Advertisement

Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 311–320 | Cite as

A proposal for a more objective measure of de facto constitutional constraints

  • Moshe Yanovskiy
  • Tim Ginker
Original Paper
  • 240 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we propose two new indicators of de facto constitutional constraints. The indicators are based on the presence or the absence of easily observable political events. This makes the proposed measures relatively objective and easy to verify relative to the most widely used indicators of de jure and de facto constitutions. This paper describes the indicators and demonstrates their usefulness for research on economic development.

Keywords

De facto constitutional constraints Constitutional constraints Expert ranking Retrospective assessments Democracy and growth 

JEL Classification

P50 N40 O43 C81 

Notes

Aknowledgements

We wish to thank the Editor in Chief Roger Congleton for his help that greatly influenced this article. We are also grateful to three anonymous referees for comments and references.

References

  1. Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F., & Przeworski, A. (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of economic growth. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bils, M., & Klenow, P. J. (2000). Does schooling cause growth? The American Economic Review, 90(5), 1160–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolt, J., & van Zanden, J. L. (2014). The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. The Economic History Review, 67(3), 627–651.Google Scholar
  5. Dupuy E. R., & Dupuy T. N. (1986). The encyclopedia of military history (2nd ed.). Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Pop-Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Judicial Checks and Balances. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(01), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2010 Monty G. Marshall, Director http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
  9. Przeworski, A. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ríos-Figueroa, J., & Staton, J. K. (2014). An evaluation of cross-national measures of judicial independence. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 30(1), 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Suharev, A. Ya. (Ed.). (2003). Legal system of the countries around the world (3rd ed.). Moscow: Norma.Google Scholar
  12. Tavares, J., & Wacziarg, R. (2001). How democracy affects growth. European economic review, 45(8), 1341–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shomron Center for Economic Policy ResearchKarney ShomronIsrael
  2. 2.Center for Political Economy and Regional DevelopmentGaidar Institute for Economic PolicyMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations