Indices for Measuring Democracy A Multidimensional Model for Analyzing Democratic Development in Central and Eastern “Freedom in the World” (Freedom House) Europe “Democracy Index” (Economist Intelligence Unit) . . . Sergei Obiedkov Mikhail Klimushkin Maria Shabanova Better representation Dmitry Zaytsev An informative description instead of a numeric score Conceptual clustering instead of averaging Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Tools for analyzing dynamics and comparing ratings February 17, 2011 A Framework for the Analysis of Data A Framework for the Analysis of Data Munck and Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating Alternative Munck and Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices, Comparative Political Studies , 35 (1), 2002 Indices, Comparative Political Studies , 35 (1), 2002 Conceptualization: Identification of attributes Conceptualization: Identification of attributes Measurement: Selection of indicators Measurement: Selection of indicators Aggregation: Overall representation Aggregation: Overall representation [. . . ] the sum of a civil liberty score of 4 and a political liberty score of 2 is the same as the sum of a civil liberty score of 2 and a political liberty score of 4 even though the substantive interpretation of these di ff erent combinations is di ff erent. Scoble and Wiseberg 1981
“Freedom in the World” Rating “Freedom in the World” 2009 Attributes Combined average ratings Free Partly Free Not Free Czech Republic (1.0) Albania (3.0) Azerbaijan (5.5) Estonia (1.0) Macedonia (3.0) Kazakhstan (5.5) A Electoral Process Germany (1.0) Montenegro (3.0) Russia (5.5) Hungary (1.0) Bosnia-Herzegovina (3.5) Tajikistan (5.5) B Political Pluralism and Participation Lithuania (1.0) Georgia (4.0) Belarus (6.5) C Functioning of Government Poland (1.0) Moldova (4.0) Turkmenistan (7.0) D Freedom of Expression and Belief Slovakia (1.0) Kyrgyzstan (4.5) Uzbekistan (7.0) E Associational and Organizational Rights Slovenia (1.0) Armenia (5.0) Latvia (1.5) F Rule of Law Bulgaria (2.0) G Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights Croatia (2.0) Romania (2.0) Serbia (2.5) Ukraine (2.5) “Freedom in the World” 2009 Formal Concept Analysis Aggregate and sub-category scores Wille 1982, Ganter, Wille 1999 PR CL Status A B C D E F G Data analysis framework based on the notion of a ‘concept’ Albania 3 3 PF 8 11 7 13 8 10 9 Extension is the set of objects covered by the concept. Armenia 6 4 PF 4 4 3 8 5 5 9 Azerbaijan 6 5 NF 2 3 3 6 3 4 8 Intension is what the object should have to fall under the concept. Belarus 7 6 NF 0 3 1 3 1 2 5 Bulgaria 2 2 F 12 15 8 14 11 11 11 Data is represented in a very basic data type, called a Croatia 2 2 F 12 14 9 14 12 10 13 formal context. Czech Republic 1 1 F 12 15 11 16 12 14 15 Each formal context is transformed into a mathematical Estonia 1 1 F 12 15 12 16 12 14 14 structure called a concept lattice. The information Georgia 4 4 PF 6 6 6 11 7 5 10 contained in the formal context is preserved. Germany 1 1 F 12 15 12 15 12 15 15 The concept lattice is the basis for further data analysis. It Hungary 1 1 F 12 15 10 16 12 13 14 may be represented graphically to support communication, Kazakhstan 6 5 NF 2 3 2 7 4 4 8 or it may be investigated with algebraic methods to Kyrgyzstan 5 4 PF 4 5 4 9 5 5 7 unravel its structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal Concept Analysis Formal Concept Analysis Formal context Formal context a set of objects a set of objects a set of attributes a set of attributes objects are described with attributes: which object has objects are described with attributes: which object has which attribute which attribute The context defines the scope of the discussion by specifying the domain to which it applies (objects) and defining the terms in which it is going to be discussed (attributes). Formal Concept Analysis Formal Context for the Freedom House Data Formal concept ( A , B ) A are all objects that have all attributes from B B are all attributes that apply to all objects from A Objects: countries A is concept extent and B is concept intent. Attributes: parameters of democratic development Concept ( C , D ) is more general than concept ( A , B ) if ( C , D ) covers all the objects covered by ( A , B ) and some other objects (i.e., A is a subset of C ). The set of all concepts of a formal context forms a lattice .
“Freedom in the World” 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2009: Free Countries “Freedom in the World” 2009: Partly Free Countries “Freedom in the World” 2009: Not Free Countries
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 Georgia Georgia behind Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia in 2009 New problems with Electoral Process and Political Pluralism
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 Russia Free countries Russia at the same level as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan in 2009 Further restrictions of Associational and Organizational Rights and reduction in Political Pluralism from 2006 on “Linearization” in 2009 Partly, an e ff ect of the chosen level of granularity, but does reflect the structure of the data “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 Free countries in 2009 Free countries in 2006 Free countries in 2006 = Free countries in 2009 = countries countries properly where Political Pluralism is (more implementing Associational or less) fully implemented Rights and Freedom of Expression (Virtually) no problems with Electoral Process, Freedom of Ukraine had issues with all Expression, and Associational the other five parameters Rights Slovenia did not exhibit Problems with Individual Rights problems with Rule of Law imply problems with Functioning or Functioning of of Government imply problems Government despite a with Rule of Law lower score in Individual Rights
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 Not Free countries (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan) Not Free countries in 2006 (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan) Not Free countries in 2006 = countries with noticeable violations of Individual Rights, restricted Freedom of Expression, and poorly organized Electoral Process In Russia, the implementation of Associational Rights and Political Pluralism was better than elsewhere In Azerbaijan, the implementation of Rule of Law was better than elsewhere “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 Not Free countries in 2009 (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan) Better in Free countries Worse in Not Free countries Not Free countries in 2006 More uniform in both categories = countries with pour If a country is better than another country in one aspect, it implementation of Rule of is at least as good in any other aspect (in 2009, but not in Law and Associational 2006) Rights Not the case for Partly Free countries: much more diversity and all the problems of there 2006
Conclusion Conclusion Concept lattices as a multidimensional model for the analysis of democratic development A hierarchy of countries built according to problems they have in various aspects of democracy Concept lattices reflect the reality only to the extent to A better interface to the knowledge hidden in data than which it is reflected by the data. that provided by linear rankings: Thus, they provide a tool for validating the data and the process of data collection. [. . . ] the index by FH has been used as a tool for measuring democracy, good governance, and human rights, thus producing a conceptual stretching which is a major cause of ‘losses in connotative precision’ [. . . ] an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything. Giannone 2010 Conclusion Further Work Hypotheses Comparing di ff erent indices From Partly Free to Not Free: Features that constitute the framework of political process Functioning of Government Electoral Process Di ff erent sets of parameters Activity of civil society and Di ff erent meanings for similarly named parameters citizen participation Associational and Use duality between extensional and intensional Organizational Rights Political Pluralism and characterization of lattice nodes to identify similarities and Participation di ff erences in conceptualization and measurement adopted Rule of Law in various indices Features related to a personal sphere Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights Freedom of Expression and Beliefs
Recommend
More recommend
