Advertisement

Transition Studies Review

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 191–209 | Cite as

A Multidimensional Model for Analyzing Democratic Development in Central and Eastern Europe

  • Sergei Obiedkov
  • Mikhail Klimushkin
  • Maria Shabanova
  • Dmitry ZaytsevEmail author
Society, History and Culture

Abstract

Various indices and ratings describing democratic processes in countries around the world have been developed by international organizations (such as Freedom House) and analytical centers (such as the one affiliated with the journal Economist). The main drawback of such ratings is that they only provide a linear ordering of countries by averaging a multitude of criteria. Such approach does not make it obvious which particular problems exist in which countries and thus does not help comparing democratic processes in different countries. In this paper, we propose a multidimensional model for ratings based on the mathematical discipline of formal concept analysis, which deals, in particular, with automated taxonomy construction from object–attribute data. In our case, every node of a taxonomy would group countries similar in certain aspects, while at the same time providing a description of these aspects. The aim is not to question the existing ratings, but rather to provide a neutral instrument for uncovering the structure of the data underlying these ratings. The proposed representation is much more informative than linear ratings, since it shows the commonalities and differences in the democratic development of various countries. In addition, it provides a solid ground for discussing, comparing, and criticizing ratings. It can also help formulate theoretical hypotheses on the evolution of democracy, thereby advancing scientific discovery. We illustrate the proposed representation with the case study of countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Keywords

Democracy ratings Multidimensional model Formal concept analysis Conceptual hierarchies 

JEL Classification

C380 C650 C890 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, project “Discrete mathematical models for political analysis of democratic institutions and human rights”, (PIs: N. Belyaeva and S. Obiedkov). The first author was also supported by the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, project “Mathematical models, algorithms, and software tools for knowledge discovery in big data given by relational and textual collections”.

References

  1. Arnauld A, Nicole P (1662) La logique ou l’art de penser. Contenant outre les règles communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles, propres à former le jugement. Chez Charles SavreuxGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkhoff G (1973) Lattice theory. American Mathematical Society, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahl R (1971) Polyarchy: participation and opposition, political science. Yale University Press, New HeavenGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl R (1989) Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press, New HeavenGoogle Scholar
  5. Economist Intelligence Unit (2010) Democracy index 2010: democracy in retreat. Report. http://www.eiu.com
  6. Freedom House (2006–2009) Freedom in the world. Annual survey of freedom country scores. http://www.freedomhouse.org
  7. Freeman L (1996) Cliques, Galois lattices, and the structure of human social groups. Soc Netw 18:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ganter B, Kuznetsov S (2000) Formalizing hypotheses with concepts. In: Ganter B, Mineau G (eds) Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1867. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 342–356Google Scholar
  9. Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Giannone D (2010) Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case. Democratization 17(1):68–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huntington S (1991) The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. The Julian J. Rothbaum distinguished lecture series, University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  12. Landman T, Häusermann J (2003) Map-making and analysis of the main international initiatives on developing indicators on democracy and good governance. Final Report, Eurostat Contract No. 200221200005, University of Essex, Human Rights CentreGoogle Scholar
  13. Melville A (ed) (2009) Political atlas of the modern world: an experiment in multidimensional statistical analysis of the political systems of modern states. MGIMO—University Press, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohr JW, Duquenne V (1997) The duality of culture and practice: poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory Soc 26: 305–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nikolaenko S, Belianova E, Smorodinov O (2009) Problems of using international ratings: society, state, economy. Ergo (in Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Roth C, Obiedkov S, Kourie DG (2006) Towards concise representation for taxonomies of epistemic communities. In: Ben Yahia S, Mephu Nguifo E, Belohlávek R (eds) CLA, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4923. Springer, Berlin, pp 240–255Google Scholar
  17. Scoble H, Wiseberg L (1981) Problems of comparative research in human rights. In: Nanda V, Scarritt J, Shepherd G (eds) Global human rights, Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 147–171Google Scholar
  18. Stumme G, Maedche A (2001) FCA-MERGE: bottom-up merging of ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 1, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  19. Tilly C (2007) Democracy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Yevtushenko SA (2000) System of data analysis “Concept Explorer”. In: Proceedings of the 7th national conference on artificial intelligence KII-2000, Russia, pp 127–134 (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CEEUN 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergei Obiedkov
    • 1
  • Mikhail Klimushkin
    • 1
  • Maria Shabanova
    • 2
  • Dmitry Zaytsev
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and Information ScienceNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Public Policy, National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations