SLIDE 1
A Multidimensional Model for Analyzing Democratic Development in Central and Eastern Europe
Sergei Obiedkov Mikhail Klimushkin Maria Shabanova Dmitry Zaytsev
Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
February 17, 2011
Indices for Measuring Democracy
“Freedom in the World” (Freedom House) “Democracy Index” (Economist Intelligence Unit) . . . Better representation
An informative description instead of a numeric score Conceptual clustering instead of averaging
Tools for analyzing dynamics and comparing ratings
A Framework for the Analysis of Data
Munck and Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices, Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 2002
Conceptualization: Identification of attributes Measurement: Selection of indicators Aggregation: Overall representation
A Framework for the Analysis of Data
Munck and Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices, Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 2002
Conceptualization: Identification of attributes Measurement: Selection of indicators Aggregation: Overall representation [. . . ] the sum of a civil liberty score of 4 and a political liberty score of 2 is the same as the sum of a civil liberty score of 2 and a political liberty score of 4 even though the substantive interpretation of these different combinations is different. Scoble and Wiseberg 1981
SLIDE 2 “Freedom in the World” Rating
Attributes
A Electoral Process B Political Pluralism and Participation C Functioning of Government D Freedom of Expression and Belief E Associational and Organizational Rights F Rule of Law G Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights
“Freedom in the World” 2009
Combined average ratings
Free Partly Free Not Free Czech Republic (1.0) Albania (3.0) Azerbaijan (5.5) Estonia (1.0) Macedonia (3.0) Kazakhstan (5.5) Germany (1.0) Montenegro (3.0) Russia (5.5) Hungary (1.0) Bosnia-Herzegovina (3.5) Tajikistan (5.5) Lithuania (1.0) Georgia (4.0) Belarus (6.5) Poland (1.0) Moldova (4.0) Turkmenistan (7.0) Slovakia (1.0) Kyrgyzstan (4.5) Uzbekistan (7.0) Slovenia (1.0) Armenia (5.0) Latvia (1.5) Bulgaria (2.0) Croatia (2.0) Romania (2.0) Serbia (2.5) Ukraine (2.5)
“Freedom in the World” 2009
Aggregate and sub-category scores
PR CL Status A B C D E F G Albania 3 3 PF 8 11 7 13 8 10 9 Armenia 6 4 PF 4 4 3 8 5 5 9 Azerbaijan 6 5 NF 2 3 3 6 3 4 8 Belarus 7 6 NF 3 1 3 1 2 5 Bulgaria 2 2 F 12 15 8 14 11 11 11 Croatia 2 2 F 12 14 9 14 12 10 13 Czech Republic 1 1 F 12 15 11 16 12 14 15 Estonia 1 1 F 12 15 12 16 12 14 14 Georgia 4 4 PF 6 6 6 11 7 5 10 Germany 1 1 F 12 15 12 15 12 15 15 Hungary 1 1 F 12 15 10 16 12 13 14 Kazakhstan 6 5 NF 2 3 2 7 4 4 8 Kyrgyzstan 5 4 PF 4 5 4 9 5 5 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal Concept Analysis
Wille 1982, Ganter, Wille 1999
Data analysis framework based on the notion of a ‘concept’ Extension is the set of objects covered by the concept. Intension is what the object should have to fall under the concept. Data is represented in a very basic data type, called a formal context. Each formal context is transformed into a mathematical structure called a concept lattice. The information contained in the formal context is preserved. The concept lattice is the basis for further data analysis. It may be represented graphically to support communication,
- r it may be investigated with algebraic methods to
unravel its structure.
SLIDE 3 Formal Concept Analysis
Formal context
a set of objects a set of attributes
- bjects are described with attributes: which object has
which attribute
Formal Concept Analysis
Formal context
a set of objects a set of attributes
- bjects are described with attributes: which object has
which attribute The context defines the scope of the discussion by specifying the domain to which it applies (objects) and defining the terms in which it is going to be discussed (attributes).
Formal Concept Analysis
Formal concept (A, B)
A are all objects that have all attributes from B B are all attributes that apply to all objects from A A is concept extent and B is concept intent. Concept (C, D) is more general than concept (A, B) if (C, D) covers all the objects covered by (A, B) and some other objects (i.e., A is a subset of C). The set of all concepts of a formal context forms a lattice.
Formal Context for the Freedom House Data
Objects: countries Attributes: parameters of democratic development
SLIDE 4
“Freedom in the World” 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2009: Free Countries “Freedom in the World” 2009: Partly Free Countries “Freedom in the World” 2009: Not Free Countries
SLIDE 5
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Georgia
Georgia behind Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia in 2009 New problems with Electoral Process and Political Pluralism
SLIDE 6 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Russia
Russia at the same level as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan in 2009 Further restrictions of Associational and Organizational Rights and reduction in Political Pluralism from 2006 on
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Free countries
“Linearization” in 2009 Partly, an effect of the chosen level of granularity, but does reflect the structure of the data
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Free countries in 2009
Free countries in 2009 = countries where Political Pluralism is (more
- r less) fully implemented
(Virtually) no problems with Electoral Process, Freedom of Expression, and Associational Rights Problems with Individual Rights imply problems with Functioning
- f Government imply problems
with Rule of Law
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Free countries in 2006
Free countries in 2006 = countries properly implementing Associational Rights and Freedom of Expression Ukraine had issues with all the other five parameters Slovenia did not exhibit problems with Rule of Law
Government despite a lower score in Individual Rights
SLIDE 7 “Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Not Free countries (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan)
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Not Free countries in 2006 (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan)
Not Free countries in 2006 = countries with noticeable violations of Individual Rights, restricted Freedom
- f Expression, and poorly
- rganized Electoral Process
In Russia, the implementation of Associational Rights and Political Pluralism was better than elsewhere In Azerbaijan, the implementation of Rule of Law was better than elsewhere
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Not Free countries in 2009 (plus Armenia and Kyrgyzstan)
Not Free countries in 2006 = countries with pour implementation of Rule of Law and Associational Rights
and all the problems of 2006
“Freedom in the World” 2006 vs. 2009
Better in Free countries Worse in Not Free countries More uniform in both categories
If a country is better than another country in one aspect, it is at least as good in any other aspect (in 2009, but not in 2006) Not the case for Partly Free countries: much more diversity there
SLIDE 8
Conclusion
Concept lattices reflect the reality only to the extent to which it is reflected by the data. Thus, they provide a tool for validating the data and the process of data collection.
Conclusion
Concept lattices as a multidimensional model for the analysis of democratic development A hierarchy of countries built according to problems they have in various aspects of democracy A better interface to the knowledge hidden in data than that provided by linear rankings: [. . . ] the index by FH has been used as a tool for measuring democracy, good governance, and human rights, thus producing a conceptual stretching which is a major cause of ‘losses in connotative precision’ [. . . ] an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything. Giannone 2010
Conclusion
Hypotheses
From Partly Free to Not Free: Features that constitute the framework of political process
Functioning of Government Electoral Process
Activity of civil society and citizen participation
Associational and Organizational Rights Political Pluralism and Participation Rule of Law
Features related to a personal sphere
Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights Freedom of Expression and Beliefs
Further Work
Comparing different indices
Different sets of parameters Different meanings for similarly named parameters Use duality between extensional and intensional characterization of lattice nodes to identify similarities and differences in conceptualization and measurement adopted in various indices
