’ ‘subjective’ under-
standings and evaluations provide a meaningful complementary perspective to ‘objective’ meas-
ures of the quality of democracy. Quinton Mayne and Brigitte Geissel go further and advocate
considering citizens’ democratic commitment, capacity and participation as components of demo-
cratic quality. They assert that democratic institutions cannot function without citizens providing
appropriate attitudes, skills and behavior. Finally, Geissel introduces the current debate on ‘democ-
ratizing’ quality of democracy measurements. From this standpoint, quality of democracy meas-
urement should also take into account how a citizenry itself conceptualizes democracy.
A further lacuna involves addressing digital media and their possible impact on democratic
processes. Generally, indices address media in an only rudimentary way. This also includes the
phenomenon of digitalization. In order to address the issue, Marianne Kneuer suggests an analyti-
cal framework for measuring e-democracy. Such an ‘e-democracy-index’ would establish a basis
for better understanding the use of digital tools that aim to capture and evaluate possible – and
often theoretically expected – improvements in democratic processes by digitalization. Since par-
ticipation is a central category in this regard, this points to the relevance of non-electoral participa-
tion in general (see also contribution by Geissel).
Another current controversy focuses on the question of a trade-off between dimensions of
democracy, and especially between freedom and equality. While the authors in this volume agree
about potential tension between the related philosophical traditions, they maintain divergent
positions regarding their relevance for measuring democracy. Giebler and Merkel follow an
empirical strategy and analyze the relationship between freedom and two types of equality (eco-
nomic and political). Their findings demonstrate the compatibility between freedom and equal-
ity. High levels of freedom go together with high levels of equality in the economic as well as in
the political sphere. Lauth invokes methodological factors to explain why the hypothetical trade-
offs between dimensions are not found in empirical research. He argues that Giebler and Merkel’s
results are due to inadequate operationalization of the dimensions, which in turn prevents iden-
tifying trade-offs. He proposes a new way to assess these dimensions of democracy, which ren-
ders the trade-offs visible. .
The importance of conditions is the central topic of the contribution by Quaranta and Morlino;
they analyze the impact of the economic crisis on democracy in European countries with reference
to the eight dimensions scheme (see Diamond and Morlino, 2004). Their findings show that almost
all the dimensions of the quality of democracy, with the exception of competition, are negatively

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geissel et al. 577

affected by the economic crisis. Their analysis underscores that the quality of rule of law and of
administration have worsened.
Although our brief report cannot touch on all ongoing controversies regarding the quality of
democracy, it has highlighted some relevant disputes5 and the following contributions will refer to
these topics in various ways. We will achieve an important objective of this Special Issue if those
topics and controversies not only stimulate further debate, but help to fill some gaps that the authors
identify.

Acknowledgements
We thank the editor of International Political Science Review for his support and suggestions. This Introduction
also benefited from the debates at the ‘Measuring Democracy’ workshop held in 2013 in Frankfurt. Special
thanks go to the authors who contributed to this edition.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

Notes
1. ‘The rule of law is the base upon which every other dimension of democratic quality rests’ (Beetham,
2008: 23).
2. Different indices apply different terminologies. Democratic Audit, for example, refers to authorization,
representation, accountability and responsiveness (Beetham, et al., 2008: 23) and Diamond and Morlino
(2004) to vertical accountability, horizontal accountability and responsiveness.
3. Sometimes the frontiers overlap or the approaches are not designed in a stringent manner. For example,
although the Democracy Barometer claims not to include the outcome dimension, it nevertheless pro-
vides indicators measuring phenomena that might be considered as outcomes, for example, low homi-
cide rates or adequate representation of women.
4. One proposal suggests that only such decisions, which violate the rights immanent to democracy, should
be included in the measurement. For instance, limiting freedom in the fight against terrorism necessarily
reduces the quality of democracy (Braml and Lauth, 2011).
5. There is also a huge variation in the selection of indicators. Some indices include information on the
political power of the judiciary and other actors, for example, private corporations and foreign institu-
tions (Bühlmann et al., 2013; EIU, 2012; Levine and Molina, 2011), on checks and balances within the
different tiers of a political system (Coppedge et al., 2011), and on relations among civil and military
authorities.

References
Alexander, Amy C, Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel (2012) Measuring Effective Democracy: A
defense. International Political Science Review 33(1): 41–62.
Arat, Zehra FK (1991) Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Beetham, David, Edzia Carvalho, Todd Landman and Stuart Weir (2008) Assessing the Quality of
Democracy: A Practical Guide. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance.
Berg-Schlosser, Dirk (2004) The Quality of Democracies in Europe as Measured by Current Indicators of
Democratization and Good Governance. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 20(1):
28–55.
Bollen, Kenneth A (1980) Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American
Sociological Review 45(3): 370–390.

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
578 International Political Science Review 37(5)

Braml, Josef and Hans-Joachim Lauth (2011) The United States of America – a deficient democracy. In Gero
Erdmann and Marianne Kneuer (eds) Regression of Democracy? Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, 103–132.
Bühlmann, Marc, Wolfgang Merkel, Lisa Müller and Bernhard Weßels (2008) Wie Lässt Sich Demokratie
am Besten Messen? Zum Forumsbeitrag von Thomas Müller und Susanne Pickel. Politische
Vierteljahresschrift 49(1): 114–122.
Bühlmann, Marc, Wolfgang Merkel, Lisa Müller, Heiko Giebler, Bernhard Wessels, Daniel Boschler, Miriam
Hänni and Karima Bousbah (2013) Democracy Barometer. Codebook for Blueprint Dataset Version 3.
Aarau, Switzerland: Zentrum für Demokratie.
Campbell, David, Elias Carayannis and Scheherazade Rehman (2015) Quadruple Helix Structures of Quality
of Democracy in Innovation Systems: The USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global
comparison. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 6(3): 467–493.
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky (1997) Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual innovation in compara-
tive research. World Politics 49(3): 430–451.
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew
Kroenig, Staffan I Lindberg, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Holli A Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning,
Jeffrey Staton and Jan Teorell (2011) Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A new approach.
Perspectives on Politics 9(02): 247–267.
Crouch, Colin (2004) Post-Democracy. Malden, MA: Polity.
Dahl, Robert A (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Diamond, Larry J and Leonardo Morlino (2004) The Quality of Democracy. An overview. Journal of
Democracy 15(4): 20–31.
Diamond, Larry J and Leonardo Morlino (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
EIU (2012) Democracy Index 2012: Democracy at a Standstill. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Geissel, Brigitte and Kenneth Newton (2012) Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic
Malaise? New York, NY: Routledge.
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Esser, Jörg Matthes, Marc Bühlmann and Daniel Bochsler (2013)
Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2004) Demokratie und Demokratiemessung: Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den
interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2015). The Matrix of Democracy: A Three-Dimensional Approach to Measuring the
Quality of Democracy and Regime Transformations, Würzburger Arbeitspapiere zur Politikwissenschaft
und Sozialforschung (WAPS) No. 6. Available at: https://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/
index/index/docId/10966
Levine, Daniel H and José E Molina (2011) The Quality of Democracy in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Lindsay, Alexander D (1943) The Modern Democratic State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, Monty G, Keith Jaggers and Ted R Gurr (2014) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics
and Transitions, 1800–2013. Data Users’ Manual. Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/
polity4.htm
Merkel, Wolfgang (2004) Embedded and Defective Democracies. Democratization 11(5): 33–58.
Møller, Jørgen and Svend-Erik Skaaning (2010) Beyond the Radial Delusion: Conceptualizing and measuring
democracy and non-democracy. International Political Science Review 31(3): 261–283.
Møller, Jørgen and Svend-Erik Skaaning (2012) Systematizing Thin and Thick Conceptions of the Rule of
Law. Justice System Journal 33(2): 136–153.
Munck, Gerardo L (2016) What is Democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy.
Democratization 23(1): 1–26.
Munck, Gerardo L and Jay Verkuilen (2002) Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy Evaluating
Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34.
National Research Council (2008) Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through
Evaluations and Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geissel et al. 579

Norris, Pippa (2012) Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and
Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Donnell, Guillermo A (1998) Poverty and Inequality in Latin America: Some political reflections. In Víctor
E Tokman and Guillermo A O’Donnell (eds) Poverty and Inequality in Latin America: Issues and New
Challenges. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 49–71.
Papadopoulos, Yannis (2013) Democracy in Crisis?: Politics, Governance and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ringen, Stein (2007) What Democracy is For: On Freedom and Moral Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Streeck, Wolfgang (2014) Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Welzel, Christian and Ronald Inglehart (2008) The Role of Ordinary People in Democratization. Journal of
Democracy 19(1): 126–140.
Wilhelm, Anthony G (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Author biographies
Brigitte Geissel is Professor of Political Science and Political Sociology as well as Director of the Democratic
Innovations Research Unit, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Marianne Kneuer is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Political Science Institute, University of
Hildesheim, Germany.
Hans-Joachim Lauth is Professor for Comparative Politics at the Institute for Political Science and Sociology,
University of Würzburg, Germany.

This content downloaded from

122.161.67.7 on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:15:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms