Evaluating democratic governance: A bottom-up approach to European union enlargement

Democratization

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 251-271

  Rose, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Copenhagen criteria; Democracy; European Union; Governance; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 41349085005     PISSN: 13510347     EISSN: 1743890X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13510340701846327     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. For reviews, see Christine Arndt and Charles Oman, Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators (Paris: OECD Development Centre Studies, 2006), pp. 15ff
2. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) Governance Indicators: A Users' Guide, 2nd ed. (New York: UNDP, 2007).
3. See for example Tatu Vanhanen, Democratization: A Comparative Review of 170 Countries (London: Routledge, 2003)
4. Adam Przeworski, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
5. Cf. Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
6. Richard Rose, 'Perspectives on Political Behaviour in Time and Space', in R. J. Dalton and H. D. Klingemann (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 283-301.
7. See for example Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World', www.freedomhouse.org
8. Transparency International, Perception of Corruption Index 2006, www.transparency.org
9. The Fund for Peace, www.fundforpeace.org (accessed 23 December 2006).
10. World Bank Institute, Worldwide Governance Indicators: 1996-2005, http://web.worldbank.org/website/external/WBI/extwbigovantcor/ (accessed 23 December 2006).
11. See also Millennium Challenge Corporation, www.mca.gov.
12. See http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/ accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm.
13. Geoffrey Pridham, 'Change and Continuity in the European Union's Political Conditionality', Democratization, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2007), pp. 446-71.
14. Cf. S.M. Lipset, Political Man (New York: Doubleday, 1960), p. 7.
15. Mattei Dogan and Dominique Pelassy, How to Compare Nations, 2nd ed. (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1990).
16. Michael Coppedge, 'Thickening Thin Concepts: Issues in Large-N Data Generation', in Gerardo Munck (ed.), Regimes and Democracy in Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 105-22.
17. A population-weighted index would make India far more prominent than all the European Union countries and the United States, with very considerable implications for relating education and income to democratic citizenship.
18. See Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers, Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2003, www.cidcm.umd.edu/ inscr/polity/ (consulted 7 August 2006)
19. Tatu Vanhanen, 'A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998', Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2000), pp. 251-65.
20. Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971).
21. Exceptionally, the Polity IV Index not only classifies a country as democratic but also codes whether its authority is institutionalized and durable. See Marshall and Jaggers, Polity IV Project (note 12).
22. Kenneth A. Bollen, 'Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps', Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1990), pp. 7-24
23. Michael Coppedge and Wolfgang Reinicke, 'Measuring Polyarchy', Studies in Comparative International Development, No. 25 (1990), pp. 51-72
24. Alex Inkeles (ed.), On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991)
25. Freedom House, Nations in Transition: Democratization in East Central Europe and Eurasia (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), pp. 711-18.
26. Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World' (note 4).
27. For a conceptual and methodological review, see Gerardo Munck and Jay Verkuilen, 'Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices', Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2002), pp. 5-34.
28. Cf. Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006)
29. Stephen Knack, 'Measuring Corruption: A Critique of Indicators in Eastern Europe and Central Asia', Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2007), pp. 255-91.
30. Vanhanen, 'A New Dataset' (note 12).
31. Przeworski, et al., Democracy and Development (note 2)
32. Cf. Munck and Verkuilen (note 17), Paul Ward, 'Green Binders in Cyberspace', Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2002), pp. 46-51, 47
33. Zachary Elkins, 'Gradations of Democracy: Empirical Tests of Alternative Generalizations', American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2000), pp. 287-94.
34. Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (eds), Assessing the Quality of Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).
35. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), Table 1.1.
36. See also Wolfgang Merkel, 'The Consolidation of Post-Autocratic Democracies: A Multi-Level Model', Democratization, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1998), pp. 33-67.
37. Michael Coppedge, 'Democracy and Dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen', Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2002), pp. 35-9, see p. 37.
38. Richard Rose, William Mishler, and Neil Munro, Russia Transformed: Developing Popular Support for a New Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), chapter 2.
39. J. Pierre and B. Guy Peters, Governance, Politics and the State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000).
40. S. E. Finer, The History of Government, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
41. Transparency International, Perception of Corruption Index 2006 (note 4).
42. Ibid.
43. See World Bank Institute, Worldwide Governance Indicators (note 5).
44. For evaluations and critique, see Arndt and Oman, Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators (Paris: OECD Development Centre Studies, 2006), chapter 4
45. Knack (note 18).
46. Bertelsmann, Bertelsmann Transformation Index (Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation, 2005), p. 4.
47. Jan Zielonka (ed.), Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union (London: Routledge, 2002).
48. S. M. Lipset, 'The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited', American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (1994), pp. 1-22.
49. EU (European Union) Election Assistance and Observation, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_rela tions/human_rights/ eu_election_ass_observ/index.htm, (accessed 23 December 2006)
50. Jorgen Elklit and Andrew Reynolds, 'A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality', Democratization, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2005), pp. 147-62.
51. Hans Daalder, 'Paths Toward State Formation in Europe', in H. E. Chehabi and Alfred Stepan (eds), Politics, Society and Democracy: Comparative Studies in Honor of Juan J. Linz (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), pp. 113-30.
52. Richard Rose and Doh Chull Shin, 'Democratization Backwards: The Problem of Third-Wave Democracies', British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2001), pp. 331-54.
53. Nida M. Gelazis, 'The Effects of EU Conditionality on Citizenship Policies and the Protection of National Minorities in the Baltic States', in V. Pettai and J. Zielonka (eds), The Road to the European Union (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003), pp. 46-74.
54. European Commission, Turkey 2006 Progress Report (Brussels: 8 November, COM (2006) 649 final, 2006), pp. 10ff.
55. Cf. Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform in Eastern Europe and Latin America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
56. See, for example, Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, 'Does Identity or Economic Rationality Drive Public Opinion on European Integration?', PS, July 2004, pp. 415-20.
57. European Commission, Eurobarometer No. 62: Public Opinion in the European Union (Brussels: European Commission DG X, 2005), pp. 92ff.
58. Cf. Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Dieter Fuchs, and Jan Zielonka (eds), Democracy and Political Culture in Eastern Europe (London: Routledge, 2006).
59. See for example Richard Rose and William Mishler. Explaining the Gap between the Experience and Perception of Corruption, Studies in Public Policy No. 432, Centre for the Study of Public Policies, Aberdeen, 2007.
60. Arndt and Oman (note 32), p. 69.
61. David Beetham, 'Towards a Universal Framework for Democracy Assessment', Democratization, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2004), pp. 1-17, developed procedures intended to facilitate within-country assessments of multiple criteria of democracy by teams of nationals of the country being evaluated.
62. See also IDEA, The International IDEA Handbook on Democracy Assessment (Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2002). While this approach avoids criticisms levied at external evaluations it faces the same problem of aggregating numbers of assessments. Moreover, the representativeness of local activists or experts acting as assessors is open to challenge.
63. See World Values Survey, www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
64. For a detailed critique of the ambiguities and weaknesses of the chief World Values question evaluating democracy - how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in your country? - see Damarys Canache, Jeffery J. Mondak, and Mitchell A. Seligson, 'Meaning and Measurement in Cross-National Research on Satisfaction with Democracy', Public Opinion Quarterly, No. 65 (2001), pp. 506-28.
65. For the full questionnaire and sample details, see Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Aberdeen, 'Barometer Surveys', www.abdn.ac.uk/cspp/catalog13_0.shtml.
66. Results of the NEB fieldwork in Russia and Belarus are not reported here since neither seeks EU membership and their undemocratic practices makes it inappropriate for the EU to entertain an application if it were made.
67. Since the NEB questionnaire is specifically designed for post-communist countries, surveys have not been undertaken in Cyprus and Malta.
68. In-depth analyses of the meaning of democracy to people living in many post-communist countries emphasizes three major attributes: Freedom from the state; representative elections; and public provision of a modicum of social welfare benefits. See Janos Simon, 'Popular Conceptions of Democracy in Postcommunist Europe', in S. H. Barnes and J. Simon (ed.), The Postcommunist Citizen (Budapest: Erasmus Foundation and Institute for Political Science, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1998), pp. 79-116
69. Ellen Carnaghan, Out of Order: Russian Political Values in an Imperfect World (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007)
70. Russell J. Dalton, Doh C. Shin, and Willy Jou, Popular Concepts of the Meaning of Democracy (Paper 07-03) (Irvine, CA: University of California Center for the Study of Democracy, 2007).
71. See Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan (eds), The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
72. Cf. Juan J. Linz, 'Transitions to Democracy', The Washington Quarterly, (Summer 1990), pp. 143-64.
73. Janos Kornai, The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)
74. Alena V. Ledeneva, Russia's Economy of Favours (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
75. William L. Miller, Ase B. Grodeland, and Tatyana Y. Koshechkina, A Culture of Corruption (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001).
76. Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958).
77. Richard Rose, Insiders and Outsiders: New Europe Barometer 2004. Studies in Public Policy No. 404, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, Glasgow, 2005, p. 56.
78. Kornai (note 55).
79. Richard Rose, 'Economies in Transformation: A Multidimensional Approach to a Cross-Cultural Problem', East European Constitutional Review, Vol. 11, No. 4 and Vol. 12, No. 1 (2002), pp. 62-70.
80. The factor analysis in Table 5 pools the results of the 12 national NEB surveys, weighting each national survey as equal to 1,000 respondents.
81. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1947).
82. Richard Rose, William Mishler, and Christian Haerpfer, Democracy and its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), chapter 8
83. Donald Kinder and D. R. Kiewiet, 'Sociotropic Politics: The American Case', British Journal of Political Science, No. 11, (1981), pp. 129-61.
84. Rose et al. (note 26), chapters 9-10.
85. Once a detailed review of an applicant country begins, the alternative to admission is not outright rejection but EU inaction, in order to give an applicant country the opportunity to improve substandard elements of its system of governance. The application of Turkey is distinctive in that some member states argue that it should be refused on principle, because its population's Moslem religion makes it un-European by definition.
86. Given the fluctuations inherent in random samples, a country whose citizens rate it within three per cent of the lowest-rated enlargement country can be described as around the EU threshold. If it is more than three per cent higher, it can be described as above the threshold, and if more than three per cent lower, as below the threshold.
87. Cf. House of Lords, The Further Enlargement of the EU: Threat or Opportunity? European Union Committee HL Paper 273 (London: The Stationery Office, 2006)
88. Pridham (note 7).
89. See for example Peter Burnell (ed.), Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for Democratization (London: Frank Cass, 2000)
90. Andrew T. Green and Richard D. Kohl, 'Challenges of Evaluating Democracy Assistance: Perspectives from the Donor Side', Democratization, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2007), pp. 151-65.
91. Heather Grabbe, The EU's Transformative Power: Europeanization through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).
92. Tim Haughton, 'When Does the EU Make a Difference? Conditionality and the Accession Process in Central and Eastern Europe', Political Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2007), pp. 233-46.
93. See for example Wade Jacoby, The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO: Ordering from the Menu in Central Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
94. Frank Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005)
95. Milada Anna Vachudova, Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage and Integration after Communism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
96. Haughton (note 70), p. 243
97. cf. Olli Rehn, Europe's Next Frontiers (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag Münchner Beiträge zur europäischen Einigung 14, 2006).
98. Rehn (note 72), pp. 51ff.
99. George Parker, Kerin Hope, and Christopher Condon, 'Europe's Errant Entrants', Financial Times, 13 June 2007.
100. The decision of the leader of the Austrian People's Party to join a coalition with Jörg Haider's Freedom Party was more effective. The strain of serving in a coalition government led the Freedom Party to split and most of its seats were lost at the next Austrian election.