Abstract
Lijphart’s consociational theory is examined through multiple regression, factor analysis, and scatterplots. The results of these quantitative tests collectively demonstrate that elements of consociation do affect stability in plural societies, highly inclusive executives are beneficial, and the influence of minority veto (MV) power is nuanced. Tests performed on this dataset do not find that segmental autonomy (SA), or the overall category of proportional representation electoral systems, exert stabilizing influences on stability in plural societies. Factor analysis suggests that Lijphart is correct in observing that consociations are not inherently less stable than more majoritarian democracies operating in less plural societies. These results emphasize the future potential explanatory value of increasingly precise quantitative representation of diverse manifestations of consociational components.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
& Four figures are provided on the website, indicating the percentages of each continent’s cases found to have evidence of the four consociational components.
- 2.
All of the proportions described in this section, “Surveying the Body of Data,” are rounded to the nearest whole number.
- 3.
& More details concerning the construction of the data representing such executives are on the website.
- 4.
The only exception to this methodology involving SA concerned Fiji. It is described on the website.
- 5.
Lijphart (1975, pp. 197, 210).
- 6.
& More details concerning the construction of the data representing SA are on the website.
- 7.
“Panel.”
- 8.
& More information regarding the manner by which this form of regression analysis was chosen is provided on the website.
- 9.
Lustick (1979, p. 330).
- 10.
& More details concerning the individual scatterplots are on the website.
- 11.
Torres-Reyna, “Getting Started in Factor Analysis (Using Stata 10) (ver.1.5).” http://dss.princeton.edu/training/Factor.pdf.
- 12.
Torres-Reyna.
- 13.
Torres-Reyna.
- 14.
Torres-Reyna.
- 15.
Torres-Reyna.
- 16.
Abdi (2003, p. 2).
- 17.
Abdi (2003, p. 3).
- 18.
References
Abdi, Hervé. “Factor Rotations in Factor Analyses.” Encyclopedia for Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Eds. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan E. Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.
Lijphart, Arend. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California, 1975.
Lustick, Ian. “Stability in Deeply Divided Societies: Consociation Versus Control.” World Politics. 31:3 (1979) 325–344.
Rabushka, Alvin and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.
Rabushka, Alvin and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 2009.
Torres-Reyna, Oscar. “Getting Started in Factor Analysis (Using Stata 10) (ver.1.5).” Princeton University. http://dss.princeton.edu/training/Factor.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kelly, B.B. (2019). Quantitative Results. In: Power-Sharing and Consociational Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14191-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14191-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14190-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14191-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)