Skip to main content
Log in

Emancipative values and democracy: Response to Hadenius and Teorell

  • Published:
Studies in Comparative International Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article demonstrates that Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell’s attempt to disprove a causal effect of emancipative mass orientations on democracy is flawed in each of its three lines of reasoning. First, contrary to Hadenius and Teorell’s claim that measures of “effective democracy” end up in meaningless confusion of democracy and minor aspects of its quality, we illustrate that additional qualifications of democracy illuminate meaningful differences in the effective practice of democracy. Second, Hadenius and Teorell’s finding that emancipative orientations have no significant effect on subsequent measures of democracy from Freedom House is highly unstable: using only a slightly later measure of the dependent variable, the effect turns out to be highly signficant. Third, we illustrate that these authors’ analytical strategy is irrelevant to the study of democratization because the temporal specification they use misses almost all cases of democratization. We present a more conclusive model of democratization, analyzing how much a country moved toward or away from democracy as the dependent variable. The model shows that emancipative orientations had a strong effect on democratization during the most massive wave of democratization ever—stronger than any indicator of economic development. Finally, we illustrate a reason why this is so: emancipative orientations motivate emancipative social movements that aim at the attainment, sustenance, and extension of democratic freedoms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boix, Carles. 2003.Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. 1973.Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenspleet, Renske. 2000. “Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization.”World Politics 52 (April): 384–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foweraker, John and Todd Landman. 1997.Citizenship Rights and Social Movements: A Comparative Statistical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, Axel and Jan Teorell. 2005. “Cultural and Economic Prerequisites of Democracy: Reassessing Recent Evidence.”Studies in Comparative International Development 39: 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel P. 1991.The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2005.Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, Robert W. and Ross A. Miller. 1998. “Social Capital and Politics.”Annual Review of Political Science 1: 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatnycky, Adrian and Peter Ackerman. 2005.How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy. Washington D.C.: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2005. “Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–2004.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3630. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzman, Charles. 1998. “Waves of Democratization.”Studies in Comparative International Development 33 (Spring): 42–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, Harold D. 1951.Democratic Character. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.”American Political Science Review 53 (March): 69–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Edward N. and Mitchell A. Seligson. 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships.”American Political Science Review 88 (3): 635–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. “Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies.” Pp. 1–78 inTransitions from Authoritarian Rule (vol. 4), eds. Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, Marina. 2003.Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam. 1992. “The Games of Transition.” Pp. 105–152 inIssues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, eds. Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell, and Arturo Valenzuela. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard. 2001. “A Divergent Europe.”Journal of Democracy 12 (1): 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward A Dynamic Model.”Comparative Politics 2 (April): 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, Wayne and Rein Taagepera. 2005. “Corruption, Culture, and Communism.”International Review of Sociology.

  • Schock, Kurt. 2004.Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. University of Minnesota Press.

  • Tilly, Charles. 2004.Social Movements: 1768–2004. Paradigm.

  • Vanhanen, Tatu. 1997.Prospects of Democracy. London. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, Christian, Ronald Inglehart, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2003. “The Theory of Human Development: A Cross-Cultural Analyses.”European Journal of Political Research 42(2): 341–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, Christian and Ronald Inglehart. 2005. “Democratization as the Growth of Freedom: The Human Development Perspective.”Japanese Journal of Political Science 6(3): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, Christian. 2006. “Democratization as an Emancipative Process: The Neglected Role of Mass Motivations.”European Journal of Political Research 45: forthcoming.

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Christian Welzel is professor of political science at the International University Bremen (IUB). He is a member of the Executive Committee of the World Values Surveys Association. His research interests focus on democratization, value change, political culture, protest participation, social capital, and human development. Author of more than 60 publications, his recent article is “Democratization as an Emancipative Process.”European Journal of Political Research (2006). His recent book (with Ronald Inglehart) isModernization, Cultural and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (2005).

Ronald Inglehart is a professor of political science and program director at the Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan. Since 1988, he has directed the World Values Surveys. Author of more than 170 publications, his recent books includeModernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies (1997); (with Chritian Welzel)Modernization, Cultural and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (2005); and (with Pippa Norris)Gender Equality and Cultural Change (2003). Recent articles include (with Wayne Baker) “Modernization, Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values.”American Sociological Review. (2000). “How Solid is Mass Support for Democracy—And How Do We Measure It?”PS: Political Science and Politics (2003).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. Emancipative values and democracy: Response to Hadenius and Teorell. St Comp Int Dev 41, 74–94 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686237

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686237

Keywords

Navigation