1 What Constitutes a Democracy: A Comparative Analysis Andrei Melville, Yuri Polunin, Mikhail Ilyin, Mikhail Mironyuk, Elena Meleshkina, Ivan Timofeev Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University), Institute for Public Programming, “Expert” magazine Please do not quote without permission of the authors
45
Embed
What Constitutes a Democracy: A Comparative Analysis
What Constitutes a Democracy: A Comparative Analysis Andrei Melville, Yuri Polunin , Mikhail Ilyin, Mikhail Mironyuk, Elena Meleshkina, Ivan Timofeev Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University), Institute for Public Programming, “Expert” magazine - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
What Constitutes a Democracy: A Comparative Analysis
Andrei Melville, Yuri Polunin, Mikhail Ilyin, Mikhail Mironyuk, Elena Meleshkina, Ivan Timofeev
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University), Institute for Public Programming, “Expert”
magazine
Please do not quote without permission of the authors
2
DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS
AND REGIMES
• Ted Robert Gurr et al.: POLITY II, POLITY III, POLITY IV (Indicators of Democracy and Autocracy)
• Tatu Vanhanen: Index of Democratization (Competition & Participation)• Freedom House: Political Rights & Civil Liberties• Bertelsmann Stiftung & BTI Board Bertelsmann: Transformation Index• Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index, Global
Corruption Barometer• A.T. Kearney & Foreign Policy Magazine: Globalization Index • The Fund for Peace & Foreign Policy Magazine: Failed States Index• Journalists without Borders: Press Freedom Index• Cato Institute: Economic Freedom of the World• UNDP: Human Development Report• World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Report• World Bank research projects• etc.
3
POLITICAL ATLAS OF THE WORLD
Project of MGIMO-University and “Expert” magazine
Director of the project - Andrei Melville
Co-Director (mathematics and statistics) - Yuri Polunin
Consultants - Mikhail Ilyin, Elena Meleshkina, Tatyana Alexeeva, Victor Sergeev, Oxana Kharitonova
Deputy Director - Mikhail Mironyuk
Deputy Co-Director (mathematics and statistics) – Ivan Timofeev
50 country experts, assistants, editors, etc.
4
STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT
3 tracks:
(1) Encyclopedia of Political Systems of the World
(2) Multi-dimensional Indices and Ratings of 192 (+) countries (3) Multi-dimensional classification of 192 (+) countries and analytical reports
5
ASSUMPTIONS
• Multi-dimensional comparative analysis and evaluation – vs. – one-dimensional
• Complex variables • Statistical databases (UN, UNESCO, World
Bank, WTO, International Health Organization, SIPRI, Inter-Parliamentary Union, national statistics, national constitutions and laws, etc.)
• Quantification of qualitative information• Statistical analysis (regression, correlation,
factorial, discriminant, etc. types of analysis)
6
5 INDICES
• Index of state consistency
• Index of international influence
• Index of national threats
• Index of institutional foundations of democracy
• Quality of life index
7
SOURCES OF DATA
• UN, UNDP, UNESCO, FAO, WHO, UNAIDS• World Bank (World Development Indicators)• IMF• WTO• WIPO• SIPRI• Inter-Parliamentary Union• National Constitutions and Laws• Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research• Center for Systemic Peace• Federation of American Scientists• Political Handbook of the World (Congressional Quarterly
Press) • Encyclopaedia Britannica• National statistics, etc.
8
SPSS data base(for multi-dimensional indices and ratings)
192 countries (+)
70 variables
13,400 figures
9
INDEX OF STATE CONSISTENCY
• Duration of sovereign stateness• Foreign aid, % of GNI• Indebtedness• Foreign military presence/deployment in the
country• Casualties of internal conflicts• Regions involved in internal conflicts• Intensity of internal conflicts• Applications for patents by residents – vs.
applications by non-residents• Ethnic composition (share of ethnic majority)• Exchange rate regimes
10
INDEX OF INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE
• Share of world GDP• Share of world goods and services exports• Contribution to the UN regular budget• IMF member’s voting power• Membership in the Paris club (official
creditors)• Permanent membership in the UN Security
Council• Share of world population• Nobel prize winners
11
INDEX OF INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE (cont.)
• Military expenditure (in constant US dollars)
• Armed forces personnel• Nuclear weapons• Advanced military systems• Military deployments abroad
12
INDEX OF NATIONAL THREATS
• Threats of external aggression • Terrorist threats (from abroad or within)• Territorial disputes• Separatist and/or antigovernment activities• Nonviolent secessionist movements• Military governments or attempts of military coups
13
INDEX OF NATIONAL THREATS (cont.)
• Undiversified exports (one or two primary export commodities)
• Constant trade deficit• Dependence on fuel imports• Probability of natural disasters• Water shortage• Undernourishment and famine• Depopulation• Excessive migration• HIV/AIDS epidemic
14
INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
• Parliamentary elections competition• Head of the executive elections competition• Duration of an uninterrupted minimal
competition tradition (since 1945)• Electoral inclusiveness (share of registered
voters to total population)• Share of women in parliament (lower
chamber)
15
INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY (cont.)
• Performance of democratic institutions- no military coups or unconstitutional regime changes
- not more than two terms held by the head of state/executive (former and acting)
- no referendum to extend term for the head of state/executive- competitive elections without interruption- influence of parliament on the appointment of the government
16
QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX
• Life expectancy at birth• Death rate (combined)• Infant mortality• GDP per capita• Combined gross enrolment ratio for
primary, secondary and tertiary schools• Public health expenditure per capita
17
5 indices:an experiment with discriminant analysis
• Samples of countries for discriminant analysis
• Countries’ rankings
18
Index of state consistencyCountries in the sample for discriminant analysis
• Sufficient state consistency: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA
• Insufficient state consistency:Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic Congo, Ethiopia, Georgia, Haiti, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Moldova, Nepal, Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro (prior to dissolution), Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan
19
Index of state consistency (0 - 10): examplesCountry Group Index Rank
USA Sufficient state consistency 10 1
Japan Sufficient state consistency 9,34 2
Germany Sufficient state consistency 8,93 4
Korea (South) Sufficient state consistency 8,53 8
China Sufficient state consistency 8,24 12
Argentina Sufficient state consistency 8,07 17
Russia Sufficient state consistency 7,5 27
South Africa Sufficient state consistency 7,35 30
Saudi Arabia Sufficient state consistency 6,99 41
Iran Sufficient state consistency 6,97 43
Hungary Sufficient state consistency 6,88 45
Indonesia Sufficient state consistency 5,84 67
India Sufficient state consistency 5,42 81
Korea (North) Insufficient state consistency 5,01 98
Ukraine Insufficient state consistency 4,35 113
Ethiopia Insufficient state consistency 2,66 154
Central African Republic Insufficient state consistency 0,81 188
20
Index of international influenceCountries in the sample for discriminant analysis
• Relatively high influence
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, UK
Index of international influence (0 - 10): examples
Country Group Index Rank
USA Relatively high influence 10,00 1
China Relatively high influence 3,93 2
Japan Relatively high influence 3,25 3
Germany Relatively high influence 3,24 4
Russia Relatively high influence 2,60 7
India Relatively high influence 2,28 8
Saudi Arabia Relatively high influence 1,69 10
Korea (North) Relatively high influence 1,25 12
Korea (South) Relatively high influence 1,02 16
Iran Relatively low influence 0,83 20
Indonesia Relatively low influence 0,81 22
Ukraine Relatively low influence 0,59 29
Argentina Relatively low influence 0,56 31
South Africa Relatively low influence 0,49 34
Hungary Relatively low influence 0,29 53
Ethiopia Relatively low influence 0,22 62
Central African Republic Relatively low influence 0,02 160
22
Index of national threats Countries in the sample for discriminant analysis
• Relatively high level of threats
Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Burkina-Faso, Cambodia, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Myanmar, Niger, Philippines, Somalia, Tajikistan, the Zambia.
• Relatively low level of threats
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay.
23
Index of national threats (0 - 10): examplesCountry Group Index Rank
Ethiopia Relatively high threats 10,00 1
Central African Republic Relatively high threats 7,57 10
India Relatively high threats 5,99 44
Indonesia Relatively high threats 5,99 45
Iran Relatively high threats 5,34 57
Korea (North) Relatively high threats 4,89 68
China Relatively high threats 4,48 78
Russia Relatively high threats 4,34 81
Korea (South) Relatively high threats 4,28 82
Japan Relatively low threats 4,03 87
Saudi Arabia Relatively low threats 3,63 101
USA Relatively low threats 3,06 118
South Africa Relatively low threats 2,37 136
Ukraine Relatively low threats 2,27 141
Argentina Relatively low threats 2,07 146
Hungary Relatively low threats 1,02 172
Germany Relatively low threats 0,77 181
24
Index of institutional foundations of democracy Countries in the sample for discriminant analysis
• Sufficient institutional foundationsAustralia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa-Rica, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK, USA.
• Insufficient institutional foundations
Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Korea (North), Laos, Libya, Myanmar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
25
Index of institutional foundations of democracy (0-10): examples
Country Group Index Rank
Austria Sufficient institutional foundations 8,09 9
India Sufficient institutional foundations 7,35 16