Demokratiebarometer: ein neues Instrument zur Messung von Demokratiequalität

  • Marc Bühlmann
  • Wolfgang Merkel
  • Lisa Müller
  • Heiko Giebler
  • Bernhard Weβels
Aufsätze

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieses Artikels ist die Präsentation eines neuen Demokratieindex – des Demokratiebarometers. Das Demokratiebarometer versucht, die konzeptionellen und methodologischen Schwächen bisheriger Demokratiemaße zu überwinden, um so die Qualitätsunterschiede von etablierten Demokratien messen und analysieren zu können. Der Index basiert auf einem ausdifferenzierten Demokratiekonzept, aus dem in mehreren transparenten Schritten die Messindikatoren abgeleitet werden: Aus den drei konstituierenden Prinzipien Freiheit, Gleichheit und Kontrolle werden zunächst neun grundlegende Funktionen deduziert, aus denen dann Komponenten und daraus wiederum Subkomponenten und schließlich Indikatoren abgeleitet werden. Dieses Konzept wird in einem ersten Schritt dargelegt. Danach werden die methodologischen Grundlagen – die Messung und Aggregierung – des Demokratiebarometers erläutert. Die Präsentation erster Resultate sowie die Ergebnisse verschiedener Validitätstests zeigen schließlich die Plausibilität und das Potenzial dieses neuen Messinstruments auf.

Schlüsselwörter

Demokratiemessung Demokratiequalität 

Democracy Barometer: a new instrument to measure the quality of democracy

Abstract

In this contribution we present a new instrument to assess the quality of democracy—the Democracy Barometer. This measure aims at overcoming the conceptual and methodological shortcomings of previous indices and to describe and compare the differences in the democratic quality of established democracies. The Democracy Barometer is based on a comprehensive concept of democracy which is used for a stepwise deduction of measures and indicators on different levels of abstraction. Starting with three principles, freedom, equality and control, we deduce nine basic functions. Every function is further disaggregated into components, which are measured by several sub-components and indicators. In the first part of our contribution, we present the underlying concept of democracy as well as the aforementioned process of deduction. In the second part, we focus on the methodology: the choice of indicators and scales as well as the rules of aggregation. Finally, first results and several tests for validation, which underline the potential of our new instrument for future comparative analyses, are presented.

Keywords

Measuring democracy Quality of democracy 

Literatur

  1. Abromeit, Heidrun. 2004. Die Messbarkeit von Demokratie: Zur Relevanz des Kontextes. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45 (1): 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, Sonia. 2010. Multinational democracy and the comsequences of compounded representation: The case of Spain. In The future of representative democracy, Hrsg. Sonia Alonso, John Keane und Wolfgang Merkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (i.E.).Google Scholar
  3. Alonso, Sonia, John Keane, und Wolfgang Merkel, Hrsg. 2010. The future of representative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Altman, David, und Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. 2002. Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness and participation in eighteen Latin American countries. Democratization 9 (2): 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez, Michael, José Antonio Cheibub, Fernando Limongi, und Adam Przeworski. 1996. Classifying political regimes. Studies on Comparative International Development 31 (2): 1–37.Google Scholar
  6. Arat, Zehra F. 1991. Democracy and human rights in developing countries. Boulder: Rienner.Google Scholar
  7. Banducci Susan A., Todd Donovan, und Jeffrey A. Karp. 2004. Minority representation, empowerment, and participation. The Journal of Politics 66 (2): 534–556.Google Scholar
  8. Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bartolini, Stefano. 1999. Collusion, competition, and democracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 11 (4): 435–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartolini, Stefano. 2000. Collusion, competition and democracy: Part II. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (1): 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beetham, David. 2004. Freedom as the foundation. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beierwaltes, Andreas. 2000. Demokratie und Medien: Der Begriff der Öffentlichkeit und seine Bedeutung für die Demokratie in Europa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  13. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 1999. Empirische Voraussetzungen und allgemeine Konstituierungsbedingungen von Demokratie. In Perspektiven der Demokratie. Probleme und Chancen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, Hrsg. Dirk Berg-Schlosser und Hans-Joachim Giegel, 57–81. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  14. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2004a. Indicators of democracy and good governance as measures of the quality of democracy in Africa: A critical appraisal. Acta Politica 39:248–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2004b. The quality of democracies in Europe as measured by current indicators of democratization and good governance. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 20 (1): 28–55.Google Scholar
  16. Berlin, Isaiah. 2006. Freiheit. Vier Versuche. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  17. Blais, André, Louis Massicotte, und Antoine Yoshinaka. 2001. Deciding who has the right to vote: A comparative analysis of election laws. Electoral Studies 20 (1): 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Böckenförde, Ernst Wolfgang. 1991. Staat, Verfassung, Demokratie. Studien zur Verfassungstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  19. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1990. Political democracy. Conceptual and measurement traps. Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (2): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1993. Liberal democracy. Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1207–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bollen, Kenneth A., und Pamela Paxton. 1998. Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review 63 (3): 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bollen, Kenneth A., und Pamela Paxton. 2000. Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33:58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bovens, Mark. 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bühlmann, Marc, und Ruth Kunz. 2011. Confidence in the judiciary. A cross country comparison of independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West European Politics 34 (2): 317–345.Google Scholar
  25. Bühlmann, Marc, Wolfgang Merkel, Lisa Müller, und Bernhard Weβels. 2008. Wie lässt sich Demokratie am besten messen? Zum Forumsbeitrag von Thomas Müller und Susanne Pickel. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49 (1): 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Camp Keith, Linda. 2002. Constitutional provisions for individual human rights (1977–1996): Are they more than mere ‚Window Dressing?‘. Political Research Quarterly 55 (1): 111–143.Google Scholar
  27. Cassel, Carol A., und Celia C. Lo. 1997. Theories of political literacy. Political Behavior 19 (4): 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chanley, Virginia A., Thomas J. Rudolph, und Wendy M. Rahn. 2000. The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3): 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cingranelli, David L., und David L. Richards. 1999. Respect for human rights after the end of the cold war. Journal of Peace Research 36 (5): 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cohen, Joshua, und Archon Fung. 2004. Radical democracy. Swiss Political Science Review 10 (4): 169–180.Google Scholar
  31. Collier, David, und Steven Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics 49 (3): 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Coppedge, Michael, und Wolfgang Reinicke. 1990. Measuring polyarchy. Studies in Comparative International Development XXV:51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Crozier, Michel, Samuel P. Huntington, und Joji Watanuki, Hrsg. 1975. The crisis of democracy: Report on the governability of democracies to the trilateral commission. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Dahl, Robert A. 1976. Vorstufen zur Demokratie-Theorie. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  37. Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dahl, Robert A. 2006. On political equality. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Dahlerup, Trude. 2010. Engendering representation. In The future of representative democracy, Hrsg. Sonia Alonso, John Keane und Wolfgang Merkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (i.E.).Google Scholar
  40. de la Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Cristian Pop-Eleches, und Andrei Shleifer. 2004. Judicial checks and balances. Journal of Political Economy 112 (2): 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Diamond, Larry, und Leonardo Morlino. 2004. The quality of democracy: An overview. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Elkins, D. J. 1974. The measurement of party competition. American Political Science Review 68:682–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Esquith, Stephen L. 1999. Toward a democratic rule of law: East and West. Political Theory 27 (3): 334–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. The active society. London: Collier-McMillan.Google Scholar
  45. Fenske, Hans, Dieter Mertens, Wolfgang Reinhard, und Klaus Rosen. 1994. Geschichte der politischen Ideen. Von Homer bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  46. Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democracy reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Fraenkel, Ernst, Hrsg. 1962. Staat und Politik. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  48. Fraenkel, Ernst. 1991. Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. Gaber, Rusanna. 2000. Demokratie in quantitativen Indizes. Ein mehr- oder eindimensionales Phänomen? In Demokratiemessung. Konzepte und Befunde im internationalen Vergleich, Hrsg. Hans-Joachim Lauth, Gert Pickel und Christian Welzel, 112–131. Opladen: Westdeutscher.Google Scholar
  50. Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1990. The political regimes project. Studies in International Development 25 (1): 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gastil, Raymond Duncan. 1990. The comparative survey of freedom: Experiences and suggestions. Studies in Comparative International Development 1:25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Geering, John und Strom C. Thacker. 2004. Political institutions and corruption. The role of unitarism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34: 295–330.Google Scholar
  53. Gibson, James L. 2006. Judicial institutions. In Political institutions, Hrsg. R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder und Bert A. Rockman, 514–534. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Gosepath, Stefan. 2007. Equality. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/equality/.
  55. Graber, Doris. 2003. The media and democracy: Beyond myths and stereotypes. Annual Review of Political Science 6:139−160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Graber, Doris. 2004. Mediated politics and citizenship in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology 55:545–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Guillén, Mauro F. 2003. Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology 27:235–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990 [1962]. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  59. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  60. Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hamilton, Alexander, und James Madison. 1993 [1788]. Die Federalist Papers. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  62. Harmel, Robert, und John D. Robertson. 1986. Government stability and regime support: A cross-national analysis. The Journal of Politics 48 (4): 1029–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Held, David. 2006. Models of democracy. 3. Aufl. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. Heller, Hermann. 1934. Staatslehre (Herausgegeben von Gerhart Niemeyer). Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij N. V.Google Scholar
  65. Heller, Herrmann. 1971. Gesammelte Schriften (2 Bd.). Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  66. Höffe, Ottfried. 1999. Demokratie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  67. Holden, Matthew. 2006. Exclusion, inclusion, and political institutions. In Political institutions, Hrsg. R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder und Bert A. Rockman, 163–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Humana, Charles. 1992. World human rights guide. 3. Aufl. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Islam, Roumeen. 2006. Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics and Politics 18 (2): 121–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Jaggers, Keith, und Ted R. Gurr. 1995. Transition to democracy. Tracking the third wave with polity III indicators of democracy and autocracy. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4): 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kant, Immanuel. 1902 [1785]. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In Kants Gesammelte Schriften, Hrsg. Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  72. Kaufmann, Daniel, und Aart Kraay. 2008. Governance indicators: Where are we, where should we be going? MPRA Paper 8212.Google Scholar
  73. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, und Massimo Mastruzzi. 2009. Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2008. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978.Google Scholar
  74. Kelsen, Hans. 1925. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Enzyklopädie der der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaften. 23. Bd. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2004. Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  76. Lawrence, Christopher N. 2006. Should voters be encyclopedias? Measuring the political sophistication of survey respondents. Saint Louis. http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=664. Zugegriffen: 8. Mai 2009.
  77. Lijphart, Arend. 1997. Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lindstedt Catharina. 2005. Transparency and corruption. The conditional significance of a free press. Paper prepared for the conference „The Quality of Government: What It Is, How to Get It, Why It Matters“, November 17–19 2005. The quality of government institute, department of political science, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  79. Linz, Juan J., und Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Locke, John. 1974 [1689]. Über die Regierung. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  81. Manin, Bernhard, Adam Przeworski, und Susan C. Stokes. 1999. Elections and representation. In Democracy, accountability, and representation, Hrsg. Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes und Bernhard Manin, 29–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent yes. Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2010. Systemtransformation. Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  85. Merkel, Wolfgang, Hans-Jürgen Puhle, Aurel Croissant, Claudia Eicher, und Peter Thiery. 2003. Defekte Demokratien. Band 1: Theorie. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.Google Scholar
  86. Meyer, Thomas. 2005. Theorie der Sozialen Demokratie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Meyer, Thomas. 2009. Was ist Demokratie? Eine diskursive Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  88. Mill, John Stuart. 1991 [1861]. Considerations on representative government. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  89. Miller, S. M., Martin Rein, Pamela Roby, und Bertram M. Gross. 1967. Poverty, inequality, and conflict. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social science 373 (2): 16−52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu. 1965 [1748]. Vom Geist der Gesetze. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  91. Morlino, Leonardo. 2004a. ‚Good‘ and ‚Bad‘ democracies: How to conduct research into the quality of democracy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 20 (1): 5−27.Google Scholar
  92. Morlino, Leonardo. 2004b. What is a ‚Good‘ democracy? Democratization 11 (5): 10−32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Müller, Thomas, und Susanne Pickel. 2007. Wie lässt sich Demokratie am besten messen? Zur Konzeptqualität von Demokratie-Indizes. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48 (3): 511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Munck, Gerardo L., und Jay Verkuilen. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 5–34.Google Scholar
  95. Nida-Rümelin, Julian. 2006. Demokratie und Wahrheit, München: Beck.Google Scholar
  96. Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtuous circle: Political communications in post-industrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy 5 (1): 55−70.Google Scholar
  98. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2004. Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Offe, Claus, Hrsg. 2004. Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  100. Offe, Claus, und Ulrich K. Preuss. 1991. Democratic institutions and moral resources. In Political theory today, Hrsg. David Held. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Paxton, Pamela, Kenneth A. Bollen, Deborah M. Lee, und HyoJoung Kim. 2003. A half- century of suffrage: New data and a comparative analysis. Comparative International Development 38 (1): 93−122.Google Scholar
  103. Pharr, Susan J., und Robert D. Putnam. 2000. Disaffected democracies. What’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Plattner, Marc F. 2004. The quality of democracy: A skeptical afterword. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 106−110.Google Scholar
  105. Popper, Karl. 1992 [1957]. Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde. Tübingen: Siebeck.Google Scholar
  106. Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. Political representation in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7:273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Rawls, John A. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2004. Democracy and the supply of transparency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, March 17 2004.Google Scholar
  110. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1977 [1762]. Vom Gesellschaftsvertrag oder Grundsätze des Staatsrechts. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  111. Rudolph, Thomas J., und Jillian Evans. 2005. Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 660–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2004. Adressing inequality. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 76−90.Google Scholar
  113. Sartori, Giovanni. 2006. Demokratietheorie. 3. Aufl. Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar
  114. Saward, Michael. 1994. Democratic theory and indices of democratization. In Defining and measuring democracy, Hrsg. David Beetham, 6–24. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  115. Saward, Michael. 1998. The terms of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  116. Scharpf, Fritz. 1999. Regieren in Europa. Effektiv und demokratisch? Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  117. Schiller, Theo. 1999. Prinzipien und Qualifizierungskriterien von Demokratie. In Perspektiven der Demokratie. Probleme und Chancen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, Hrsg. Dirk Berg-Schlosser und Hans-Joachim Giegel, 28–56. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  118. Schmidt, Manfred G. 2000. Demokratietheorien: Eine Einführung. 3., überarb. und erw. Aufl. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  119. Schneider, Aaron. 2003. Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement. Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (3): 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. 2., überarb. und erw. Ausgabe. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
  121. Sen, Amartya. 1979. Equality of what? The tanner lecture of human values. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  122. Sen, Amartya. 1996. On the status of equality. Political Theory 24 (3): 394−400.Google Scholar
  123. Sen, Amartya. 1997. From income inequality to economic inequality. Southern Economic Journal 64 (2): 383−401.Google Scholar
  124. Steffani, Winfried. 1979. Parlamentarische und präsidentielle Demokratie. Opladen: Westdt.Google Scholar
  125. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1999. On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: The role of transparency in public life. Oxford Amnesty Lecture, January 27, 1999.Google Scholar
  126. Strom, Kaare. 1992. Democracy as political competition. American Behavioral Scientist 35 (4/5): 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Talmon, Jacob Leib. 1960. The origins of totalitarian democracy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  128. Tavits, Margit. 2006. Party system change: Testing a model of new party entry. Party Politics 12 (1): 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Teorell Jan. 2003. Linking social capital to political participation: voluntary associations and networks of recruitment in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies 26 (1): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Teorell, Jan. 2006. Political participation and three theories of democracy: A research inventory and agenda. European Journal of Political Research 45 (5): 787–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Teorell, Jan, Paul Sum, und Mette Tobiasen. 2007. Participation and political equality. An assessment of large-scale democracy. In Citizenship and involvement in European democracies. A comparative analysis, Hrsg. Jan W. Van Deth, José Ramon Montero und Anders Westholm, 384–414. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  132. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1997 [1835]. Über die Demokratie in Amerika. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  133. Truman, David B. 1971 [1951]. The governmental process. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  134. Tsebelis, George. 1995. Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 289−325.Google Scholar
  135. Urbinati, Nadja. 2010. Representative democracy and its critics. In The future of representative democracy, Hrsg. Sonia Alonso, John Keane und Wolfgang Merkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (i.E.).Google Scholar
  136. Urbinati, Nadia, und Mark E. Warren. 2008. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 11:387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Vanhanen, Tatu. 1997. Prospects of democracy: A study of 172 countries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  138. Vanhanen, Tatu. 2000. A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research 37 (2): 251−265.Google Scholar
  139. Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. Democratization. A comparative analysis of 170 countries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  140. Vossenkuhl, Wilhelm. 1997. Gleichheit. In Lexikon der Ethik, Hrsg. Otfried Höffe, 108–110. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  141. Warren, Mark E. 1996. What should we expect from more democracy? Radically democratic responses to politics. Political Theory 24 (2): 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Weber, Max. 1988 [1921]. Gesammelte Politische Schriften. Tübingen: Siebeck.Google Scholar
  143. Welzel, Christian. 2000. Humanentwicklung und Demokratie: Welcher Index erfasst die ‚humane‘ Dimension der Demokratie am besten?. In Demokratiemessung. Konzepte und Befunde im internationalen Vergleich, Hrsg. Hans-Joachim Lauth, Gert Pickel und Christian Welzel, 132–162. Opladen: Westdeutscher.Google Scholar
  144. Wolbrecht, Christina, und David E. Campbell. 2007. Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science 51:921–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1987. Measures of attitudinal consistency as indicators of ideological sophistication: A reliability and validity assessment. The Journal of Politics 49 (1): 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Young, Iris Marion. 1999. State, civil society, and social justice. In Democracy’s value, Hrsg. Ian Shapiro und Casiano Hacker-Cordon, 141–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Bühlmann
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Merkel
    • 2
  • Lisa Müller
    • 3
  • Heiko Giebler
    • 2
  • Bernhard Weβels
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftUniversität BernBernSchweiz
  2. 2.Wissenschaftszentrum BerlinBerlinDeutschland
  3. 3.Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau (ZDA)NCCR Democracy Universität ZürichZürichSchweiz

Personalised recommendations