DOCSLIB.ORG

Dilemmas-Of-Pluralist-Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dilemmas-Of-Pluralist-Democracy cover next page > title: Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy : Autonomy Vs. Control Yale Studies in Political Science ; 31 author: Dahl, Robert Alan. publisher: Yale University Press isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: 9780300030761 ebook isbn13: 9780585348797 language: English subject Democracy, Pluralism (Social sciences) , Associations, institutions, etc, Public interest. publication date: 1982 lcc: JC423.D249 1982eb ddc: 321.8 subject: Democracy, Pluralism (Social sciences) , Associations, institutions, etc, Public interest. cover next page > < previous page cover-0 next page > Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy < previous page cover-0 next page > cover next page > title: Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy : Autonomy Vs. Control Yale Studies in Political Science ; 31 author: Dahl, Robert Alan. publisher: Yale University Press isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: 9780300030761 ebook isbn13: 9780585348797 language: English subject Democracy, Pluralism (Social sciences) , Associations, institutions, etc, Public interest. publication date: 1982 lcc: JC423.D249 1982eb ddc: 321.8 subject: Democracy, Pluralism (Social sciences) , Associations, institutions, etc, Public interest. cover next page > < previous page page_i next page > Page i Yale Studies in Political Science, 31 < previous page page_i next page > < previous page page_iii next page > Page iii Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy Autonomy vs. Control Robert A. Dahl < previous page page_iii next page > < previous page page_iv next page > Page iv Copyright © 1982 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by James J. Johnson and set in Caledonia Roman. Printed in the United States of America by Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, N.Y Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Dahl, Robert Alan, 1915- Dilemmas of pluralist democracy. (Yale studies in political science; 31) Includes index. 1. Democracy. 2. Pluralism (Social sciences) 3. Associations, institutions, etc. 4. Public interest. I. Title. II. Series. JC423. D249 321.8 81-16111 ISBN 0-300-02543-2 AACR2 0-300-03076-2 (pbk.) 9 10 < previous page page_iv next page > < previous page page_v next page > Page v To Ann < previous page page_v next page > < previous page page_vii next page > Page vii All political societies are composed of other, smaller societies of different types, each of which has its interests and maxims. The will of these particular societies always has two relations: for the members of the association, it is a general will; for the large society, it is a private will, which is very often found to be upright in the first respect and vicious in the latter. Rousseau, Political Economy (1755) In order for the general will to be well expressed, it is therefore important that there be no partial society in the State, and that each citizen give only his own opinion. If there are partial societies, their number must be multiplied and their inequality prevented. These precautions are the only valid means of ensuring that the general will is always enlightened and that the people is not deceived. Rousseau, On the Social Contract, book 2, chap. 3 (1762) The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the very foundations of society. Nevertheless, if the liberty of association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to some nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, and the element of life may be changed into an element of destruction. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, chap. 12 (1835) Amongst the laws which rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all the others. If men are to remain civilized, or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve, in the same ratio in which the equality of condition is increased. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, second book, chap. 5 (1840) < previous page page_vii next page > < previous page page_ix next page > Page ix Contents Acknowledgments xi 1. The Underlying Dilemma 1 2. Clarifying the Major Premise 4 3. The Problem of Pluralist Democracy 31 4. National Variations 55 5. More Democracy? 81 6. Redistributing Wealth and Income: Capitalism and Socialism 108 7. Changing Civic Orientations 138 8. Remedies 166 Appendix A 207 Appendix B 210 Works Cited 211 Index 219 < previous page page_ix next page > < previous page page_xi next page > Page xi Acknowledgments During the time in which this brief book has been evolving out of an unfinished first draft that I circulated to colleagues eight years ago, and to which it now bears only a family resemblance, I have profited greatly from criticisms and comments offered by David Cameron, James W. Fesler, James Fishkin, Peter Hardi, Joseph LaPalombara, Charles E. Lindblom, Nelson W. Polsby, Douglas Rae, Albert Reiss, Dennis Thompson, Douglas Yates, and an anonymous reader for the Yale University Press. Several of these colleagues participated, as I did, in the weekly seminar on American Democratic Institutions held under the auspices of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale. Their contributions to the seminar have influenced my thinking and thus the way the book developed. For their skill and patience in typing the manuscript at various stages of its evolution, I owe thanks to Rita Santorowski and Janet Wicklow. Marian Ash has, once again, performed superbly as Senior Editor at the Yale University Press; and the sensitive and sensible editing of Robert Brown has improved the text. I should also like to express my appreciation to Yale University, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and the Ford Foundation for support that helped me to find time in which to read, reflect, and write. < previous page page_xi next page > < previous page page_1 next page > Page 1 1 The Underlying Dilemma Independent organizations are highly desirable in a democracy, at least in a large-scale democracy. Whenever democratic processes are employed on a scale as large as the nation- state, autonomous organizations are bound to come into existence. They are more, however, than a direct consequence of democratizing the government of the nation-state. They are also necessary to the functioning of the democratic process itself, to minimizing government coercion, to political liberty, and to human well-being. Yet as with individuals, so with organizations; independence or autonomy (I use the terms interchangeably) creates an opportunity to do harm. Organizations may use the opportunity to increase or perpetuate injustice rather than reduce it, to foster the narrow egoism of their members at the expense of concerns for a broader public good, and even to weaken or destroy democracy itself. Like individuals, then, organizations ought to possess some autonomy, and at the same time they should also be controlled. Crudely stated, this is the fundamental problem of pluralist democracy. My purpose in this book is to explore the problem of pluralist democracy and some possible solutions. The problem of pluralist democracy, or democratic pluralism (I also use these terms interchangeably), is only one aspect of a general dilemma in political life: autonomy or control? Or to ask a less simpleminded question: how much autonomy and how much control? Or to anticipate still more of the problem's complexity, how much autonomy ought to be permitted to what actors, with respect < previous page page_1 next page > < previous page page_2 next page > Page 2 to what actions, and in relation, to what other actors, including the government of the state? Plus the complementary question: how much control ought to be exercised by what actors, including the government, employing what means of control over what other actors with respect to what actions? Posed in these general terms, the problem of democratic pluralism is very nearly a description of the entire project of political theory since its beginnings in antiquity. The aim of this book is far more limited. For one thing, as I have already indicated, my focus will be not on individuals but on organizations, a somewhat artificial but serviceable reduction in scope. The scope is narrowed further because my argument deals not with regimes of all kinds but only with democratic regimes. What is more, in a long leap over a serpent's nest of problems, I take the desirability of democracy for granted. Even so, the discussion applies not to democracies in a universal sense but only to democratic processes applied to the governments of large-scale systemsconcretely, the governments of countries or nation- states.* In addition, as I do with the highly debatable question of the desirability of democracy, I make a number of assumptions that, though obviously contestable, I hope will prove acceptable enough to let me proceed with the discussion. Finally, I make no effort to arrive at specific solutions to the problem of pluralist democracy. Specific solutionssatisfactory ones, anywaycan be arrived at only in the context of the special characteristics and predicaments of a particular country. Yet no specific solution is likely to be satisfactory unless it is informed by some guiding ideas and principles. My aim therefore is to explore certain aspects of the problem, arrive at some general conclusions about several major alternatives, and offer a few broad principles relevant to judgments about these alternative solutions. Despite this reduced scope, the implications of the argument * For many countries the term nation-state is something of a misnomer. However, in using it interchangeably with country I follow a common practice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Child, One Vote: Proxies for Parents Jane Rutherford
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1998 One Child, One Vote: Proxies for Parents Jane Rutherford Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rutherford, Jane, "One Child, One Vote: Proxies for Parents" (1998). Minnesota Law Review. 1582. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1582 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. One Child, One Vote: Proxies for Parents Jane Rutherford* Introduction .............................................................................1464 I. Autonomy as a Source of Rights ...................................... 1467 A. A Power-Based Critique ........................................... 1468 B. A Communitarian Critique ...................................... 1474 H. Preserving the Right to Vote for Insiders by Focusing on the Incapacity of Outsiders ......................... 1479 III. Children's Rights ............................................................. 1489 A. Greater Autonomy for Children .............................. 1490 B. Substantive Entitlements for Children ................... 1493 C. The Value of the Vote for Children .......................... 1494 IV. One Child, One Vote: Proxy Voting For Children .......... 1495 A. Political Power
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle Between Secularism and Islam in Algeria's Quest for Democracy
    Pluralism Betrayed: The Battle Between Secularism and Islam in Algeria's Quest for Democracy Peter A. Samuelsont I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 309 f1. BACKGROUND TO THE ELECTIONS AND THE COUP ................................ 311 A. Algeria's Economic Crisis ......................................... 311 B. Algeria's FirstMultiparty Elections in 1990 for Local Offices ................ 313 C. The FIS Victory in the 1991 ParliamentaryElections ...................... 314 D. The Coup dt& tat ................................................ 318 E. Western Response to the Coup ...................................... 322 III. EVALUATING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COUP ................................ 325 A. Problems Presented by Pluralism .................................... 326 B. Balancing Majority Rights Against Minority Rights ........................ 327 C. The Role of Religion in Society ...................................... 329 D. Islamic Jurisprudence ............................................ 336 1. Islamic Views of Democracy and Pluralism ......................... 337 2. Islam and Human Rights ...................................... 339 IV. PROBABLE ACTIONS OF AN FIS PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY ........................ 340 A. The FIS Agenda ................................................ 342 1. Trends Within the FIS ........................................ 342 2. The Process of Democracy: The Allocation of Power .................. 345 a. Indicationsof DemocraticPotential .......................... 346
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Myths and Realities on Islam and Democracy in the Middle East
    Estudios Políticos ISSN: 0121-5167 [email protected] Instituto de Estudios Políticos Colombia Cevik, Salim Myths and Realities on Islam and Democracy in the Middle East Estudios Políticos, núm. 38, enero-junio, 2011, pp. 121-144 Instituto de Estudios Políticos Medellín, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16429066007 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Myths and Realities on Islam and Democracy in the Middle East* Salim Cevik** Abstract There is a strong body of literature that claims that Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible. However, Islam like all other religions is multivocal and it has strong theorethical elements that can also work for a basis of a democratic polity. Throughout the Muslim world there are certain countries that achieved a considerable level of democratization. It is only the Arab world, not the Muslim world, that so far represents a complete failure in terms of democratic transition. The failure of Arab world should be attributed to more political reasons, such as oil economy and the rentier state model than to Islam. Lack of international support for pro-democracy movements in the region, under the fear that they might move towards an Islamist political system is also an important factor in the democratic failures in the region. However, democratic record of Turkey’s pro-Islamic Justice and Development Party challenges these fears. With the international attention it attracts, particularly from the Arab world, Turkish experience provides a strong case for the compatibility of [ 121 ] democracy and Islam.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy
    REPORT Global Satisfaction with Democracy 2020 This report was prepared at the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge and forms part of the work of the new Centre for the Future of Democracy. Suggested citation: Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and R. Collins. 2020. “The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy. Report published January 2020 The Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge aims to become a world leader in achieving successful and sustainable solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time. Our goal is to rethink public policy in an era of turbulence and growing inequality. Our research connects the world-leading work in technology and science at Cambridge with the economic and political dimensions of policy making. We are committed to outstanding teaching, policy engagement, and to devising sustainable and long lasting solutions. www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk The Centre for the Future of Democracy was launched in January 2020 to explore the challenges and opportunities faced by democratic politics over the coming century. Based at the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, the goal of the Centre is to understand the prospects for democracy in broad historical and international perspective, getting beyond the immediate crisis to identify different possible trajectories for democracy around the world. This means distinguishing what is essential to democracy, what is contingent and what can be changed. That requires taking the long view, drawing on the big picture and expanding our imaginative horizons.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE - Michael W
    CURRICULUM VITAE - Michael W. Howard 5/20 Department of Philosophy 112 Birch St. The Maples Bangor, ME 04401 University of Maine (207) 947-0607 Orono, ME 04469 [email protected] (207) 581-3861 https://umaine.edu/philosophy/meet-the-faculty/howardm/ Education and Honors Ph.D., Boston University, 1981 M.A., Boston University, 1977 Teaching Fellowships, 1974-1977 Senior Teaching Fellowships, 1977-1979 B.A., with honors, University of Chicago, 1974 Phi Beta Kappa Academic Appointments and Affiliations University of Maine Chair, 1993-1998, 2008-2009 Professor, 2000-present Associate Professor, 1987-1999 Assistant Professor, 1981-1987 (History of Ancient Philosophy, Logic, History of Modern Philosophy, Social and Political Philosophy, Honors, Theories of Justice, Global Justice, Foundations of the Human Sciences, Topics Courses on Power, Freedom and Equality, Love and Friendship, Socialism, and Democracy) Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden, visiting scholar, Spring 2017 Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium Hoover Fellowship in Economic and Social Ethics, Fall 2004 European University Institute, Florence, Italy Visiting Fellow, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Spring 1991 Stanford University Visiting Scholar, Spring 1988 University of Lowell Adjunct Faculty Member, Fall 1978-Spring 1981 Boston University Senior Teaching Fellow, Metropolitan College, Fall 1977 Instructor, Summer 1977 Books Self-management and the Crisis of Socialism: The Rose in the Fist of the Present, Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. Socialism, Humanity Press, Key Concepts in Critical Theory Series, 2001. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model co-edited with Karl Widerquist, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World, co-edited with Karl Widerquist, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • MUSLIM SOCIETY BETWEEN FUNDAMENTALISM and LIBERALISM: the PROBLEM of CIVIL SOCIETY*1 Yu.M
    RUDN Journal of Political Science 2017 Vol. 19 No 1 15—24 Вестник РУДН. Серия: ПОЛИТОЛОГИЯ http://journals.rudn.ru/politicalscience DOI: 10.22363/2313143820171911524 MUSLIM SOCIETY BETWEEN FUNDAMENTALISM AND LIBERALISM: THE PROBLEM OF CIVIL SOCIETY*1 Yu.M. Pochta Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) Miklukho-Maklaya str., 10/2, Moscow, Russia, 117198 The author examines the issue of civil society in the Muslim world in general and in Russia in par- ticular. It received a special significance after the Cold War, when liberal democracy and the concept of civil society were proclaimed as universal models, able to explain features of the modernization process. Research and practical realization of this process in non-Western societies is strongly influenced by the identification of the institution of civil society with the Western post-Christian civilization, with liberal political culture. However, historical experience shows that civil society cannot be transferred from a dif- ferent social environment, it must grow on its own culture. This totalizing universalistic thinking and the functionalist-evolutionist modernization approaches are not conducive to finding an answer to the question of the existence of civil society in non-Western societies. It needs a civilizational approach, a historical analysis of cultural contexts of occurring processes of modernization, establishing a market economy, democratic political regimes and civil society. The contemporary postmodern discourse supposes civiliza- tional multiplicity of political modernity and political modernization process. The key in these circum- stances is a question about the peculiarities of the coexistence in the modern world societies at different stages of social development. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the possible coexistence of several pre secular cultures (Islamic, Confucian) and liberal democracy as post secular phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Pluralism and Democratic Participation: What Kind of Citizen Are Citizens Invited to Be?
    contemporary pragmatism 14 (2017) 416-438 brill.com/copr Pluralism and Democratic Participation: What Kind of Citizen are Citizens Invited to be? Oliver Escobar Dr.; Lecturer in Public Policy and Co-Director of What Works Scotland, University of Edinburgh, Scotland (uk) [email protected] Abstract Classic pragmatism laid the foundations for a practice-based notion of citizenship that views democracy as a fragile accomplishment in need of constant self-actualisation. This article revisits this heritage to explore different notions of pluralism and demo- cratic participation developed over the last century. Drawing on James and Dewey, the article interrogates how different understandings of democracy deal with plural- ism and the meaning of democratic life. The focus is on three prominent models in contemporary democratic theory and practice, namely: representative, participatory and deliberative. The purpose is to review different ways of thinking and enacting citi- zen participation and explore key distinctions, overlaps and productive tensions. The conclusion argues that a vibrant democratic ecology requires combining the practices that underpin these models in order to develop deeper, and more sustainable, forms of citizenship and democratic life. Keywords democracy – participation – deliberation – citizenship Introduction The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democ- racy is no apt if it means … introducing more machinery of the same kind … But the phrase may also indicate the need of returning to the © The Author, 2017 | doi 10.1163/18758185-01404002 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 4.0 Unported (CC-BY 4.0) License.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom in the World 1982 Complete Book — Download
    Freedom in the World Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1982 A FREEDOM HOUSE BOOK Greenwood Press issues the Freedom House series "Studies in Freedom" in addition to the Freedom House yearbook Freedom in the World. Strategies for the 1980s: Lessons of Cuba, Vietnam, and Afghanistan by Philip van Slyck. Studies in Freedom, Number 1 Freedom in the World Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1982 Raymond D. Gastil With Essays by Charles R. Beitz Jeffrey M. Riedinger Grace Goodell Leonard R. Sussman Stephen J. Morris George Weigel John P. Powelson Lindsay M. Wright Roy L. Prosterman GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London, England Copyright © 1982 by Freedom House, Inc. Freedom House, 20 West 40th Street, New York, New York 10018 All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. ISBN: 0-313-23178-8 First published in 1982 Greenwood Press A division of Congressional Information Service, Inc. 88 Post Road West Westport, Connecticut 06881 Printed in the United States of America 10 987654321 Contents MAP AND TABLES vii PREFACE ix PART I. THE SURVEY IN 1982 Freedom in the Comparative Survey 3 Survey Ratings and Tables for 1982 9 PART II. ANALYZING SPECIFIC CIVIL LIBERTIES A Comparative Survey of Economic Freedoms Lindsay M. Wright 51 Worker Freedoms in Latin America 91 The Continuing Struggle for Freedom of Information Leonard R. Sussman 101 A Preliminary Examination of Religious Freedom George Weigel 121 PART III. DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT Democracy in Developing Societies Charles R. Beitz 145 The Democratic Prerequisites of Development Grace Goodell and John P.
    [Show full text]
  • American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges To
    Hudson, W. E. (2006). American democracy in peril: Eight challenges to America’s future, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 1 – 22. Introduction Models of Democracy As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent there is a difference, is no democracy. —Abraham Lincoln Democracy is a complicated concept. The dictionary definition of "government (or rule) by the people" seems simple, but once we begin to think about the components of the definition, complexities arise. What does "government" or "rule" mean? Does government by the people mean that all the people are directly responsible for the day-to-day operation of government? Or is a scheme of representation acceptable? If so, what sort of scheme? How should it be organized? Elections? How often and for which offices? Does government have special meaning in a democracy? What is its proper scope? Who decides what is proper? The people, again? How is this decision made and expressed? And who are the people anyway? Everyone who lives in the governed territory or citizens only? What is a citizen? Can newly arriving people (immigrants) become citizens? Under what rules? Should the "people" include everyone or just those with a stake in the community, say, property holders? Should certain groups of people, such as criminals and traitors, be excluded from citizenship? This is just the beginning of a list of questions we could make about the meaning of "government by the people." Notice that in this short list of questions such additional complex concepts as representation, citizen, and elections are mentioned and suggest additional questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Elite Democracy: Political Competition and Voter Opinion in the 2010 Australian Federal Election
    Elite Democracy: Political Competition and Voter Opinion in the 2010 Australian Federal Election by Christopher Paul Jones B. A. (Hons.) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy School of Social Sciences University of Tasmania April 2014 Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. Christopher Paul Jones Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Christopher Paul Jones Statement of Ethical Conduct The research associated with this thesis abides by the international and Australian codes on human and animal experimentation, the guidelines by the Australian Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the rulings of the Safety, Ethics and Institutional Biosafety Committees of the University. Christopher Paul Jones ii Elite Democracy: Political Competition and Voter Opinion in the 2010 Australian Federal Election Thesis Abstract This research investigates the voter-leader nexus by examining the extent to which public opinion mirrors the political attitudes and pronouncements of political elites in Australia. While aggregative-pluralist scholars regard voters as holders of exogenous preferences and political elites as aggregators of these preferences, neo-elitists regard public opinion as actively shaped and manufactured by competitive elites seeking election to political office.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Democracy Through Economic Conditionality in the ENP: a Normative Critique
    JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1263625 Promoting democracy through economic conditionality in the ENP: a normative critique Tom Theunsa,b,c aCERI, Sciences-Po, Paris, France; bPPLE College, The Faculty of Law, The University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; cCentre de théorie politique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This article presents a normative critique of the coherence of European Neighbourhood democracy promotion in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Policy; democracy As an immanent critique, the paper derives its normative standards promotion; economic internally from an analysis of key ENP policy documents. It is argued conditionality; democratisation; political that democracy promotion is in conflict with some of the other goals of theory; normative the ENP such as market liberalisation, trade policy reforms and private sector development. Further, the incentive of market integration is argued to undermine democracy promotion. Though the ENP’s current way of pursuing the goal of democratisation is normatively incoherent, this article also argues that incentivising democratisation through conditionality is not inherently contradictory. Two potential ways democratisation could be coherently promoted are suggested: delimiting the policy to unilateral transfers conditional on democratisation alone (‘simple transfers’), or offering EU membership to ENP countries (‘no integration without incorporation’). 1. Introduction This paper critically
    [Show full text]
  • Comparisons and Contrasts
    INSTITUTE Comparisons and Contrasts Version 5 - Dec 2015 Copyright © University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute, University of Notre Dame, Kellogg Institute. All rights reserved. Principal Investigators: • Michael Coppedge – University of Notre Dame • John Gerring – Boston University • Staffan I. Lindberg – University of Gothenburg • Svend-Erik Skaaning – Aarhus University • Jan Teorell – Lund University Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg, Svend-Erik Skaaning, and Jan Teorell. 2015. “V-Dem Comparisons and Contrasts with Other Measurement Projects.” Varieties of Democracy (V- Dem) Project. 1 Table of Contents EXTANT INDICES 4 Table 1: Democracy Indices Compared 8 DEFINITION 9 SOURCES 10 DISAGGREGATION 14 COVERAGE 15 DISCRIMINATION 16 AGGREGATION 17 ASSESSING VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 18 Figure 1: Intercorrelations between Polity and Freedom House 20 VARIETIES OF DEMOCRACY 21 PRINCIPLES 22 DISAGGREGATION 28 ADDITIONAL PAYOFFS 29 A PLURALITY OF APPROACHES 32 REFERENCES 34 APPENDIX A: IMPACT EVALUATION 43 APPENDIX B: KEY TERMS 46 APPENDIX C: SEARCH TERMS 49 2 In the wake of the Cold War democracy has gained the status of a mantra.1 However, no consensus has emerged about how to conceptualize and measure this key concept. Skeptics may wonder whether such comparisons are even possible. Distinguishing the most democratic countries from the least democratic ones is fairly easy: Almost everyone agrees that Switzerland is democratic and North Korea is not. It has proven to be much harder to make finer distinctions: Is Switzerland more democratic than the United States? Is Russia less democratic today than it was last year? Has Venezuela become more democratic in some respects and at the same time less democratic in others? Yet, if we cannot measure democracy in some fashion we cannot mark its progress and setbacks, explain processes of transition, reveal the consequences of those transitions, and affect their future course.
    [Show full text]