DOCSLIB.ORG

DEMOCRACY and ITS SUBTYPES Quantitative Inquiry and the Regime Question

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DEMOCRACY and ITS SUBTYPES Quantitative Inquiry and the Regime Question MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA V BRNĚ FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH STUDIÍ Katedra politologie DEMOCRACY AND ITS SUBTYPES Quantitative Inquiry and the Regime Question magisterská diplomová práce Tomáš Hudeček Vedoucí práce: Doc. PhDr. Jan Holzer, Ph.D. UČO: 13603 Obor: PL Imatrikulační ročník: 2005 Bergen, 2007 ,,Prohlašuji, že jsem předkládanou diplomovou práci zpracoval sám a že jsem uvedl všechny použité prameny.“ “Herewith I confirm that the thesis I have submitted is my own effort, does not refer to another person’s work without an explicit reference, and has all references listed in the bibliography.” 13603 Bergen * acknowledgments * First, I must thank my supervisor Doc. PhDr. Jan Holzer, Ph.D. This text would not come into existence without his deliberate advice and encouragement combined with goodwill and patience. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of The EEA/Norwegian Financial Mechanisms Program in the field of Support of Co-operation among Schools/Scholarships. Without their financial support this thesis would not have been produced in Bergen. Special thanks must go to Mike Alvarez whose ideas and lectures on political regimes as well as the heated debates within the seminar meetings were much of an inspiration. This is the right place to acknowledge my parents for their kind backing, and to thank my grandmother who did pray for the success of my enterprise. I also want to say thanks to Marie - France a great friend and partner in all the various discussions. I have to appreciate the readiness of the ‘Czech Crew’ and the ‘Devil of Murcia’ to excuse me from all the parties that have happened during this semester. Last but not least, I would like to mention the couple living above me, whose midnight activities made me remember that life is not typing … and of course … love toM contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 CONCEPTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE ......................................................................... 9 1.1 An Outline on Concepts in Political Science........................................................ 10 1.2 The Ladder of Generality...................................................................................... 11 1.3 Essentially Contested Concepts............................................................................ 14 1.4 Concluding the Conceptual Issue ......................................................................... 17 DEFINING DEMOCRACY FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH...................................... 19 2.1 Two Classical Definitions in Democracy Studies ................................................ 20 2.2 Democratic Method .............................................................................................. 20 2.3 Polyarchy .............................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Critique ................................................................................................................. 30 2.4.1 Normative ontological critique...................................................................... 31 2.4.2 Empirical-analytical critique......................................................................... 32 2.5 Concluding the Definition Issue ........................................................................... 38 QUANTITATIVE INQUIRY INTO DEMOCRACY IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS.................................................................................... 41 3.1 An Outline on Quantitative Inquiry into Democracy ........................................... 42 3.2 Przeworski – Alvarez – Cheibub – Limongi ........................................................ 43 3.2.1 Definitions and methodology......................................................................... 43 3.2.2 Types of political regimes.............................................................................. 46 3.3 Freedom in the World Survey............................................................................... 47 3.3.1 Definitions and methodology......................................................................... 48 3.3.2 Types of Political Regimes............................................................................. 51 3.4 Polity Project......................................................................................................... 53 3.4.1 Definitions and methodology......................................................................... 54 3.4.2 Types of Political Regimes............................................................................ 58 3.5 Index of Democratization ..................................................................................... 60 3.5.1 Definitions and Methodology......................................................................... 61 3.5.2 Types of Political Regimes............................................................................. 63 3.6 Alternative Measures of Democracy .................................................................... 65 3.6.1 Revised Index of Democracy.......................................................................... 65 3.6.2 Polyarchy Scale ............................................................................................. 67 3.7 Concluding the Quantitative Efforts to Measure Democracy............................... 69 3.7.1 Assessing Quantitative Measures of Democracy........................................... 69 3.7.2 Quantitative Measures and the Nature of Democracy .................................. 73 3.7.3 Quantitative Measures and Types of Political Regimes ................................ 75 Suggestions for Further Research................................................................................... 78 references.................................................................................................................... 79 data sets....................................................................................................................... 85 155 763 znaků včetně mezer * list of tables * TABLE 1-1 – Ladder of Generality in Comparative Politics Research ... 12 TABLE 1-2 – Democracy as an Essentially Contested Concept ... 16 TABLE 2-1 – Requirements for Democracy ... 25 TABLE 2-2 – Indicators of the Conditions for Polyarchy ... 29 TABLE 2-3 – Mediating Principles of a Democratic System ... 34 TABLE 2-4 – Components Crucial for Functioning Democracy ... 35 TABLE 2-5 – Indices of Audit’s Democratic Criteria ... 36 TABLE 2-6 – Defining a Concept: Case of Democracy ... 40 TABLE 3-1 – Large-N Data Sets on Democracy ... 42 TABLE 3-2 – Operational Rules for Democracy, ACLP ... 45 TABLE 3-3 – Operational Rules for Political Regimes, Freedom House ... 50 TABLE 3-4 – Key to Raw Points, FH ... 51 TABLE 3-5 – Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings, and Status - FH ... 51 TABLE 3-6 – Construction of Democracy and Autocracy Indicators in POLITY IV ... 57 TABLE 3-7 – Additive definitions and interpretations for competition and participation ... 62 TABLE 3-8 – Indicators of Political Democracy, Bollen ... 67 TABLE 3-9 – Variables of Polyarchy and Their Categories, Coppedge – Reinicke ... 68 TABLE 3-10 – A Framework for the Analysis of Data on Democracy ... 70 TABLE 3-11 – An Overview of Introduced Data Sets on Democracy ... 71 TABLE 3-12 – An Evaluation of Introduced Data Sets on Democracy ... 72 * list of figures * FIGURE 1-1 – Moving Along the Ladder of Generality ... 12 FIGURE 2-1 – Schumpeterian Differentiation between Regimes ... 23 FIGURE 2-2 – Location of Political Regimes along the Two Dimensions ... 27 FIGURE 2-3 – The Continuum of Political Regimes ... 28 FIGURE 2-4 – The Democratic Pyramid ... 35 FIGURE 3-1 – Political Regimes in the World by Type – ACLP, 1959-1990 ... 47 FIGURE 3-2 – Political Regimes in the World by Type – Freedom House, 1973-2005 ... 53 FIGURE 3-3 – Political Regimes in the World by Type – Polity IV, 1946 – 2004 ... 60 FIGURE 3-4 – Political Regimes in the World by Type, Vanhanen 1946-2000 ... 65 5 INTRODUCTION 6 “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.” (Fukuyama 1989: 3) “Yet the 21st century could well turn out to be not the democratic century, but the “post-democratic” century – the century in which liberal democracy as we know it is slowly, almost imperceptibly, replaced by a new form of global governance.” (Fonte 2004: 117) Even if the possibilities of empirical inquiry into democracy have been outlined by Joseph Schumpeter (1942) and Robert A. Dahl (1971), most of the research was done since the 80’s. The reason for the increasing scientific interest into democracy might be simple as Samuel Huntington puts it (1991 in Diamond et al. 1996: 3): “Between 1974 and 1990, at least 30 countries made transitions to democracy, just about doubling the number of democratic governments in the world.” Huntigton’s “Third Wave” (1991) might be as well considered to be the real starting-point of the scientific inquiry into democracy. Supported by the events of the last decade of the 20th century and ideas of Francis Fukuyama (1989: 3) on the final triumph of the western-type liberal democracy over its systematic and ideological alternatives, democracy became a fashionable term and a kind of “democratic-research industry” developed. According to Freedom House data, 117 of world’s 191 countries could be considered democratic by January 1996 – the most ever in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017
    St Comp Int Dev https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017 Jan Teorell1 & Michael Coppedge2 & Staffan Lindberg3 & Svend-Erik Skaaning 4 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper presents a new measure polyarchy for a global sample of 182 countries from 1900 to 2017 based on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data, deriving from an expert survey of more than 3000 country experts from around the world, with on average 5 experts rating each indicator. By measuring the five compo- nents of Elected Officials, Clean Elections, Associational Autonomy, Inclusive Citi- zenship, and Freedom of Expression and Alternative Sources of Information separately, we anchor this new index directly in Dahl’s(1971) extremely influential theoretical framework. The paper describes how the five polyarchy components were measured and provides the rationale for how to aggregate them to the polyarchy scale. We find Previous versions of this paper were presented at the APSA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, August 28- 31, 2014, at the Carlos III-Juan March Institute of Social Sciences, Madrid, November 28, 2014, and at the European University Institute, Fiesole, January 20, 2016. Any remaining omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018- 9268-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Jan Teorell [email protected] Michael Coppedge [email protected] Staffan Lindberg [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas 50
    yber C yberO rient, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, 2011 pp. 50-72 Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas Jens Kutscher Abstract: Publications on the Islamic shura concept – Arabic and English – usually include a com- parison with present-day liberal democracy. This paper addresses the issue of shura and democracy from the perspective of Muslim communities residing in non-Islamic countries. How do muftis in their online fatwas respond to questions whether Islam and democracy can be reconciled? How do they address the issue of shura? This paper argues that one might well expect the shura concept to serve as a justification for the reconciliation of Islam and democracy or at least find the shura concept to be a distinctly Islamic understanding of democracy. The online fatwas considered for this survey (from AskImam.org, IslamiCity. com, IslamOnline.net, and IslamQA.com) reveal a number of distinct understandings of shura, which are nevertheless linked with each other – be they elections as an expression of shura, shura as a constitutional principle and perfect form of government, or shura in cases of hardship or the political participation of women. While muftis from all websites are unanimous in their defense of shura, their conclusions regarding the centrality and impli- cations of this concept reflect the different streams of thought and currents they represent. Keywords: study of religion, democracy, legal science, Islam and civil society, Islam and politics, Is- lamic law, websites, fatwas Islam and Democracy in the 21st Century Whether “Islam” and “democracy” are actually compatible is an issue that has been raised for several decades now (McElroy 1938).
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Democracy This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATTERNS of DEMOCRACY
    Patterns of Democracy This page intentionally left blank PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries SECOND EDITION AREND LIJPHART First edition 1999. Second edition 2012. Copyright © 1999, 2012 by Arend Lijphart. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (US offi ce) or [email protected] (UK offi ce). Set in Melior type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries / Arend Lijphart. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-17202-7 (paperbound : alk. paper) 1. Democracy. 2. Comparative government. I. Title. JC421.L542 2012 320.3—dc23 2012000704 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Gisela and for our grandchildren, Connor, Aidan, Arel, Caio, Senta, and Dorian, in the hope that the twenty-fi rst century—their century—will yet become more
    [Show full text]
  • International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding
    The Unintended Consequences of Democracy Promotion: International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anna M. Meyerrose, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Co-Advisor Irfan Nooruddin, Co-Advisor Marcus Kurtz William Minozzi Sara Watson c Copyright by Anna M. Meyerrose 2019 Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations (IOs) have engaged in unprecedented levels of democracy promotion and are widely viewed as positive forces for democracy. However, this increased emphasis on democracy has more re- cently been accompanied by rampant illiberalism and a sharp rise in cases of demo- cratic backsliding in new democracies. What explains democratic backsliding in an age of unparalleled international support for democracy? Democratic backsliding oc- curs when elected officials weaken or erode democratic institutions and results in an illiberal or diminished form of democracy, rather than autocracy. This dissertation argues that IOs commonly associated with democracy promotion can support tran- sitions to democracy but unintentionally make democratic backsliding more likely in new democracies. Specifically, I identify three interrelated mechanisms linking IOs to democratic backsliding. These organizations neglect to support democratic insti- tutions other than executives and elections; they increase relative executive power; and they limit states’ domestic policy options via requirements for membership. Lim- ited policy options stunt the development of representative institutions and make it more difficult for leaders to govern. Unable to appeal to voters based on records of effective governance or policy alternatives, executives manipulate weak institutions to maintain power, thus increasing the likelihood of backsliding.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story Or Not Competitive Anymore?
    Page 6 | Trilogue Salzburg 2018 Background Paper Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story or not Competitive Anymore? Jörg Habich | Verena Nowotny | Christina Tillmann Introduction Taking stock of democracy seems to be easy. Democracy doubtlessly was the most successful idea of the 20th century, in spite of its flaws and problems. Democracy is able to adapt to changing environments and has been able to cope with challenges and problems in most cases. As a consequence, the number of democracies has increased and many countries have moved from a non-democratic government to a democratic one over the years. The number has risen from 69 in 1989/1990 to 125 electoral democracies in 2016.1 Nowadays, the majority of countries are governed by democratic regimes. Democratic systems are characterized by a variety of criteria, such as an electoral process and pluralism, political participation, civil liberties, the functioning of government, constraints on the power of the executive, and political culture with a guarantee of civil liberties. The victory of the liberal democracies as the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government as predicted by Fukuyama seemed theirs for the taking.2 1 Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2018 – Democracy in Crisis; https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/freedom-world-2018, retrieved July 16, 2018. 2 Francis Fukuyama. The end of history?. In: The National Interest. Summer 1989. Background Paper Trilogue Salzburg 2018 | Page 7 But the right to vote, political participation, freedom of press and media, and the rule of law are under pressure and in retreat globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Patterns of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe
    ANALYZING PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE By Karolína Púllová Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Associate Professor Matthijs Bogaards CEU eTD Collection Vienna, Austria (2021) Author’s Declaration I, the undersigned, Karolína Púllová, candidate for the MA degree in Political Science declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part of the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. Vienna, 01/06/2021 __________________________ Signature CEU eTD Collection ii Abstract Arend Lijphart’s typology of democratic systems, where he differentiates between majoritarian and consensus democracies, has been regarded as one of the most prominent and influential typologies of modern democratic systems. However, in recent decades its usefulness as a typology of democratic systems started to be questioned, as many scholars by replicating his work revealed that some of his core findings do not hold outside his sample of mature democracies. The present thesis tests the usefulness of Lijphart’s typology, firstly by analyzing institutional constellation in two of the newest democracies from the Central and Eastern European region – Croatia and Serbia, and, secondly by mapping more recent institutional changes and developments in the sample of ten Central and Eastern European democracies, which were previously analyzed by Andrew Roberts in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Dynamics in the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
    Group dynamics in the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Manon de Jongh ISBN: 978-1-56592-479-6 Design: Het is mooi werk, Cothen, the Netherlands Photograph on cover: Arthur Mebius Photography, Naarden, the Netherlands Print: Toptryk Grafisk, Gråsten, Denmark © 2013 Manon de Jongh. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. 2 Group dynamics in the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Groepsdynamiek in het Burgerforum Kiesstelsel (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 17 mei 2013 des middags te 12.45 uur door Manon Sabine de Jongh geboren op 18 augustus 1978 te Deventer 3 Promotor: Prof.dr. S.G.L. Schruijer Dit proefschrift werd (mede) mogelijk gemaakt met financiële steun van Maatschap voor Communicatie, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, en Udviklingskonsulenterne. 4 Foreword Today is the 25th of March, it is exactly seven years since I formally started this PhD project! And now, seven years later, my project has been approved and I am finishing the very last part of the thesis, the foreword. Coincidence? Maybe there is no such thing as coincidence... While reflecting on the past seven years, the first thing that comes to mind is the round of interviews that I held during the autumn of 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005 International IDEA publications are independent of specifi c national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: Publications Offi ce International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. Graphic design by: Magnus Alkmar Front cover illustrations by: Anoli Perera, Sri Lanka Printed by: Trydells Tryckeri AB, Sweden ISBN 91-85391-43-3 A number of individuals (and organizations) have contributed to the development of this book. Our thanks go, fi rst and foremost, to Bernd Halling, External Relations Offi cer, who coordinated the content development of this book and for all his hard work and support to the book through its many phases. We also thank Ozias Tungwarara, Senior Programme Offi cer, who developed the concept from the beginning and helped in the initial phase of writing and collection of material, as well as IDEA’s Publications Manager, Nadia Handal Zander for her help in the production of this book. Foreword International IDEA was born in 1995 in a world tions—hence the notion of local ownership of the which was optimistic about democratic change. process of reform and development. For signifi - The end of the Cold War had ushered in a period cant political reforms and public policy decisions, of opportunity and innovation with democracy as there needs to be the space and time for knowl- well as more self-critical analysis of the quality and edge to be shared, for information to be circulated, achievements of democracies, old and new.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy and Modes of Conflict Management in Ethnically
    Nations and Nationalism 8 (4), 2002, 423±431. # ASEN 2002 Types of democracy and modes of con¯ict management in ethnically divided societies* SAMMY SMOOHA Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel ABSTRACT. The Western democratic nation-state is a model state in the world state system. It appears in two variants: individual-liberal and republican-liberal. Both are grounded on individual rights only. In the West there are also several cases of consociational democracy in which separate national communities and their collective rights are recognised. Since World War II the liberal nation-state has been under global and internal pressures to change. It has kept its basic character but partially decoupled nation and state and recognised group differences. Along with individual- liberal democracy, republican-liberal democracy and consociational democracy, multicultural democracy and ethnic democracy are taking shape as alternative types of democracy. This fivefold typology can contribute to the fields of comparative politics and comparative ethnicity. It serves as a broad framework for the analysis of five states in this special issue: Northern Ireland, Estonia, Israel, Poland and Turkey. The classical, historical and dominant model of the state in the West is a democratic nation-state. At the core of society is the individual citizen. The state grants equal civil and political rights to all. The system is based on the principles of equality of individual rights, individualism, competition, achievement, free mixing of people, and privatisation of ethnicity and reli- gion. The impartial state, like the blind free market, is neutral toward all citizens and treats them equally, irrespective of their ethnic, religious, lin- guistic, cultural and national origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Trade-Offs: Democracy and Governance in a Changing World Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth 237–242
    Politics and Governance Open Access Journal | ISSN: 2183-2463 Volume 7, Issue 4 (2019) Trade-OffsTrade-Offs inin thethe PoliticalPolitical Realm:Realm: HowHow ImportantImportant AreAre Trade-OffsTrade-Offs inin Politics?Politics? Editors Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth Politics and Governance, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4 Trade-Offs in the Political Realm: How Important Are Trade-Offs in Politics? Published by Cogitatio Press Rua Fialho de Almeida 14, 2º Esq., 1070-129 Lisbon Portugal Academic Editors Todd Landman (University of Nottingham, UK) Hans-Joachim Lauth (University of Wuerzburg, Germany) Available online at: www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance This issue is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Articles may be reproduced provided that credit is given to the original andPolitics and Governance is acknowledged as the original venue of publication. Table of Contents Political Trade-Offs: Democracy and Governance in a Changing World Todd Landman and Hans-Joachim Lauth 237–242 Designing Democratic Constitutions: The Search for Optimality Steffen Ganghof 243–253 Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda Måns Nilsson and Nina Weitz 254–263 The Theory of Democratic Antinomies and the Identification of Value Trade-Offs in Political Practice Oliver Hidalgo 264–274 Globalization and Modern Slavery Todd Landman and Bernard W. Silverman 275–290 Free Trade versus Democracy and Social Standards in the European Union: Trade-Offs or Trilemma? Claudia Wiesner 291–300 Associations between the Mixture of Governance Modes and the Performance of Local Public Service Delivery Yin Lei Win Swe and Seunghoo Lim 301–314 Identifying Profiles of Democracies: A Cluster Analysis Based on the Democracy Matrix Dataset from 1900 to 2017 Oliver Schlenkrich 315–330 Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions Anne Isabel Kraus, Owen Frazer, Lars Kirchhoff, Tatiana Kyselova, Simon J.
    [Show full text]