Social Indicators Research

, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 1069–1087 | Cite as

Respect for Civil Liberties During the Third Wave of Democratization: Presenting a New Dataset



The literature on state repression has increased voluminously in recent decades. However, First Amendment-type civil liberties have not received much attention compared to neighbouring freedoms such as electoral rights and physical integrity rights. This neglect is arguably related to the lack of high-quality disaggregated measures. In this paper, we present a new dataset on respect for civil liberties—the Civil Liberties Dataset (CLD)—which includes indicators on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of religion, and freedom of movement for 207 countries in the period 1976–2010. An assessment of the levels, development, sequencing, and correlates of civil liberties not only reveals a number of interesting patterns, it also shows that the CLD has a competitive edge vis-à-vis extant measures. We conclude that the CLD opens new avenues for research on state repression in general and civil liberties in particular.


Civil liberties Dataset Measurement validity Developments Sequencing Correlates 


  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Berg-Schlosser, D. (Ed.). (2007). Democratization: The state of the art. Opladen: Barbera Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2009). Long waves and conjunctures of democratization. In C. W. Haerpfer, P. Bernhagen, R. F. Inglehart, & C. Welzel (Eds.), Democratization (pp. 41–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berlin, I. (2002). Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertelsmann Transformation Index (2013). Bertelsmann Transformation Index,
  8. Boix, C. (2011). Democracy, development, and the international system. International Political Science Review, 105(4), 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway, R., & Matthews, E. (2008). Strategic US foreign assistance: The battle between human rights and security. Abingdon: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, S., Gibney, M., & Poe, S. (2010). The politics of human rights: The quest for dignity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carothers, T. (1999). Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  12. Casper, G., & Tufis, C. (2003). Correlation versus interchangeability: The limited robustness of empirical findings on democracy using highly correlated data sets. Political Analysis, 11(2), 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143(1/2), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cingranelli, D., & Richards, D. (2008). The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) human rights data project coding manual.
  15. Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Measuring the level, pattern, and sequence of government respect for physical integrity rights. International Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cingranelli, D., & Richards, D. (2010). The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) human rights data project. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke, J. (1994). The language of liberty 1660–1832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dallin, A., & Breslauer, G. (1970). Political terror in communist systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Davenport, C. (2004). The promise of democratic pacification: An empirical assessment. International Studies Quarterly, 48(3), 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davenport, C. (2007a). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davenport, C. (2007b). State repression and the tyrannical peace. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DeMeritt, J., & Young, J. (2013). A political economy of human rights: Oil, natural gas, and state incentives to repress. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond, L. (2002). Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fish, S. M. (2002). Islam and authoritarianism. World Politics, 55(1), 4–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gearon, L. (2006). Freedom of expression and human rights. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Giannone, D. (2010). Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: The freedom house case. Democratization, 17(1), 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldstein, R. J. (1978). Political repression in modern America: From 1870 to the present. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  31. Hathaway, O. (2002). Don human rights treatises make a difference? Yale Law Journal, 111(8), 1935–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hintze, O. (1975[1906]). The historical essays of Otto Hintze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. House, F. (2013). Freedom in the World.
  34. Howard, R., & Donnelly, J. (1986). Human dignity, human rights, and political regimes. American Political Science Review, 80(3), 801–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2009). How development leads to democracy: What we know about modernization. Foreign Affairs, 88(2), 33–48.Google Scholar
  38. Innes, J. E. (1992). Human rights reporting as a policy tool: An examination of the state department country reports. In T. B. Jabine & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights and statistics: Getting the record straight (pp. 235–257). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ishay, M. (2004). The history of human rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Keith, L. (2002). Constitutional provisions for individual human rights (1976–1996): Are they more than mere window dressing? Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 111–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Landis, R., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174. Google Scholar
  42. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, B. (1990). The roots of Muslim rage. The Atlantic Monthly September: 47–60.Google Scholar
  44. Linz, Juan (2000[1975]). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist societies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review, 94(4), 1–22.Google Scholar
  47. Maier, H. (Ed.). (1996). Totalitarismus und politische Religionen. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
  48. Maier, H., & Schäfer, M. (1997). Totalitarismus und politische Religionen. Schöningh: Band II. Paderborn.Google Scholar
  49. Marshall, P. A. (2007). Religious freedom in the world. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. McNitt, A. D. (1988). Some thoughts on the systematic measurement of the abuse of human rights. In D. L. Cingranelli (Ed.), Human rights: Theory and measurement (pp. 89–103). Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Merkel, W., & Croissant, A. (2000). Formale und informale institutionen in defekten demokratien. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 41(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merkel, W., Puhle, H. J., Croissant, A., & Thiery, P. (2006). Defekte demokratie: Regionalanalysen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  53. Mokken, R. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Mouton: The Hauge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2011). Requisites of democracy: Conceptualization, measurement, and explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2013). Democracy and democratization in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Munck, G. (2006). Drawing boundaries: How to craft intermediate regime categories. In A. Schedler (Ed.), Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition (pp. 27–40). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Munck, G. (2009). Measuring democracy: A bridge between scholarship and politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Munck, G. (2011). Democratic theory after transitions from authoritarian rule. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 333–343.Google Scholar
  59. Munck, G., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O'Donnell, G. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
  61. O’Donnell, G. (2007). Dissonances: Democratic critiques of democracy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  62. O’Donnell, G. (2010). Democracy, agency, and the state: Theory with comparative intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poe, S., Tate, C., & Keith, L. (1999). Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited: A global cross-national study covering the years 1976–1993. International Studies Quarterly 43(2), 291–313.Google Scholar
  64. Poe, S., Carey, S., & Vazquez, T. (2001). How are these pictures different? A quantitative comparison of the us state department and amnesty international human rights reports, 1976–1995. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(3), 650–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ross, M. (2008). Oil, Islam, and women. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 107–123.Google Scholar
  66. Ross, M. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Skaaning, S.-E. (2010). Measuring civil liberty: An assessment of standards-based data sets. Revista de Ciencia Política, 29(3), 721–740.Google Scholar
  68. Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of democratization: Explaining regime change in the world, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Schuur, W. H. (2003). Mokken scale analysis: Between the guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis, 11(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Schuur, W. H. (2011). Ordinal item response theory: Mokken scale analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: The image of balance. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Witte, J. (2007). The reformation of rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Woodberry, R. D. (2012). The missionary roots of liberal democracy. American political Science Review, 106(2), 244–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracies. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations