Coppedge, Michael, et al. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach". Perspectives on Politics, Vol.9, No.2 (2011): 247-267.

Coppedge, Michael, et al. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach". Perspectives on Politics, Vol.9, No.2 (2011): 247-267.

• Although there is no consensus on the best methods for measuring and quantifying democracy, it remains a necessary task because without a form of measurement there is no way to tell the progress or regress of democracy globally or in the case of specific countries, restrict the ability to make crucial policy decisions (247-248).
• There is a huge debate about the definition of democracy for the purpose of measurement, with some studies ignoring key factors like size of electorate and others including tangential factors like levels of corruption in their assessment of democracy (248-249).
• The precision of measurement differs widely among different indices, with the weakest reducing democracy to a dummy variable of 'yes' or 'no'. Even more advanced systems fail to differentiate between different types of democratic strengths of weaknesses, giving countries the same result even if the reasons for their placement are widely different (249).
• Many indices of democracy depend on the opinions of experts to establish the values given to different criteria. Often, the criteria for establishing these values are unclear or non-existent, meaning numbers are generated subjectively and without any basis for comparison (250).
• The aggregation of variables explaining democracy differs between indices, with most adopting weighting schemes that give different elements different weights in calculating democracy. Few systems, however, use more complex calculations than just adding scores, meaning that overall scores may not reflect serious deficiencies in some core elements of democracy (250-251).
• The collection and distribution of disaggregate data is often more useful, as it allows observers to look at specific strengths and weakness of democracy in a country and come to their own conclusions about the degree to which that state constitutes a democracy (251).
• Current indices of democracy have a purpose in establishing global trends in the levels of democracy or calculating major changes at the national level, but are not precise or valid tools for determining small changes in the level of democracy or calculating the success of democracy-promotion activities (252).
• The authors are interested in establishing a new index of democracy which has historical range, captures multiple interpretations of democracy, presents heavily disaggregated data, and is as transparent as possible in the data collection and analysis process (252).
• Recognizing the diversity of democracies existing in the world, this index includes measurement of democracies which are electoral, defined by minimalist standards; liberal, requiring civil liberties and protection of minority rights; majoritarian, emphasizing the importance of majority rule; participatory, stressing direct governance; deliberative, stressing the importance of dialogue and consensus; and egalitarian, defined by civil and political equality (253-254).
• Each one of these six definitions makes up a separate measurement of democracy that polities are tested on. While states may not score the same on each measurement, healthier democracies will have overall higher scores and autocracies will score lower on all measurements (254).
• The concepts which make up the definitions of democracy used in this index number 32 in total, being combined in different ways for different definitions, and are available on pages 255 and 256.
• The authors expect that the values for their index will be created through consultation with area studies experts or historians to determine the appropriate scores for different countries at different times. These experts will be paired with political scientists, who will determine where their country falls within a larger context (258).
• The transparency of the process of assigning coded values is critical, as these scores are fundamentally subjective. Preferably, all scores would be available online for comment, allowing interested people on the internet to comment with new information advocating adjustments to given scores (258).
• The major issue with most indices of democracy, that this index would not suffer from, is that they generate only a single score for the democracy of a country, ignoring the substantially different ways in which a country can be democratic or non-democratic. This index will both be disaggregate and include multiple measures for democracy, solving the problem (258).
• The measure of democracy proposed by this set of authors will make democracy a more useful variable for statistical analysis, because now specific aspects and types of democracy can be measured for the effect on other variables. Different forms of democracy must have had different outcomes, but before now they could not be comparatively measured (260).
• Having a good indicator for levels of democracy is important in multiple ways because of how these scores are used. Large international organizations use these scores in their policy-making process, and many states also view these scores as major sources of legitimacy, meaning they exercise influence on international relations (259).
• The new index of democracy proposed by the authors would be significantly more useful for policy-making since it highlights which elements of democracy are worst in the country so that reforms can be specifically targeted at the unique national issues (259).