Notes
Democracy and Dictatorship: Conceptualization
and Measurement
Matt Golder & Sona Golder
Pennsylvania State University
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
We live in a world that agrees on the importance and desirability of democracy.
But it hasn’t always been like that.
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
The ancient Greeks were some of the first to start thinking about the merits of
different forms of regime.
Demokratia is the Greek word meaning “rule by the demos.”
Although the Greek word demos often gets translated as “the people,” it refers
more specifically to the “common people” – those people with little or no
economic independence who are politically uneducated.
Many believed that the demos would pursue their own interests at the expense
of the commonweal.
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
Plato did not see democracy as government by the people.
5: Democracy and Dictatorship: Conceptualization and Measurement
147
Instead,
he saw it
as government
poor and
uneducated
against
the rich
people”—those
people
with little orbynothe
economic
independence
who
were politically
uneducated
(Hanson 1989, 71). Ultimately, Plato thought that democracy would not be rule
and
educated.
by the people but would be rule by the poor and uneducated against the rich and educated.
In addition, he believed that the uneducated mass would be open to demagoguery, leading
to short-lived democracies in which the people quickly surrender power to a tyrant (Baradat
Plato
that political decisions should be based on expertise and that
2006,believed
63).
allowing
all people
to rule would
lead
toPlato
mobtorule
and class
warfare.
Aristotle
(350 BCE/1996)
disagreed
with
the extent
that he
believed that there
were some conditions under which the will of the many could be equal to or wiser than the
will of the few (1281b). This is not to say, however, that he thought highly of democracy. In
his Politics, Aristotle (350 BCE/1996) classified regimes in regard to the number of rulers that
they had, stating that government “must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many”
(1279a.27–28). His classification is shown in Table 5.1. He believed that regimes come in
good and bad forms. In good forms of regime the rulers govern for the good of all, whereas
in bad forms they govern only for the good of themselves (Aristotle 350 BCE/1996,
1279a.17–21). The good forms of regime were monarchy, aristocracy, and politeia; the bad
forms were tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (Aristotle 350 BCE/1996, 1279b.4–10).
The concern for Aristotle was that each of the good forms of regime could be corrupted in
that the common good could be replaced by the good of the rulers. For example, a corrupted
monarchy would become a tyranny, a corrupted aristocracy would become an oligarchy, and
a corrupted politeia would become a democracy. Aristotle argues that we should choose the
type of regime that had the least dangerous corrupt form. For Aristotle, this was aristocracy.
Like Plato, Aristotle believed that democracy would be the most dangerous form of regime
because it is characterized by class rule, in which poor and uneducated citizens govern for
themselves rather than the commonweal. Some of the same fears about democracy—that it
would result in class warfare, attempts by the poor to expropriate the rich, and so forth—were
just as strong in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when people were debating whether
to extend the suffrage (Offe 1983; Roemer 1998). For example, Marx (1850/1952, 62) stated
that universal suffrage and democracy inevitably “unchain the class struggle.” These fears
have also motivated efforts to restrict voting by certain categories of individuals during the
twentieth century in the United States (Piven and Cloward 1988, 2000).
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
Table 5.1
Number of rulers
Aristotle’s Classification of Regimes
Good form
“For the Good of All”
Bad form
“For the Good of the Rulers”
One
Monarchy
Tyranny
Few
Aristocracy
Oligarchy
Many
Politeia
Democracy
Aristotle saw democracy as the most dangerous of the corrupt forms of regime.
Democracy was class rule by the worst class.
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
Democracy was not associated with elections.
Until the 18th century, democracy was seen as a regime in which offices
were distributed by lot.
Democracy was viewed as obsolete.
Democracy meant direct legislation, not representative government.
Monarchy was consistently preferred to democracy by political thinkers.
Democracy and Dictatorship in Historical Perspective
Notes
Things began to change in the Age of Revolution (1775-1848).
People had talked about representative government, not democracy.
But “democracy” and “aristocracy” came to designate the main lines of
cleavage in the Age of Revolution.
The classical 3-way distinction between the one, the few, and the many was
gradually replaced by the 2-way distinction between democracy and autocracy.
Classifying Democracies and Dictatorships
Notes
Research Questions
Why are some countries democracies and others dictatorship?
Do democracies or dictatorships produce better economic performance?
What factors influence democratic survival?
All of these questions require that we be able to classify countries as
democratic or dictatorial.
Classifying Democracies and Dictatorships
Notes
Democracy is an abstract theoretical concept.
When we test our theories we do not observe the concept of democracy in the
real world.
Instead, we only get to evaluate indicators or measures of our concept.
A measure or indicator is a quantification of the concept or thing in which
we are interested.
Classifying Democracies and Dictatorships
Notes
The central notion underlying our contemporary concept of democracy is that
the “people” rather than some subset of the people should rule.
But how should we translate this abstract concept into a practical set of
criteria for classifying political regimes?
Classifying Democracies and Dictatorships
Notes
The central notion underlying our contemporary concept of democracy is that
the “people” rather than some subset of the people should rule.
But how should we translate this abstract concept into a practical set of
criteria for classifying political regimes?
1
A substantive view of democracy classifies political regimes in regard to
the outcomes that they produce.
2
A minimalist or procedural view of democracy classifies political regimes
in regard to their institutions and procedures.
Dahl’s View of Democracy
Notes
Robert Dahl proposed a minimalist view of democracy.
Two dimensions
1
Contestation captures the extent to which citizens are free to organize
themselves into competing blocs in order to press for the policies and
outcomes they desire.
2
Inclusion has to do with who gets to participate in the democratic process.
A polyarchy is a political regime with high levels of both contestation and
inclusion.
Dahl’s View of Democracy
5: Democracy and Dictatorship: Conceptualization and Measurement
Figure 5.1
151
Notes
Dahl’s Two Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and
Inclusion
Contestation
Polyarchies
(Ideal Type)
Apartheid
South Africa
US before 1830
Switzerland pre-1971
France pre-1945
China
US today
Soviet Union
Inclusion
along the inclusion dimension. For example, Liechtenstein pre-1984, Switzerland pre-1971,
and France pre-1945 had high levels of contestation due to multiparty elections, but they had
only moderate levels of inclusion because universal suffrage applied only to men. Most of the
countries that we immediately recognize as being democracies today would be in the top
right-hand corner of Figure 5.1 with high levels of both contestation and inclusion.
Dahl (1971) conceded that contestation and inclusion are only two aspects of what
people take into account when they think of the concept of democracy. As a result, he was
willing to drop the use of the term democracy altogether.
A polyarchy is a political regime with high levels of
Instead, he used the word polyarchy to describe a politiboth contestation and inclusion.
cal regime with high levels of both contestation and
inclusion. Another reason for preferring the term polyarchy was that he did not believe that
any large country exhibited, or could exhibit, sufficient levels of contestation or inclusion to
rightfully be considered a true democracy—countries could be closer or farther away from
the ideal type of democracy, but they could never actually get there. Although the emphasis
on contestation and inclusion has stuck and been incorporated into many of the subsequent
measures of regime type, the term polyarchy has not. Comparative politics scholars continue
to talk about democracy even when their operational definitions are no more ambitious
(and frequently less ambitious) than Dahl’s. We follow the practice of the comparative politics literature in using the word democracy even when discussing the procedural or minimalist definitions inspired by Dahl.
Three Measures of Democracy and Dictatorship
Notes
Three different measures
1
Democracy-Dictatorship (DD) Measure, click
2
Polity IV Measure, click
3
Freedom House Measure, click
here
here
here
Democracy-Dictatorship Measure
Notes
Democracies are regimes in which governmental offices are filled as a
consequence of contested elections.
A country is classified as a democracy if all of the following conditions apply:
1
The chief executive is elected.
2
The legislature is elected.
3
There is more than one party competing in the elections.
4
An alternation in power under identical electoral rules has taken place.
A country is classified as a dictatorship if any of these four conditions do not
hold.
Democracy-Dictatorship Measure
Notes
The DD measure builds on Dahl’s insights in two ways.
1
Minimalist view of democracy.
2
Emphasis on contestation.
The main difference is that the DD measure treats regime type as a dichotomy.
A dichotomous measure has only two discrete categories or values.
A continuous measure can take on any intermediate value within a given
range.
Democracy-Dictatorship Measure
Figure 5.2a
5: Democracy and Dictatorship: Conceptualization and Measurement
155
5: Democracy Conceptualization
and Dictatorship: Conceptualization
Measurement
DD’s Dichotomous
of Regimeand
Type
155
Dictatorships
More
Figure
5.2a
Dictatorial
Democracies
Less Conceptualization
Less
DD’s Dichotomous
of RegimeMore
Type
Dictatorial
Democratic
Dictatorships
More
Notes
Democratic
Democracies
Less
Less
More
Figure
5.2b
Dictatorial
Dahl’s Continuous
Conceptualization
of Regime
Type
Dictatorial
Democratic
Democratic
More
Dictatorial
Figure 5.2b
Dahl’s Continuous Conceptualization of Regime Type
More
Dictatorial
More
Democratic
More
Democratic
Polity IV
An alternative measure of democracy comes from Polity IV (Marshall, Gurr, and Jaggers
2010). Polity IV provides an annual measure of democracy and autocracy for 190 polities
from 1800 to the present. The Democracy and Autocracy scores for each country both range
Polity IV
from 0 to 10. From these two measures, a Polity Score is constructed for each country. The
An
alternative
measure of
comes
from
Polity
(Marshall,
Gurr,
Jaggers
Polity
Score is calculated
as democracy
the Democracy
Score
minus
theIV
Autocracy
Score.
As and
a result,
the
2010).
Polityfor
IVeach
provides
an annual
measure
of democracy
autocracy or
fordictatorial
190 polities
Polity Score
country
ranges from
a minimum
of –10and
(as autocratic
as
from
1800totoa the
present.of
The
andas
Autocracy
country
range
possible)
maximum
10 Democracy
(as democratic
possible).scores
Polityfor
IVeach
follows
Dahl both
in concepfrom
0 to and
10. From
these two
measures,
a Polity
Score is constructed
each country.
The
tualizing
measuring
democracy
along
a continuum
like the onefor
illustrated
in Figure
Polity
Score
is calculated
the Democracy
Score minus
Autocracy
As a result,
the
5.2b. In
practice,
though,asmany
scholars choose
to codethecountries
as Score.
democracies
if their
Polity
for+6
each
country
ranges from
a minimum
of –10
(astoautocratic
oran
dictatorial
as
Polity Score
Score is
to +10,
dictatorships
if their
Polity Score
is –6
–10, and as
“anocracy”
possible)
to
a
maximum
of
10
(as
democratic
as
possible).
Polity
IV
follows
Dahl
in
concep5
or “mixed regime” if the Polity Score is between –5 and 5. Polity IV also follows Dahl in
tualizing
measuring
democracy
along a continuum
the one illustrated
Figure
providingand
a largely
minimalist
or procedural
measure oflike
democracy,
because it in
does
not
5.2b.
In substantive
practice, though,
many scholars choose to code countries as democracies if their
address
outcomes.
Polity
Score
+6 to
+10, dictatorships
if their the
Polity
ScoreScore?
is –6 to
and asPolity
an “anocracy”
What
areisthe
precise
rules that generate
Polity
A –10,
country’s
Score is
or
“mixed
regime”
if the attributes
Polity Score
between –5 and
5.5 Polity
IV also follows
Dahl in
based
on five
different
orisdimensions:
(a) the
competitiveness
of executive
providing
a largely
procedural
measure of
because
it does
recruitment,
(b) theminimalist
openness oforexecutive
recruitment,
(c)democracy,
the constraints
that exist
on not
the
address
substantive
outcomes. of political participation, and (e) the competitiveness of
executive,
(d) the regulation
What are the precise rules that generate the Polity Score? A country’s Polity Score is
based on five different attributes or dimensions: (a) the competitiveness of executive
5. Other scholars(b)
pickthe
different
cut-points
for decidingrecruitment,
whether a country
be consideredthat
a democracy
an
recruitment,
openness
of executive
(c) should
the constraints
exist onorthe
autocracy. The decision of where to place the cut-points is rarely, if ever, justified in a theoretical manner. Unfortunately,
executive,
the that
regulation
political
participation,
and
(e) thetests
competitiveness
of
there is reason (d)
to believe
the choice ofofwhere
to place the
cut-points matters
in empirical
(Coppedge 1997; Elkins
Polity IV Measure
2000; Pemstein et al. 2010).
5. Other scholars pick different cut-points for deciding whether a country should be considered a democracy or an
autocracy. The decision of where to place the cut-points is rarely, if ever, justified in a theoretical manner. Unfortunately,
reason to believe
that the choice
of where to place
cut-points mattersand
in empirical
tests (Coppedge 1997; Elkins
Polity there
IV isprovides
annual
measures
of the
democracy
autocracy.
2000; Pemstein et al. 2010).
Democracy score, 0-10.
Autocracy score, 0-10.
Polity IV provides an annual polity score.
Polity Score = Democracy Score − Autocracy Score.
Polity Score ranges from -10 to 10.
Notes
Polity IV Measure
Notes
A country’s polity score is based on five different attributes or dimensions.
1
Competitiveness of executive recruitment.
2
Openness of executive recruitment.
3
Regulation of political participation.
4
Competitiveness of political participation.
5
Executive constraints.
Polity IV is minimalist and captures Dahl’s notion of inclusion and contestation.
Polity IV Measure
Notes
A country’s polity score is based on five different attributes or dimensions.
1
Competitiveness of executive recruitment.
2
Openness of executive recruitment.
3
Regulation of political participation.
4
Competitiveness of political participation.
5
Executive constraints.
Polity IV is minimalist and captures Dahl’s notion of inclusion and contestation.
156
Principles of Comparative Politics
It adds the idea that democratic governments should also be limited.
political participation. Together, these dimensions capture Dahl’s notion of both contestation and inclusion. By including “constraints that exist on the executive,” Polity IV actually
adds an additional dimension to Dahl’s concept of democracy—that democratic governments must be limited governments.6 Each of Polity IV’s five attributes contributes a different number of points to a country’s Democracy and Autocracy scores. As an illustration,
consider the “competitiveness of political participation” dimension (an indicator of the
degree of contestation) and the “regulation of political participation” dimension (an indicator of the degree of inclusion) in the political system. The possible scores for these
dimensions are shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3.
If political participation is considered competitive in a country by those scholars coding
it, then that country will have 3 added to its Democracy Score and 0 to its Autocracy Score.7
In contrast, if political participation is considered suppressed by the coders, then 2 will be
added to its autocracy score and 0 to its democracy score. If a country’s political participation is considered restricted by the coder, then 2 will be added to that country’s Autocracy
Score and 0 to its Democracy Score. Note that the numbers or “weights” vary across these
two dimensions. The scores from each of these dimensions are added together to come up
with a country’s overall Democracy, Autocracy, and Polity scores.
Freedom House
Freedom House is an independent, nongovernmental organization that has, among other
things, provided an annual measure of “global freedom” for countries around the world since
Polity IV Measure
1972.8 The 2011 Freedom in the World survey covers 194 countries and fourteen related and
disputed territories. Although the measure provided by Freedom House is not technically a
Table 5.2
Competitiveness of Political Participation
Contribution to
Democracy Score
Contribution to
Autocracy Score
Contribution to
Polity Score
Competitive
3
0
3
Transitional
2
0
Factional
1
0
1
Restricted
0
1
–1
0
2
–2
Suppressed
Notes
2
5: Democracy and Dictatorship: Conceptualization and Measurement
6. It is interesting to note that most of the variation in Polity Scores across countries actually comes from this additional
“constraints on the executive” dimension (Gleditsch and Ward 1997).
7. To know precisely what is meant by competitive, transitional, factional, and so on, see the Polity IV Dataset Users’ manual
at http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2009.pdf.
of Political Participation
Table
8. You
can 5.3
find Freedom Regulation
House online at http://www.freedomhouse.org.
Contribution to
Democracy Score
Contribution to
Autocracy Score
Regulated
0
0
Contribution to
Polity Score
Multiple Identity
0
0
0
Sectarian
0
1
–1
Restricted
0
2
–2
Unregulated
0
0
0
0
measure of democracy, many scholars use it as if it were, presumably under the assumption
that democracy and freedom are synonymous. We leave it up to you to decide whether it is
reasonable to assume that the more freedom exhibited by a country, the more democratic it is.
A country’s Freedom House score is based on two dimensions capturing a country’s level
of political rights and civil rights. The amount of freedom on the political rights dimension
is measured by a series of ten questions, each worth between 0 and 4 points, covering three
primary categories: (i) the electoral process, (ii) political pluralism and participation, and
(iii) the functioning of government. The following are examples of the types of questions
asked on the political dimension: Is the head of state elected in free and fair elections? Is
there pervasive corruption? Is the government open, accountable, and transparent between
elections? Do people have the right to organize? Is there a competitive opposition? Do
minorities have reasonable autonomy? Whatever score a country gets out of the possible 40
points is then converted to a 7-point scale. Thus, each country ultimately receives a score of
157
Freedom House Measure
Notes
Freedom House is technically a measure of global freedom, not regime type.
Two categories:
1
Political rights.
2
Civil rights.
Based on scores for political and civil rights, Freedom House classifies countries
are Free, Partly Free, and Not Free.
Freedom House Measure
Notes
The amount of freedom on the political rights dimension is measured by a
series of 10 questions, each worth between 0 and 4 points.
Three categories:
1
Electoral Process.
2
Political pluralism and participation.
3
Functioning of government.
A country’s score out of 40 is converted to a 7-point scale.
Freedom House Measure
Notes
The amount of freedom on the civil rights dimension is measured by a series of
15 questions, each worth between 0 and 4 points.
Four categories:
1
Freedom of expression and belief.
2
Associational and organizational rights.
3
Rule of law.
4
Personal autonomy and individual rights.
A country’s score out of 60 is converted to a 7-point scale.
Freedom House Measure
Notes
A country’s overall Freedom House score is the average of its political and civil
rights scores.
Freedom House captures Dahl’s notion of inclusion and contestation.
The big difference is that it employs a substantive view of democracy.
Comparing Democracy and Dictatorship Scores in 2008
Map 5.1
Democracy-Dictatorship
Notes
Dictatorship
Mixed
Democracy
Not rated
Polity IV
Freedom House
CQ Press
Principles of Comparative Politics, 2e
Map 5.1 Comparing Democracy and Dictatorship Scores in 2008
Second Proof
International Mapping
1/6/2012
160
Principles of Comparative Politics
Table 5.4
Country
Three Different Measures of Regime Type in 2008
DD
Polity IV (–10–10)
Freedom House (1–7)
Egypt
Dictatorship
Dictatorship (–3)
Dictatorship (5.5)
Pakistan
Dictatorship
Dictatorship (–5)
Dictatorship (5.5)
China
Dictatorship
Dictatorship (–7)
Dictatorship (6.5)
Iran
Dictatorship
Dictatorship (–6)
Dictatorship (6)
Algeria
Dictatorship
Mixed (2)
Dictatorship (5.5)
Russia
Dictatorship
Mixed (4)
Dictatorship (5.5)
Rwanda
Dictatorship
Mixed (–3)
Dictatorship (5.5)
Zimbabwe
Dictatorship
Mixed (–4)
Dictatorship (6.5)
Tunisia
Dictatorship
Mixed (–4)
Dictatorship (6)
Botswana
Dictatorship
Democracy (8)
Democracy (2)
Sierra Leone
Democracy
Democracy (7)
Mixed (3)
Nigeria
Democracy
Mixed (4)
Mixed (4)
Turkey
Democracy
Democracy (7)
Mixed (3)
Argentina
Democracy
Democracy (8)
Democracy (2)
United States
Democracy
Democracy (10)
Democracy (1)
Israel
Democracy
Democracy (10)
Democracy (1.5)
France
Democracy
Democracy (9)
Democracy (1)
Evaluating Measures of Democracy and Dictatorship
In order to test our theories about abstract concepts such as democracy and dictatorship, we
need to find measures of those concepts. The process by which scholars operationalize their
measures will always involve some simplification or loss of meaning. It is important to recognize, however, that simplification is an essential part of the scientific process, for without
it, empirical tests of our theories would be impossible. Still, this does not mean that all
measures are created equal. Some measures are better than others. It is incumbent upon
researchers to justify both the construction and the use of whatever measure they employ in
their research. Whether a particular measure is appropriate or not will depend heavily on
the specific objective or research question of the scholar (Collier and Adcock 1999). With
this in mind, we also often evaluate measures in terms of their conceptualization, validity,
reliability, and replicability.
Notes
Evaluation
Notes
We can evaluate measures in different ways.
Conceptualization.
Validity.
Reliability.
Replicability.
Evaluation: Conceptualization
Notes
Conceptualization is the process of creating mental categories that capture the
meaning of objects, events, or ideas.
Minimalist vs. substantive view of democracy.
Dichotomous vs. continuous view of democracy.
Evaluation: Conceptualization
Notes
The research question matters.
The substantive view of democracy runs into problems if the researcher wants
to know how regime type influences particular outcomes.
If we define democracy substantively in terms of, say, inequality, we
cannot examine the effect of regime type on inequality without engaging
in circular reasoning.
The Return of Goldilocks in . . . Civil War and the Three Regimes, click
here
Evaluation: Conceptualization
Notes
Identifying causes.
It is easier to identify causes with minimalist measures of democracy.
If a study using Freedom House finds a positive relationship between
democracy and economic development, how do we know which of the 25
underlying attributes is driving the observed relationship?
Evaluation: Conceptualization
Notes
Scholars can reasonably disagree about whether regime type is dichotomous or
continuous.
Again, the research question may matter.
Impact of economic factors on democratic transitions.
Impact of foreign intervention on level of democracy.
Evaluation: Validity
Notes
Validity refers to the extent to which our measures correspond to the concepts
that they are intended to reflect.
Several things are important for validity:
Attributes.
Aggregation issues.
Measurement level.
Evaluation: Validity
Notes
You might ask whether a particular measure includes the correct attributes.
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules for determining which attributes
a measure should include.
At the very least, scholars should try to avoid using too many attributes
because this reduces the usefulness of the measure.
Evaluation: Validity
Notes
Once you have chosen your attributes, how do you aggregate them into a single
measure?
Freedom House
Is it appropriate to weight the civil and political rights dimensions equally?
Polity IV
Is it appropriate to think that moving from a 1 to a 2 on one dimension is
equivalent to moving from a 3 to a 4 on another?
Evaluation: Validity
Notes
Once you have aggregated your attributes, you have decide the appropriate
measurement level
A nominal measure classifies observations into discrete categories that must be
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
An ordinal measure rank-orders observations.
An interval measure places observations on a scale so that we can tell how
much more or less of the thing being measured each observation exhibits.
Evaluation: Reliability
Notes
Reliability refers to the extent to which the measurement process repeatedly
and consistently produces the same score for a given case.
The reliability of a measure is likely to depend on the extent to which the
measure is based on observables rather subjective judgements.
Evaluation: Reliability and Validity
Notes
166
Principles of Comparative Politics
Figure 5.3
Comparing the Reliability and Validity of Three
Measures
Reliable, but Not Valid
Valid, but Not Reliable
Valid and Reliable
italicized words suggests that they might code the same country differently and, hence, that
the resultant measure would be unreliable. A useful way to determine whether a measure
suffers from reliability problems is to empirically assess interobserver reliability by examining the degree to which different observers give consistent estimates of the same phenomenon. While Polity IV has conducted some checks for intercoder reliability in recent years, we
know of no such checks from Freedom House (Coppedge et al. 2011, 251).
Replicability
Another way to evaluate different measures is in regard to their replicability. Replicability
refers to the ability of third-party scholars to reproduce the process through which a measure
is created. King (1995, 2003) has been one of the stronReplicability refers to the ability of third-party
gest proponents of replication. He argues that for “any
scholars to reproduce the process through which a
empirical work enough information should be made
measure is created.
available that a third party can comprehend, analyze,
replicate, and evaluate the results without further information from the original author” (King 2003, 72). Replicability is important because it
allows researchers who were not party to the construction of a particular measure to independently evaluate its reliability and validity.
At a minimum, replicability requires that scholars provide clear coding rules and make
Replicability
refers to the ability of third-party scholars to reproduce the process
their disaggregated data available. The three measures of regime type that we have examined
through
which
a to
measure
is created.
vary in the
extent
which they
are replicable. For example, DD and Polity IV provide much
more detailed and clear coding rules for constructing their measures of regime type than
Freedom House does. In fact, Freedom House provides no coding rules for why a country
Evaluation: Replicability
Replicability is important because it allows researchers that are not party to the
construction of a particular measure to independently evaluate the reliability
and validity of that measure.
At a minimum, replicability requires that scholars provide clear coding rules and
make their disaggregated data available.
Notes