How the Large N Could Complement the Small in Democratization Research
Abstract: Large-N quantitative analysis should be considered a possible complement to small-N
comparisons (SNC). Quantitative analysis has its weaknesses, to be sure, but they could be
counterbalanced by some real strengths in SNC. And quantitative analysis does have certain
methodological advantages that help compensate for some of the weaknesses of SNC. On the one hand,
SNC tends to develop "thick" (complex, multidimensional, contextualized, or rich) concepts and theories
that are well-suited for description and for making inferences about simple causation on a small scale or
in a few cases; but thick concepts and theories are unwieldy when it comes to generalization or rigorous
testing of complex hypotheses. On the other hand, quantitative analysis is justifiably criticized for its
"thin" (reductionist or simplistic) concepts and theories, but it is the best method available for testing
generalizations, especially generalizations about complex causal relationships. In principle, thick
concepts can be translated into the thin format of quantitative data, and the nuanced, conditional, complex,
and contextualized hypotheses of SNC can be translated into quantitative models. To make this potential
a reality, however, we have to collect different data and more data and do it more systematically and
rigorously. There is an especially pressing need to develop data and models that bridge levels of
analysis. The paper also surveys the extent to which the proposed translation of thick into thin is taking
place already.
Michael Coppedge
Kellogg Institute
Hesburgh Center
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
tel 219/631-7036
fax 219/631-6717
coppedge.1@nd.edu
How the Large N Could Complement the Small in Democratization Research
General Observations drawn from Particulars, are the Jewels of
knowledge, comprehending great Store in a little Room; but they
are therefore to be made with the greater Care and Caution.
John Locke, "Of the Conduct of the Understanding" (1706)
Democracy and regime change have been favorite objects of study among Latin Americanists for
decades. Over the years, these scholars and other comparativists observing Latin American cases have
proposed many interesting hypotheses about these phenomena. Among the prominent hypotheses are
those holding that democratization is affected (for good or ill) by: the rise of a middle class (Johnson
1958), dependency (Cardoso and Faletto 1971), military professionalization (Stepan 1971), the mode of
incorporation of the working class (Collier and Collier 1991), the alignment of the state with class
interests (Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens 1992), economic development in combination with all
of the above (O'Donnell 1973), corporatist political culture (Wiarda 1981), U.S. intervention (Blasier
1985, Lowenthal 1991), presidentialism (Linz and Valenzuela 1994) and multipartism (Mainwaring
1993), economic performance (Gasiorowski 1995, Remmer 1996, Haggard and Kaufman 1997), or elite
strategies in response to crisis (Linz and Stepan 1978, O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986). This kind of
theorizing has been criticized recently for being unsystematic, not cumulative, untestable, or even
atheoretical (Bates 1996, Geddes 1997). However, people disagree about the preferred alternative. The
critics in question are advocates of rational choice, which aspires to the logical deduction of
universalistic theory. But small-N comparison has also been criticized from the opposite, more
anthropological, pole, which advocates closer attention to local context, nuance, and meaning (Levine
1994).
The purpose of this paper is to insert into this controversy another alternative--large-N
quantitative analysis--not as a superior method, but as a possible complement to small-N comparison
(SNC). Quantitative analysis has its weaknesses, to be sure, but they could be counterbalanced by some
real strengths in SNC. And quantitative analysis does have certain methodological advantages that help
compensate for some of the weaknesses of SNC. On the one hand, SNC tends to develop "thick"
(complex, multidimensional, contextualized, or rich) concepts and theories that are well-suited for
description and for making inferences about simple causation on a small scale or in a few cases; but thick
concepts and theories are unwieldy when it comes to generalization or rigorous testing of complex
hypotheses. On the other hand, quantitative analysis is justifiably criticized for its "thin" (reductionist or
simplistic) concepts and theories, but it is the best method available for testing generalizations, especially
generalizations about complex causal relationships.
So far quantitative analysis has hardly begun to exploit its full potential for assimilating complex
concepts and testing complex theories, largely due to data limitations; but the potential is still there. In
order to realize this potential, scholars need to answer two key questions that arise at the intersection of
SNC and quantitative analysis: Can thick concepts be translated into the thin format of quantitative data?
And can the nuanced, conditional, complex, and contextualized hypotheses of SNC be translated into
quantitative models? In this paper I argue that the answer to both questions is "yes" in principle, but that
in order to make these approaches complementary in practice, we have to collect different data and more
data and do it more systematically and rigorously. In the process I will also survey the extent to which
the proposed translation of thick into thin is taking place already.
A Perspective on Methods
In debates about the merits of one approach vs. another, it is always healthy to bear in mind that
all contain gaping methodological holes. We social scientists never prove anything, not even with our
most sophisticated methods. Popper argued that the goal of science is not to prove a theory, but to
disconfirm alternative hypotheses (Popper 1968).(1) In a strict sense, our goal is to disconfirm all the
alternative hypotheses. But no serious social scientist requires proof that, for example, space aliens have
not been destabilizing democracies by poisoning their water supplies. In practice, therefore, we are
content to disconfirm only the alternative hypotheses that are conventionally considered plausible by
other social scientists. (Of course, if implausible hypotheses become plausible later, we are obliged to
try to disconfirm them as well.) This convention lightens our burden tremendously because the vast
majority of the hypotheses an imaginative person could dream up are implausible. But it leaves room for
a still-overwhelming number of alternatives, for two reasons. First, different people find different things
plausible. Some people are convinced by intimate personal knowledge of a case; other by sophisticated
statistical tests; and still others by the force of logical deduction. (A corollary is that most of us tend to
overlook the weaknesses of research that satisfies our pet criteria.) Second, as Lakatos argued,
disconfirmation is no simple yes-or-no exercise. Every hypothesis is embedded in a web of theories, not
the least of which is the "interpretive" theory used to gather evidence for the test (Lakatos 1978). The
common--and legitimate--practice of revising the supporting theories to explain away an apparent
disconfirmation further increases the number of plausible alternatives. (For this reason, in this article I
define "disconfirmation" rather loosely, as "inconsistency with the web of theories conventionally
treated as the facts.")
This multiplication of plausible alternative hypotheses is especially problematic for those who
would like to explain the complex macro-phenomena of politics, such as democratization, because the
number of plausible alternatives is almost hopelessly large. There is no room here to list all the
hypotheses about democratization that anyone finds plausible, but one can intuitively grasp the
magnitude of the challenge by surveying all the "orders of complexity" involved.
Every theoretical model in social science has five parameters. First, every model pertains to a
certain level of analysis--individual, group, national, world-systemic, or some intermediate gradation
between these. Second, it has one or more dependent variables. Third, it has one or more explanatory
variables. Fourth, it applies to a certain relevant universe of cases. And fifth, it applies to events or
processes that take place during a certain period of time. We can refer to the definitions of each of these
five parameters as possessing "zero-order complexity" because no relationships among parameters are
involved. In the study of democratization, however, even at the zero order there is great leeway for
defining what democracy is, how to measure it and any explanatory factors, which sample of countries is
relevant for testing any given set of explanations, and the period of time to which such explanations
apply. And this is just at the national level of analysis; with smaller or larger units of analysis, one
would use completely different variables, cases, and time frames.
"First-order complexity" involves any causal relationship between any of these parameters and
itself. These relationships include:
1. causation bridging levels of analysis, or (dis)aggregation;
2. causal relationships among dependent variables, or endogeneity;
3. interactions among independent variables;
4. impacts of one time period on another, called lagged effects or temporal autocorrelation; and
5. the impact of one case on another, called diffusion or spatial autocorrelation.
Plausible examples of all of these can be found in the democratization literature:(2)
1. Aggregation: democratization at the national level as the outcome of strategic maneuvering
among elites at the group or individual level (O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986);
2. Endogeneity: political liberalization as a prerequisite for transition (O'Donnell and Schmitter
1986);
3. Interactions: collinearity among two or more independent variables, such as modernization
indicators (Hadenius 1992);
4. Lagged effects: democratization as a process of incremental change from a country's previous
level of freedom (Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994, Przeworski et al. 1996); and
5. Diffusion: waves of democracy (Li and Thompson 1975, Huntington 1991, Diamond 1996, Starr
1991).
Second-order complexity involves causal relationships between two different parameters. All
hypotheses about an independent variable causing democracy (or democracy causing something else) are
of this order; but so are various complications that could be introduced into a model. If the meaning of
democracy varies over time or the best way to operationalize an independent variable depends on the
world region, then one is dealing with this degree of complexity. Third-order complexity comes into
play when there are plausible hypotheses relating three parameters. Most common among these are
hypotheses that the relationship between the dependent variables and an independent variable is partly a
function of time or place. A good example is the hypothesis that the impact of economic development
on democratization depends on a country's world-system position (O'Donnell 1973, Bollen 1983,
Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994, Hadenius 1992). With fourth-order complexity, a causal relationship
could be a function of both time and place (or level of analysis). This may sound far-fetched, but in
small-N comparison such relationships are fairly commonly asserted--for example, the notion that
increasing wealth has not favored democracy in the Arab oil-producing states since the Second World
War (Karl 1997); or the claim that the U.S. has become more sincerely interested in promoting
democracy in the Caribbean Basin since the end of the Cold War (Huntington 1991).
Orders of complexity can increase only so far. Eventually, one arrives at the extremely inelegant
"saturated" model that explains each outcome perfectly by providing different and unique explanations
for each case. Laypersons who have not been socialized into social science know that the saturated
model is the truth: every country is unique, history never repeats itself exactly, and every event is the
product of a long and densely tangled chain of causation stretching back to the beginning of time. We
political scientists know on some level that a true and complete explanation for the things that fascinate
us would be impossibly complex. But we willfully ignore this disturbing fact and persist in our research.
We are a community of eccentrics who share the delusion that politics is simpler than it appears. This is
why our relatives roll their eyes when we get excited about our theories. Although I would be as
delighted as any other political scientist to discover simple, elegant, and powerful explanations, I think
the common sense of the layperson is correct: we must presume that politics is extremely complex, and
the burden of proof rests on those who claim that it is not.
From this admittedly perfectionist perspective, all approaches yield only a partial and conditional
glimpse of the truth. Believing otherwise is an invitation to error. Nevertheless, all approaches have
some value because, as Karl Deutsch said, the truth lies at the confluence of independent streams of
evidence. Any method that helps us identify some of the many possible plausible hypotheses is useful,
as is any method that combines theory and evidence to help us judge how plausible these hypotheses are.
But this perspective also suggests a practical and realistic standard for evaluating the utility of competing
methodologies. For methods that are primarily concerned with empirical assessments,(3) it is not enough
for a method to document isolated empirical associations or regularities; and it is asking too much to
expect incontrovertible proof of anything. The question that should be asked is, rather, what are the
strengths and weaknesses of each approach in helping us render certain kinds of alternative hypotheses
more plausible or less? My discussion of these basic strengths and weaknesses is organized into three
sections dealing with three desiderata for a theory of democratization: thick concepts, thick theory, and
bridges between levels of analysis.
Thick Concepts
In the empiricist's ideal world, theoretical concepts would be simple, clear, and objective. We
would theorize exclusively about relatively straightforward things like voter turnout, union membership,
or legislative turnover. But the reality is that much of the political theory we find interesting concerns
some of the messiest concepts around--power, participation, legitimacy, identity, development,
accountability, and of course democracy. Such concepts are often controversial because they mean
different things to different people: they are complex and multifaceted, and their meanings often have
subtle variations depending on the time, the context, or the person using them. People disagree about
whether this is a good thing or not; but at present and as long as interesting theories are couched in terms
of messy concepts, those who wish to test such theories have no choice but to translate those concepts
into indicators of one sort or another, whether the results are categorical definitions or continuous
numerical variables.
SNC excels at the kind of conceptual fussiness that is required to develop valid measures of thick
concepts. Researchers using this approach usually define their concepts carefully; they take pains to
explain how what they mean by a concept differs from what their colleagues have meant; they spend a
great deal of time justifying what the functional equivalent of a concept is in the case they are analyzing;
they are sensitive to how the meaning of the concept may have changed over a long period of time; and it
is not unusual for small-N comparativists to debate publicly what is or should be meant by the word that
represents a concept. By far the best demonstration of these tendencies is Collier and Levitsky's recent
survey of qualifiers for "democracy": they encountered hundreds in the published literature (Collier and
Levitsky 1997)! This attention to nuance comes at a price, however, for it impedes generalization and
cumulation. The more elaborately a concept is defined, the narrower it becomes. The more baggage it
has to carry, the less widely it can travel. A concept that is perfectly tailored for analyzing politics in the
United States--say, roll-call voting--is not very useful for analyzing legislative behavior in Britain, or
even in the U.S. at the turn of the century. This difficulty in generalizing also means that general theory
cumulates accompanied by cumulative uncertainty. If my explanation of Y1 differs from your
explanation of Y2 or her explanation of Y3, it may be because we are explaining slightly different things.
Every researcher who defines a dependent variable anew automatically lends plausibility to this
alternative hypothesis, which remains plausible until it is ruled out by additional research.
Quantitative research has the opposite strengths and weaknesses. Its variables tend to be defined
more narrowly, which makes it more feasible to gather data from a large number of cases and therefore
to support generalizations. Also, the same few variables--a handful of democracy indicators, per capita
GNP, etc.--tend to be used repeatedly. This habit, which is reinforced by the cost of collecting new data
for a large sample, reduces (but does not eliminate) the plausibility of the hypothesis that different
researchers are in fact explaining different things in different ways, and therefore favors (but does not
guarantee) cumulation. The weakness is that the "thin" concepts implied by the construction of some of
the variables often introduces uncertainty about the validity of these measures. Quantitative researchers
in effect use the bait-and-switch tactic of announcing that they are testing hypotheses about the impact
of, for example, "economic development," and then by sleight of hand substitute an indicator of per
capita energy consumption and assert that it measures development well enough. The problem with such
substitutions is not necessarily that they do not measure the concept of interest at all (although this does
occur at times); in fact, per capita energy consumption correlates extremely strongly (.90+) with per
capita GNP. Rather, the problem is that a single narrow indicator cannot capture all the relevant aspects
of a thick concept. A fully valid indicator of economic development would have to measure not only
energy consumption or wealth, but also industrialization, technology production, productivity, and
perhaps other facets. If we operationalize development as per capita GNP, we are not really testing a
hypothesis about economic development, but about the value of production by the average person. If
many researchers use this same indicator, they may be cumulating general knowledge, but it is general
knowledge about a somewhat different hypothesis that does not provide a completely satisfying answer
to our theoretical questions.
Is there any way to assemble large datasets with valid indicators? It would be easier if concepts
were not thick. We cannot expect everyone to lose all interest in certain theoretical concepts simply
because they are difficult to measure, to eschew the thick and theorize about the thin. However, this has
occasionally happened. For example, most comparativists in the mid-1960s considered "instability" an
interesting and important phenomenon, but few do today. The reason for the change is that political
scientists soon realized that "instability" meant several different and incomparable things--regime
instability, government instability, cabinet instability, and disturbances to public order, which could be
further subdivided into riots, strikes, crime, terrorism, and internal war. These thinner concepts seem
more useful and interesting to us today, and when students begin to talk about instability in general we
are quick to set them straight. Again, it would facilitate testing if a similar consensus would evolve
about the subdivision of other thick concepts, such as "governance" or "democratic consolidation."
But some thick concepts are too old and too central to our thinking to be reduced in this way. In
such cases the alternative is to explore empirically how to measure them validly and reliably, which
requires recognition of their complexity. The basic procedure for measuring any complex concept is
well known and has four steps. First, the analyst breaks the "mother" concept up into as many simple
and relatively objective components as possible. Second, each of these components is measured
separately. Third, the analyst examines the strength of association among the components to discover
how many dimensions are represented among them and in the mother concept. Fourth, components that
are very strongly associated with one another are treated as unidimensional, i.e., as all measuring the
same underlying dimension, and may be combined. Any other components or clusters of components are
treated as indicators of different dimensions. If the mother concept turns out to be multidimensional, the
analyst then has two or more unidimensional indicators that together can capture its complexity. If the
mother concept turns out to be unidimensional, then the analyst has several closely associated component
indicators that may be combined into a single indicator that captures all the aspects of that dimension
better than any one component would.(4) This is the kind of analysis that makes it possible to construct
indicators for complex concepts that can be used in large-N quantitative analysis.
Some of this sort of empirical exploration has been done already for the concept of democracy.
Democratic theorists over the decades first simplified the task by progressively narrowing the concept,
purging it of impractical components such as the appointment of administrators by lottery, and adapting
it to the context of the large nation-state by accepting the idea of representation (Dahl 1989). But from
the French Revolution through Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, "democracy" was still so
multifaceted that it was not even clearly distinct from social equality. The "elite theorists" during and
after the Second World War then promoted an even narrower concept of democracy that was limited to
political, rather than social or economic, components and did not require direct participation in
policymaking, only in the selection of policymakers (Schumpeter 1942, Dahl and Lindblom 1953, Dahl
1971, Sartori 1973). By the time political scientists began trying to measure democracy, the concept had
therefore been reduced to selected national political institutions and practices and some of their
characteristics.
The first indicators of democracy had a few problems that required refinements. The early
democracy indicators often confounded democracy with regime stability. In his classic 1959 article, for
example, Lipset used the ordinal classifications "stable democracies/unstable democracies/dictatorships"
(for European and English-speaking countries) and "democracies/unstable dictatorships/stable
dictatorships" (for Latin American countries) (Lipset 1959). Phillips Cutright's index of "national
political development" was the sum of a country's democracy scores over a 21-year period, which made
the number of years of democracy matter as much as the degree of democracy in each year (Cutright
1963). As Kenneth Bollen has observed, this mistake has been repeated several times, even as late as
1988 (Bollen 1991, 10-12). This is not to say that it is illegitimate to be interested in stable democracy.
However, measuring stable democracy with anything more sensitive than an either-or category requires
at least two dimensions, as regime stability and democracy vary independently: there are stable
democracies, unstable democracies, stable nondemocracies, and unstable nondemocracies.
Other attempts to measure democracy excluded stability, sometimes by reporting a score for one
time-point, sometimes by reporting an annual series of scores. But some of them compromised validity
by including components that had little or no theoretical justification. For example, Vanhanen (1990)
included the percentage of the vote won by the governing party in his index of democracy, even though
nothing in democratic theory suggests that extremely fragmented party systems are more democratic than
two-party or moderate multiparty systems. Another example is the Freedom House survey. Its
checklists take into consideration the autonomy of elected representatives from military control, a
country's right of self-determination, citizens' freedom from domination by economic oligarchies, the
autonomy of religious and ethnic minorities, gender equality, property rights, the freedom to choose
family size, freedom from dependency on union leaders and bureaucrats, and freedom from gross
government corruption, among other requirements (Freedom House 1991, 49-51). Some of these
components probably should not be included in a measure of democracy; others could be if the definition
of democracy were fairly rich but should not be lumped together in the same index because they are
likely to be multidimensional. Freedom House appears to combine its components in a flexible way that
somehow avoids the worst potential biases, but it has not reported systematically how the components
are related, so it is difficult for outside observers to confirm their validity or reliability.
Despite these measurement problems and another not yet mentioned, we know that even the
relatively thin versions of democracy consist of at least two dimensions. For one of those dimensions we
already have several indicators that are adequate for various large-N comparisons. One of Dahl's major
contributions in Polyarchy (1971) was to argue convincingly that polyarchy has two dimensions--contestation and inclusiveness. He defined contestation as having five components, or institutional
requirements--elected officials, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, associational autonomy,
and the existence of alternative sources of information. Inclusiveness was defined solely in terms of the
suffrage and widespread eligibility to run for public office. Coppedge and Reinicke (1990) later
confirmed that the components of contestation are indeed unidimensional and may be legitimately
combined into a single indicator, while the extent of the suffrage lies on a different dimension and should
not be included as a component of contestation. Many of the existing quantitative indicators of
"democracy" are actually indicators of contestation. They are the Bollen Index of Political Democracy
(Bollen 1980), the Polity III data on democracy and autocracy (Jaggers and Gurr 1995), the Freedom
House ratings of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, the Polyarchy Scale (Coppedge and Reinicke 1990),
Hadenius' Index of Democracy (Hadenius 1992), and Bollen's Index of Liberal Democracy (Bollen
1993).(5) It has been demonstrated repeatedly that these indicators measure the same underlying
dimension. Their intercorrelations, for example, usually exceed .83 (Inkeles 1990, 5-6). Table I
provides additional information about these indicators. They are by no means perfect: Bollen has
demonstrated, for example, that Freedom House ratings for 1979-1981 (at least) tended to underrate
Eastern European countries and overrate Latin American countries by a small but statistically significant
amount (Bollen 1993).(6) His index for 1980, which corrects for these biases as well as anyone can at this
point, is probably the most valid indicator available today. But Bollen's index is a point measure; only
the Freedom House ratings and the Polity III data are time-series. If one needs time-series data, there is
little reason to avoid using the Freedom House data. According to Bollen's estimates, the Freedom
House Political Rights ratings for 1979-1981 were 93 percent valid despite the regional bias. It also
correlates at .938 with the Polyarchy Scale. These results suggest that can expect very similar results
from an analysis regardless of which of these indicators is used (Inkeles 1990, 5; Hopple and Husbands
1991, 11-12).
Table 1: Comparison of Available Indicators of Contestation
|
---|
Name | Source | Nature | Years | No. Countries
|
---|
Index of Political Democracy | Bollen 1980 | 0-100 index | 1960 and 1965 | 123 and
113
|
---|
Polity III Democracy data | Jaggers and Gurr 1995 | 10-point scale | 1800-1994 | 161
|
---|
Polity III Autocracy data | Jaggers and Gurr 1995 | 10-point scale | 1800-1994 | 161
|
---|
Democracy - Autocracy | Jaggers and Gurr 1995 | 20-point scale | 1800-1994 | 161
|
---|
Political Rights | Freedom House | 7-point scale | 1972-1996 | ave.
151
|
---|
Civil Liberties | Freedom House | 7-point scale | 1972-1996 | ave.
151
|
---|
combination of both | Freedom House | 13-point scale | 1972-1996 | ave.
151
|
---|
Polyarchy Scale | Coppedge and Reinicke 1990 | 11-point Guttman scale | 1985 | 170
|
---|
Index of Democracy | Hadenius 1992 | 0-10 index | 1988 | 132
|
---|
Index of Liberal Democracy | Bollen 1993 | 0-100 index | 1980 | 153
|
---|
It is important to remember, however, that contestation is just one narrow dimension of what has
historically been meant by democracy. Partly for this reason controversy has always surrounded the use
of these indicators. One common objection concerns the measurement of democracy as a continuum;
another concerns the exclusion of various theoretically important components.
Categorical vs. Continuous Indicators
There are two basic objections to continuous measures of democracy. One, most recently and
forcefully argued by Adam Przeworski but also championed by Giovanni Sartori, holds that the
theoretical concept of democracy is categorical, not continuous, and that attempts to measure a
categorical phenomenon with a continuous instrument produce either measurement error or nonsense
(Przeworski et al. 1996, Sartori 1987). The second objection is that our theories about democratization
usually concern regimes rather than degrees of democracy; continuous indicators are therefore
inappropriate for testing the leading theories (Munck 1996). Or, as Juan Linz argued in 1964:
We prefer for purposes of analysis to reject the idea of a continuum from democracy to
totalitarianism and to stress the distinctive nature of authoritarian regimes. Unless we examine
the features unique to them, the conditions under which they emerge, the conceptions of power
held by those who shape them, regimes which are not clearly either democratic or totalitarian
will be treated merely as deviations from these ideal types and will not be studied systematically
and comparatively (Linz 1970, 253.)
These objections tend to imply that numerical indicators are inherently unsuitable for some
purposes. But the problem with the quantitative indicators that we have now is not that they are
quantitative; it is that they are qualitatively different from the categorical definitions of democracy that
they attempt to measure.
If both continuous and categorical indicators measured exactly the same concept, then we would
prefer the continuous one on the grounds that it is more informative, more flexible, and better suited for
the sophisticated testing that can rule out more of the plausible alternative hypotheses. If one wanted a
categorical measure, it could always be derived from the continuous one by identifying one or more
thresholds that correspond to the categories desired. A dichotomized indicator would sort cases and
interact with other variables the same way a dichotomy would--again, assuming that they measured
exactly the same concept. In other words, the continuous indicator contains more information, which we
could choose to ignore, but the reverse is not true: one cannot derive a continuous measure from a
categorical one without adding new information.
Some may still object that the additional information in the continuous measure is not
meaningful or useful because translating neat and satisfying categories into slippery matters of degree
deprives us of analytic footholds. According to this argument, our minds seek out categories because we
need definite, firm, satisfying, categorical ideas to guide us. This, I think, is just an illusion created by
attempts to translate precise mathematical language into imprecise verbal language. Suppose a simple
bivariate regression estimate of the relationship between polyarchy and per capita GNP is that
Democracy = 2.0 + .125*log(GNPPC). If one had to explain this finding without using any numbers,
one could say little more than, "There is a minimal level of democracy below which no country falls, but
the wealthier the average person is, the more democratic the country is. However, the benefits of wealth
diminish steadily as wealth increases." Such a statement does not allow one to make any useful
statement about how democratic we should expect any country to be. But this statement is only a faint
hint of what the estimate really says because the most useful information--the numbers--have been
removed. Restoring the numbers recreates a compact, elegant formula that can generate quite definite
predictions of how democratic any country should be. And properly understood, it is not a false
precision, because the standard errors and other parameters of the estimate can be used to calculate a
confidence interval for any of its predictions.
It is of course natural to feel uncertain about what a prediction of, say, "5.4" means because the
number itself has no inherent meaning. But the same could be said about other numbers in our everyday
lives--temperature readings, ages, incomes, and Olympic diving scores. All of these numbers, and the
equally arbitrary words that make up a language, acquire meaning only through the familiarity that
comes from using them to describe, compare, and communicate. Moreover, numbers have the additional
advantage of being translatable into graphics, which often speak more eloquently than words. Finally, if
none of this is reassuring, there is one indicator that does transparently explain what all of its scores
mean--the Polyarchy Scale. Because it is a Guttman scale, every score corresponds to a well-defined set
of institutions and practices--a thumbnail description of the relevant characteristics of each political
system (Coppedge and Reinicke 1990).
But this entire defense of the superiority of continuous indicators rests on the premise that the
hypothetical continuous and categorical indicators measure exactly the same concept. In theory they
could, but in practice they do not. This is the real problem with continuous indicators: they measure
only thin, reductionist versions of the thicker concepts that interest the non-quantitative scholars. Such is
the case with "regimes," which come with rich and sometimes quite elaborate definitions. Compare, for
example, Juan Linz's definition of an authoritarian regime with the Polyarchy Scale's criteria for scale
score 5, which is the threshold that corresponds most closely to authoritarianism. (These definitions are
reproduced in Table 2). The first two components of each definition are nearly interchangeable even
though the Polyarchy Scale is more explicit here about what "limited pluralism" means in practice.
(Obviously, Linz's legendary 237-page essay is much more explicit than the brief definition quoted in
Table 2.) Linz's definition, however, goes on to list three additional components that are entirely
missing from scale score 5 or any other score of the Polyarchy Scale--the nature of the leaders' belief
systems, the absence of active political mobilization by the regime, and some degree of
institutionalization.
Table 2: Definitions of Authoritarian Regime and a Low Degree of Polyarchy Contrasted
|
Authoritarian Regime (Linz 1975, 264): | Polyarchy Scale Score 5 (Coppedge and
Reinicke 1990, 53-54):
|
---|
[Political systems without] free competition
between leaders to validate at regular intervals
by nonviolent means their claim to rule. . . (10)
| [There are] no meaningful elections: elections
without choice of candidates or parties, or no
elections at all.
|
. . . political systems with limited, not
responsible, political pluralism
| Some political parties are banned and trade
unions or interest groups are harassed or
banned, but membership in some alternatives to
official organizations is permitted. Dissent is
discouraged, whether by informal pressure or by
systematic censorship, but control is incomplete.
The extent of control may range from selective
punishment of dissidents on a limited number of
issues to a situation in which only determined
critics manage to make themselves heard.
There is some freedom of private discussion.
Alternative sources of information are widely
available but government versions are presented
in preferential fashion. this may be the result of
partiality in and greater availability of
government-controlled media; selective closure,
punishment, harassment, or censorship of
dissident reporters, publishers, or broadcasters;
or mild self-censorship resulting from any of
these.
|
---|
without elaborate and guiding ideology, but
with distinctive mentalities |
|
without extensive nor intensive political
mobilization, except at some points in their
development |
|
and in which a leader or occasionally a small
group exercises power within formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable
ones.
|
---|
Although this comparison demonstrates that the two concepts are not fully comparable, it also
illustrates how the richness of categorical definitions can be combined with the advantages of numerical
indicators. Every element of a categorical definition can be reconceptualized as a threshold on a
continuous dimension; these components can be measured separately, and then recombined to the extent
that they are shown to be unidimensional. For example, if the Polyarchy Scale included all the
components from Linz's definition of authoritarianism, then it would be a valid indicator of his concept,
and it would have the additional advantage of defining and measuring greater and lesser degrees of
authoritarianism.(7) No information would be lost, and some would be added.
Theorists could certainly refuse to recognize the higher and lower ranges of such an indicator as
valid, on the grounds that they were never contemplated in the original theory. But the fact is that
scholars who define those higher and lower ranges are breaking new conceptual ground. As long as one
threshold of their continuous concept is faithful to all the facets of the original categorical concept, the
only additional requirement for validity is that the extended ranges be useful for analysis. If they are,
there is no reason not to use thick continuous measures. It bears repeating, however, that thick
continuous measures that are fully equivalent to regime definitions remain to be developed.(8) In the
meantime, users of continuous indicators should remind themselves that they are working in a realm of
thin conceptualization.
Thickening Thin Concepts
The second objection to quantitative indicators of democracy directly addresses their thinness. A
by-product of the third wave of democratization is that as more and more developing countries now
satisfy the rather minimalist existing requirements for democracy, it is difficult not to notice that some of
these political systems have disturbing characteristics that seem intuitively inconsistent with democracy.
Some scholars therefore remind us of components of democracy that have been dropped or taken for
granted in the past 50 years and quite understandably call for them to be restored or made explicit. Thus
Schmitter and Karl (1991, 76-80) include institutionalization and a viable civil society ("cooperation and
deliberation via autonomous group activity") among their criteria for "what democracy is." Similarly,
others stress the centrality of the rule of law (Hartlyn and Valenzuela 1994, O'Donnell 1994) and an
independent judiciary (Diamond 1996). O'Donnell and others also argue that democracy requires elected
officials to enjoy autonomy from unelected "veto groups," whether they are economic conglomerates,
international powers, or the military; and impartial respect for basic citizenship rights (O'Donnell 1993).
Once again empirical analysis could be a great help in deciding whether and how to restore these
components to the concept of democracy. The crucial task is to ascertain which of these components lie
on the same dimensions as contestation and inclusiveness. Unidimensional components can be
incorporated into definitions and indicators without provoking much controversy (although not without
considerable hard work). If these additional components turn out to lie on different dimensions, then we
face a choice: we could incorporate any of these components as a third or fourth dimension of a more
complex concept of democracy; or we could decide to keep them as separate concepts whose relationship
with a still-narrow concept of democracy is empirical rather than definitional.
When this analysis is done, I suspect that we will settle on a thicker, 3-dimensional concept of
democracy. The three dimensions I have in mind are inclusiveness, empowerment, and the scope of
democratic authority. In other words, democracy is about a large proportion of the citizens having an
equal chance to participate in making final decisions on a wide range of issues. Inclusiveness needs little
explanation: it is simply the proportion of the adult citizens who have effective opportunities to
participate equally in the opportunities for decisionmaking that the political system allows. However,
the definitions of polyarchy and many other thin concepts of democracy do not consider inclusiveness in
any opportunities besides voting for representatives and running for office. In reality there are, or could
be, many other opportunities for citizens to participate equally in decisionmaking: in judicial
proceedings, at public hearings, in referendums and plebiscites, and in speaking through the media to
place issues on the public agenda, for example. Most civil liberties fit into this dimension as well, as
they involve individuals' equal right to decide their own beliefs and many other aspects of their personal
lives. There is also a hierarchy of increasingly responsible opportunities for participation that are
available to much smaller groups of citizens: drafting legislation, voting on legislation, ratifying
appointments, reconciling legislation, and so on. These opportunities, ranked according to their
proximity to a binding final decision, constitute the dimension of empowerment. The criterion of
inclusiveness is relevant to all of these opportunities, not just to the suffrage. If the judicial system does
not provide equal protection under the law, for example, the political system would have to be rated as
less inclusive. Also, a political system that allows citizens to vote directly on some important legislation
is more empowered than one in which all citizens choose only their representatives, other things being
equal. Because this is a two-dimensional concept so far, other things may not be equal. For instance, a
political system in which all citizens are allowed to vote in a rigged plebiscite would score high on
inclusiveness but low on empowerment.
The third dimension--the scope of democratic authority--reflects the agenda of issues that the
democratic government may decide without consulting unelected actors. This dimension reflects any
constraints on governmental authority imposed by the military, business groups, religious authorities,
foreign powers, or international organizations regarding issues of importance to them. The fewer the
issues that are in practice "off limits" to final decisionmaking by relatively inclusive bodies, the broader
the scope of democratic authority. These three dimensions taken together make it possible to incorporate
several of the additional components mentioned above into a thicker concept of democracy. Autonomy
from veto groups is reflected in the scope of democratic authority, and the rule of law and respect for
citizenship are equivalent to inclusiveness in opportunities to influence the judicial process. This three-dimensional concept would therefore help us make meaningful distinctions among countries that satisfy
the current minimal requirements for democracy.
Thick Theory
A second strength of small-N comparison is the development of "thick theory": richly specified,
complex models that are sensitive to variations by time and place. As argued above, such complex
models are desirable because many of the complex alternative hypotheses are plausible and we have to
try to disconfirm them in order to make any progress. In the study of democratization and many other
complex macro-phenomena, the virtues of parsimony are overrated. Small-N comparative work does a
good job of suggesting what these complex relationships might be. In the Latin American literature, the
conventional wisdom presumes that each wave of democratization is different, that each country has
derived different lessons from its distinct political and economic history; that corporate actors vary
greatly in power and tactics from country to country, and that both individual politicians and
international actors can have a decisive impact on the outcome. This is the stuff of thick theory, and
comparative politics as a whole benefits when a regional specialization generates such rich possibilities.
But can such complex hypotheses be tested with small-N comparisons? On first thought, one
might say no because of the "many variables, small N" dilemma. The more complex the hypothesis, the
more variables are involved; therefore a case study or paired comparison seems to provide too few
degrees of freedom to mount a respectable test. This cynicism is not fair, however, because in a case
study or small-N comparison the units of analysis are not necessarily whole countries. Hypotheses about
democratization do not have to be tested by examining associations between structural causes and macro-outcomes. In King, Keohane, and Verba's terminology, we increase confidence in our tests by
maximizing the number of observable implications of the hypothesis: we brainstorm about things that
must be true if our hypothesis is true, and systematically confirm or disconfirm them (King, Keohane,
and Verba 1994, 24). The rich variety of information available to comparativists with an area
specialization makes this strategy ideal for them. In fact, it is what they do best. For example, a scholar
who suspects that Allende was overthrown in large part because he was a socialist can gather evidence to
show that Allende claimed to be a socialist; that he proposed socialist policies; that these policies became
law; that these laws adversely affected the economic interests of certain powerful actors; that some of
these actors moved into opposition immediately after certain quintessentially socialist policies were
announced or enacted; that Allende's rhetoric disturbed other actors; that these actors issued explicit
public and private complaints about the socialist government and its policies; that representatives of
some of these actors conspired together to overthrow the government; that actors who shared the
president's socialist orientation did not participate in the conspiracy; that the opponents publicly and
privately cheered the defeat of socialism after the overthrow; and so on. Much of this evidence could
also disconfirm alternative hypotheses, such as the idea that Allende was overthrown because of U.S.
pressure despite strong domestic support. If it turns out that all of these observable implications are true,
then the scholar could be quite confident of the hypothesis. In fact, she would be justified in remaining
confident of the hypothesis even if a macro-comparison showed that most elected socialist governments
have not been overthrown, because she has already gathered superior evidence that failed to disconfirm
the hypothesis in this case.
The longitudinal case study is simply the best research design available for testing hypotheses
about the causes of specific events. In addition to maximizing opportunities to disconfirm observable
implications, it does the best job of documenting the sequence of events, which is crucial for establishing
the direction of causal influence. Moreover, it is unsurpassed in providing quasi-experimental control,
because conditions that do not change from time 1 to time 2 are held constant, and every case is always
far more similar to itself at a different time than it is to any other case. A longitudinal case study is the
ultimate "most similar systems" design. The closer together the time periods are, the tighter the control.
In a study of a single case that examines change from month to month, week to week, or day to day,
almost everything is held constant and scholars can often have great confidence in inferring causation
between the small number of conditions that do change around the same time. Of course, any method
can be applied poorly or well, so this method is no guarantee of a solid result. But competent small-N
comparativists have every reason to be skeptical of conclusions from macro-comparisons that are
inconsistent with their more solid understanding of a case.
This approach has two severe limitations, however. First, it is extremely difficult to use it to
generalize to other cases. Every additional case requires a repetition of the same meticulous process-tracing and data collection. To complicate matters further, the researcher usually becomes aware of
other conditions that were taken for granted in the first case and now must be examined systematically in
it and all additional cases. Generalization therefore introduces new complexity and increases the data
demands almost exponentially, making comparative case studies unwieldy. A good demonstration of
this tendency is the Colliers' Shaping the Political Arena: in order to apply detailed case-study methods
systematically to 8 cases, they had to write an 800-page book. The second limitation of the case study is
that it does not provide the leverage necessary to test hypotheses of the third order of complexity and
beyond. Such hypotheses usually involve hypotheticals, for which a single case can supply little data
(beyond interviews in which actors speculate about what they would have done under other conditions).
For example, would the Chilean military have intervened if Allende had been elected in 1993 rather than
1970? If a different Socialist leader had been president? If he were in Thailand rather than Chile? If
Chile had a parliamentary system? Such hypotheses cannot be tested without some variation in these
added explanatory factors, variation that one case often cannot provide.
Generalization and complex relationships are better supported by large-N comparisons, which
provide the degrees of freedom necessary to handle many variables and complex relationships. These
comparisons need not be quantitative, as the qualitative Boolean analysis recommended by Charles
Ragin has many of the same strengths (Ragin 1987, Berg-Schlosser and De Meur 1994). However,
Boolean analysis forces one to dichotomize all the variables, which sacrifices useful information and
introduces arbitrary placement of classification cut points that can influence the conclusions. It also
dispenses with probability and tests of statistical significance, which are very useful for ruling out weak
hypotheses. Quantitative analysis has these additional advantages over Boolean analysis. Moreover,
quantitative methods are available that can easily handle categorical or ordinal data alongside continuous
variables, and complex interactions as well, so there would be little reason to prefer qualitative methods
if quantitative data were available and sound.
The fact that little high-quality quantitative data is available for large samples is the main reason
why the potential for large-N comparisons to explain democratization has not been realized more fully.
However, large-N analyses have made use of relevant indicators as they have become available, even if
they were not fully valid. There has been quite of bit of exploration of thin versions of a variety of
hypotheses. The central hypothesis in the 1960s was that democracy is a product of "modernization"
(proposed in a case study of Turkey--Lerner 1958), which was measured by a long, familiar, and
occasionally lampooned set of indicators--per capita energy consumption, literacy, school enrollments,
urbanization, life expectancy, infant mortality, size of industrial workforce, newspaper circulation, and
radio and television ownership. The principal conclusion of these analyses was that democracy is
consistently associated with per capita energy consumption or (in later studies) per capita GNP or GDP,
although the reasons for this association remain open for discussion (Jackman 1973, Rueschemeyer
1991, Diamond 1992). Quantitative studies have also explored associations between democracy and:
*income inequality (Bollen and Jackman 1985, Muller 1988, Bollen and Jackman 1995, Przeworski et al.
1996)
*religion and language (Hannan and Carroll 1981, Lipset, Seong, and Torres 1993, Muller 1995)
*region or world-system position (Bollen 1983, Gonick and Rosh 1988, Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994,
Muller 1995, Coppedge 1997)
*state size (Brunk, Caldeira, and Lewis-Beck 1987)
*presidentialism, parliamentarism, and party systems (Stepan and Skach 1993, Mainwaring 1993,
Przeworski et al. 1996, Power and Gasiorowski 1997) and
*economic performance (Remmer 1996, Londregan and Poole 1996).
Certain other explanatory factors that have been suggested in the Latin American literature have
not yet been tested in large samples. Among them are:
*U.S. support for democracy or authoritarian governments (Blasier 1985, Lowenthal 1991)
*relations between the party in power and elite interests (Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens
1992)
*the mode of incorporation of the working class (Collier and Collier 1991)
*interactions with different historical periods, and
*U.S. military training (Stepan 1971, Loveman 1994).
Incorporation of these last hypotheses into large-N models will require much more thought and
data collection, especially if samples extend beyond Latin America. Ideally, data collection would also
be done more rigorously for these independent variables so that they would be adequately valid
indicators of the concepts of theoretical interest. This is not always possible, but where it is not--as with
data collected worldwide for other purposes--greater use should be made of statistical techniques for
incorporating latent variables into models. These techniques, such as LISREL, can help compensate and
correct for poor measurement if several related indicators are available and their theoretical relationship
to the concept of interest is known (Jaccard and Wan 1996).
In spite of the improvements still needed in measurement, quantitative research has steadily
forged ahead into higher orders of complexity. The first studies consisted of cross-tabulations,
correlations, and bivariate regressions, taking one independent variable at a time. The first multivariate
analysis was Cutright's in 1963, but nearly a decade passed before it became the norm to estimate the
partial impact of several independent variables using multiple regression. In the early 1980s some
researchers began exploring interactions between independent variables and fixed effects such as world-system position (Bollen 1983, Gonick and Rosh 1988), a third-order hypothesis. However, these models
were simpler than those being entertained by Latin Americanists of the time. O'Donnell's model of
bureaucratic authoritarianism, for example, was nonlinear, sensitive to cross-national variations and the
historical-structural moment, and defined the nature of links between the national and international levels
of analysis (O'Donnell 1973, Collier 1979). One major advance came in 1985, when Edward Muller
made a distinction between factors that cause transitions to democracy and factors that help already-democratic regimes survive. This distinction was shared by the discussions of the Wilson Center group
that led to Transitions from Authoritarian Rule in 1986 and it has been reinforced by the ambitious
project of Przeworski et al. (1996).
Until very recently almost all quantitative research on democratization was cross-sectional, due
to the lack of a time-series indicator of democracy. Since the late 1980s, however, Freedom House and
Polity II data have been available and are increasingly used to incorporate lagged dependent variables
into quantitative models (Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994, Londregan and Poole 1996). These lagged
effects represent a great step forward in control, because they make it possible to hold constant, even if
crudely, all the unmeasured conditions in each country that do not change from one year to the next.
They also give one more confidence in inferences about causality because the independent variables can
in effect explain changes in the level of democracy over relatively short spans of time.
Scattered studies here and there have employed several other techniques to check out possible
complexities in democratization. Starr (1991) explored evidence for causal influence across cases, i.e.,
the diffusion of democracy. There is little other published quantitative work on democratic diffusion, but
O'Loughlin and Ward at the University of Colorado--Boulder are undertaking an ambitious study of
diffusion (O'Loughlin and Ward 1995). Bratton and Van de Walle's 1996 study of recent African
transitions is also innovative for disaggregating the democratic outcome into a series of dependent
variables--political protests, political liberalization, and democratization, each of which is a stepping-stone to the next. Given the virtual consensus on the idea of stages of democratization--liberalization,
transition, and consolidation or survival--it would seem to be a good idea either to model these stages
separately, as Przeworski et al. have done for survival rates or democratic "life expectancy"; or better
yet, to combine these or other stages as endogenous variables in a unified model. Finally, some of my
own research suggests that the relationship between modernization and democracy depends on which
threshold of democracy is being explained (Coppedge 1997). Unfortunately for parsimony, all of these
studies make such complexities more plausible rather than less: they provide evidence that should lead
us to presume that diffusion, endogeneity, and threshold effects are real. The same may be true of even
more troublesome complexities that remain unexplored. Perhaps the most difficult one is the challenge
of bridging levels of analysis.
Bridging Levels of Analysis
Aside from the few studies of diffusion or interactions with world-system position, all of the
quantitative research mentioned above is cast at the national level of analysis. The widest gulf that
divides large-N studies from small-N comparisons results from the fact that most of the latter are either
cast at the subnational (group or individual) level or move easily between all levels, from individual to
international. Small-N comparison is more flexible in this respect, and this is one of its methodological
advantages. As long as small-N comparativists have information that is plausibly relevant for explaining
democratization, there is nothing to stop them from inserting it into the explanation regardless of its level
of analysis. Thus, case studies routinely mix together national structural factors such as industrialization,
growth rates, or constitutional provisions; group factors such as party or union characteristics; individual
factors such as particular leaders' personalities or decisions; and international factors such as
international commodity prices and U.S. or IMF influence. Quantitative researchers are caught flat-footed when faced with shifting levels of analysis because they go to great pains to build a dataset at one
level, and shifting to a different level requires building a completely different dataset from scratch. The
units of analysis they have are countries and years, at best. To test hypotheses from the O'Donnell-Schmitter-Whitehead project, they would have to collect data about strategic actors rather than countries
and resample at intervals of weeks or months rather than years.(9)
In view of the difficulty of bridging levels of analysis, it is tempting to conclude that the effort is
not necessary: that the choice of a level of analysis is a matter of taste, that those working at the
individual and national levels may eat at Almond's separate tables and need never reconcile their
theories. But from the perspective of methodological perfection outlined in this paper, the level of
analysis is not a matter of taste, because no level of analysis by itself can yield a complete picture of all
the causal relationships that lead to an outcome like democracy. All levels of analysis are, by
themselves, incomplete. Rational-choice advocates are right to insist that any political theory tell us
what is going on at the individual level. This does not mean, however, that claims about associations at a
macro-level do not qualify as theory until one can tell a story about the causal mechanisms at the
individual level. A theory of structural causation is theory, but an incomplete theory, just as theory at the
individual level is incomplete until it tells us what process determined the identities and number of
players, why these players value the ends they pursue rationally and which variety of rationality guides
their choices, how the institutional arena for the game evolved, what process priced the payoffs in the
game, why the rules sometimes change in mid-game, and how the power distribution among actors
determines the macro-outcome. And both microtheories and macrotheories are incomplete until we
understand them in their slowly but constantly evolving historical-structural context.
This insistence on bridging levels of analysis is not mere methodological prudery. Empirical
questions of great theoretical, even paradigmatic, import depend on it: questions such as, "Do
individuals affect democratization at all?" Rational choice assumes that they do; Linz and Stepan (1978)
and O'Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead (1986) asserted that they do. Yet despite all the eloquent
theorizing that led to "tentative conclusions about uncertain transitions," all the cases covered by
Transitions from Authoritarian Rule underwent successful transitions that have lasted remarkably long.
There are many possible explanations for this genuinely surprising outcome, but one that is plausible
enough to require disconfirmation is the idea that these transitions were driven by structural conditions.
Even if it is the case that elites and groups had choices and made consequential decisions at key
moments, their goals, perceptions, and choices may have been decisively shaped by the context in which
they were acting. If so, they may have had a lot of proximate influence but very little independent
influence after controlling for the context. I do not mean to assert this interpretation as fact, but merely
to suggest that it has some plausibility and theoretical importance and to point out that we will never
know how seriously to take it until we bridge these levels of analysis with methods that permit testing of
complex multivariate hypotheses. This effort would require collecting a lot of new data on smaller units
of analysis at shorter time intervals.
Conclusion
Small-N comparison and quantitative large-N analyses need each other. SNC needs to be able to
generalize and test its complex theories; quantitative studies need to be based on richer concepts and a
greater variety of explanatory factors. They have the potential to be quite complementary. However, the
obstacle that stands in the way of a blending of these two approaches is the lack of appropriate data. The
priorities I would suggest for future democratization research are:
1. Conceptual work to identify aspects of democracy that should be restored to its definition.
2. Empirical work to measure all of these components of democracy and identify their dimensions.
3. Operationalization of hypotheses about democratization cast at the group and individual levels.
4. Theoretical work to specify the most plausible functional forms and interactions among
variables.
5. Integration of explanatory models at different levels of analysis.
6. Testing of the resulting complex models with many cases and long time-series.
References
Bates, Robert H. "Letter from the President: Area Studies and the Discipline." APSA-CP: Newsletter of
the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 7:1 (Winter): 1-2.
Berg-Schlosser, Dietrich and GisŠle De Meur. 1994. "Conditions of Democracy in Interwar Europe: A
Boolean Test of Major Hypotheses," Comparative Politics 26:3 (April): 253-80.
Blasier, Cole. 1985. The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America,
1910-1985. Rev. ed. Pittsburgh: U Pittsburgh P.
Bollen, Kenneth. 1983. "World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National
Evidence," American Sociological Review 48: 468-79.
------. 1991. "Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps," in Alex Inkeles, ed., On
Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, pp. 3-20. New Brunswick:
Transaction.
-----. 1993. "Liberal Democracy: Validity and Sources Biases in Cross-National Measures," American
Journal of Political Science 37: 1207-30.
Bollen, Kenneth and Robert Jackman. 1985. "Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of
Income," American Sociological Review 50: 438-57.
Bratton, Michael, and Nicolas van de Walle. 1996. "Democratic Experiments in Africa: Testing
Competing Explanations of Regime Transitions." Paper prepared for delivery at the 1996
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, the San Francisco Hilton and
Towers, August 29-September 1.
Brunk, Gregory C., Gregory A. Caldeira, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 1987. "Capitalism, Socialism,
and Democracy: An Empirical Inquiry," European Journal of Political Research 15: 459-70.
Burkhart, Ross E. and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1994. "Comparative Democracy: The Economic
Development Thesis," American Political Science Review 88:4 (December): 903-910.
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1971. Dependencia y desarrollo en Am‚rica Latina.
M‚xico: Siglo Veintiuno.
Collier, David. 1979. "Overview of the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Model." In David Collier, ed., The
New Authoritarianism in Latin America, pp. 19-32. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Collier, David, and Steven Levitsky. 1997. "Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in
Comparative Research." World Politics 49 (April): 430-51.
Collier, Ruth Berins, and David Collier. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. "Modernization and Thresholds of Democracy: Evidence for a Common Path
and Process," in Manus Midlarsky, ed., Inequality and Democracy. New York: Cambridge UP.
Coppedge, Michael and Wolfgang Reinicke. 1990. "A Scale of Polyarchy," Studies in Comparative
and International Development 25:1 (Spring): 51-72.
Cutright, Phillips. 1963. "National Political Development: Measurement and Analysis," American
Sociological Review 28: 253-64.
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale UP.
-----. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale UP.
Dahl, Robert A., and Charles E. Lindblom. 1953. Politics, Economics, and Welfare: Planning and
Politico-Economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes. New York: Harper.
Diamond, Larry. 1992. "Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered," in Gary Marks and
Larry Diamond, eds., Reexamining Democracy, pp. 93-139. Newbury Park: SAGE.
-----. 1996. "Is the Third Wave of Democracy Over?" Unpublished excerpts from Developing
Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Freedom House. 1991. "Survey Methodology." In Freedom in the World 1990-91, pp. 49-52. New
York: Freedom House.
Gasiorowski, Mark J. "Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis."
American Political Science Review 89:4 (December): 882-97.
-----. 1997. "An Overview of the Political Regime Change Dataset." Comparative Political Studies
29:4 (August): 469-83.
Geddes, Barbara. 1997. "Paradigms and Sandcastles: Research Design in Comparative Politics." APSA-CP: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 8:1 (Winter): 18-20.
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Michael D. Ward. 1997. "Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and
Autocracy in Modern Polities." Journal of Conflict Resolution 41:3 (June).
Gonick, Lev S. and Robert M. Rosh. 1988. "The Structural Constraints of the World-Economy on
National Political Development," Comparative Political Studies 21: 171-99.
Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and Development. Cambridge UP.
Haggard, Stephan, and Robert Kaufman. 1997. "The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions."
Comparative Politics 29:3 (April): 263-83.
Hannan, Michael T. and Glenn R. Carroll. 1981. "Dynamics of Formal Political Structure: An Event-History Analysis," American Sociological Review 46: 19-35.
Hartlyn, Jonathan, and Arturo Valenzuela. 1994. "Democracy in Latin America Since 1930." In Leslie
Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History of Latin America, v. VI: Latin America Since 1930:
Economy, Society, and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Hopple, Gerald W., and Jo L. Husbands, eds. 1991. "Assessing Progress Toward Democracy: Summary
Report of a Workshop." Panel on Issues in Democratization, Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century Norman:
U Oklahoma P.
Inkeles, Alex. 1990. "Introduction: On Measuring Democracy." Studies in Comparative International
Development 25:1 (Spring): 3-6.
Jaccard, James, and Choi K. Wan. 1996. LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple
Regression. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences,
series no. 07-114. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.
Jackman, Robert W. 1973. "On the Relation of Economic Development and Democratic Performance,"
American Journal of Political Science 17: 611-21.
Jaggers, Keith, and Ted Robert Gurr. 1995. "Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III
Data." Journal of Peace Research 32 (November): 469-82.
Johnson, John J. 1958. Political Change in Latin America: The Emergence of the Middle Sectors.
Stanford: Stanford UP.
Karl, Terry Lynn. 1997. The Paradox of Plenty : Oil Booms and Petro-States. Studies in International
Political Economy, No. 26. U California P, forthcoming.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In John
Worrall and Gregory Currie, eds., The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, pp. 8-101. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society. New York: Free Press.
Levine, Daniel H. 1994. "Goodbye to Venezuelan Exceptionalism." Journal of Inter-American Studies
and World Affairs 36:4 (Winter): 145-82.
Li, R.P.Y. and W.R. Thompson. 1975. "The Coup Contagion' Hypothesis," Journal of Conflict
Resolution 19: 63-88.
Linz, Juan J. 1970 (republication of a 1964 article). "An Authoritarian Regime: Spain." In Erik Allardt
and Stein Rokkan, eds., Mass Politics, pp. 251-83. New York: Free Press.
-----. 1975. "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes." In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby,
eds., Handbook of Political Science, v. 3: Macropolitical Theory, pp. 175-411. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
-----. 1994. "Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference?" in Juan J. Linz and
Arturo Valenzuela, eds., The Failure of Presidential Democracy, pp. 3-87. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins UP.
Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins UP.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy," American Political Science Review 53 (March): 69-105.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Kyoung-Ryung Seong, and John Charles Torres. 1993. "A Comparative
Analysis of the Social Requisites of Democracy," International Social Science Journal 136
(May): 155-75.
Londregan, John B. and Keith T. Poole. 1996. "Does High Income Promote Democracy?" World
Politics 49:1 (October): 1-30.
Long, J. Scott. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-033. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.
Loveman, Brian. 1994. " Protected Democracies' and Military Guardianship: Political Transitions in
Latin America, 1978-1993." Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 36 (Summer):
105-189.
Lowenthal, Abraham. 1991. "The U.S. and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History." In
Lowenthal, ed., Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America, pp. 261-83.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Mainwaring, Scott. 1993. "Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination,"
Comparative Political Studies 26 (July): 198-228.
Muller, Edward N. 1988. "Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality," American
Sociological Review 53:2 (February): 50-68.
-----. 1995. "Economic Determinants of Democracy," American Sociological Review 60:4 (December):
966-82, and debate with Bollen and Jackman following on pp. 983-96.
Munck, Gerardo L. 1996. "Disaggregating Political Regime: Conceptual Issues in the Study of
Democratization." Working Paper No. 228. Notre Dame, Ind.: Kellogg Institute.
O'Donnell, Guillermo A. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South
American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, U California, Berkeley.
-----. 1993. "On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View
with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries." World Development 21: 1355-69.
-----. 1994. "Delegative Democracy." Journal of Democracy 5 (April): 57-74.
O'Donnell, Guillermo and Phillippe Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative
Conclusions about Uncertain Transitions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
O'Donnell, Guillermo, Phillippe Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, eds. 1986. Transitions from
Authoritarian Rule. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
O'Loughlin, John, and Michael D. Ward. 1995. "The Spatial and Temporal Diffusion of Democracy,
1815-1994." Abridged proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.
Popper, Karl R. 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row.
Power, Timothy J., and Mark J. Gasiorowski. 1997. "Institutional Design and Democratic Consolidation
in the Third World." Comparative Political Studies 30:2 (April): 123-55.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jos‚ Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 1996. "What
Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy 7:1 (January): 39-55.
Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies. Berkeley: U California P.
Remmer, Karen L. 1996. "The Sustainability of Political Democracy: Lessons from South America."
Comparative Political Studies 29:6 (December): 611-34.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1991. "Different Methods, Contradictory Results? Research on Development
and Democracy," International Journal of Comparative Sociology 32:1-2: 9-38.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, John D. Stephens, and Evelyne Huber Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Development
and Democracy. U Chicago P.
Rustow, Dankwart. 1970. "Transitions to Democracy," Comparative Politics 2: 337-63.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1973. Democratic Theory. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
-----. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not." Journal of
Democracy 2 (Summer): 75-88.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York and London: Harper
and Brothers.
Starr, Harvey. 1991. "Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the
International System," Journal of Conflict Resolution 35:2 (June): 356-381.
Stepan, Alfred. 1971. The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Stepan, Alfred and Cindy Skach. 1993. "Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarism and Presidentialism," World Politics 46 (October): 1-22.
Vanhanen, Tatu. 1990. The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States, 1980-88.
NY: Crane Russak.
Wiarda, Howard J. 1981. Corporatism and National Development in Latin America. Boulder, Colo. :
Westview.