The Library

Which type of democracy performs best?

Tools

Doorenspleet, Renske and Pellikaan, Huib. (2012) Which type of democracy performs best? Acta Politica, Volume 48 (Number 3). pp. 237-267. ISSN 0001-6810

Preview

Text
WRAP_Doorenspleet_Manuscript Acta Politica.pdf - Accepted Version
Download (1064Kb) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ap.2012.35

Abstract

Which type of democracy performs best? While some scholars argue that an electoral system with proportional representation combined with a decentralized system works best, and that the type of electoral system is crucial (Lijphart 1999), others state that a proportional electoral system with a centralized (and hence not decentralized) system lead to better performance (Gerring et al. 2005; Gerring and Thacker 2008). Still other scholars claim that decentralization is crucial, particularly in countries with deeply divided societies (Norris 2008). In this article, we argue that Lijphart’s earlier 1960s work needs to be combined with his more recent 1990s work, which results in an eightfold classification. This cube with eight different types of democracy not only enables us to compare the three rival claims in a systematic way, but is also a helpful tool for future studies focusing on types of democratic systems, and their origins and consequences. Our findings show that the type of electoral system is always crucial; the other two dimensions are crucial as well, though under different circumstances. In order to achieve the highest level of good governance, the best choice for the type of political system (centralization or decentralization) depends on the structure of the society (homogeneous or not). Centralization is best in homogeneous societies, while decentralization is best in heterogeneous societies. We recommend that future studies take into account all eight different types of democracy that can be distinguished based on Lijphart’s theoretical arguments in earlier and later work.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

J Political Science > JC Political theory

Divisions:

Faculty of Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Democracy

Journal or Publication Title:

Acta Politica

Publisher:

Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

ISSN:

0001-6810

Official Date:

November 2012

Dates:

Date	Event
November 2012	Published

Volume:

Volume 48

Number:

Number 3

Number of Pages:

Page Range:

pp. 237-267

Identification Number:

10.1057/ap.2012.35

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Restricted or Subscription Access

References:

Aarts, C.W.A.M. and J.J.A. Thomassen (2008). ‘Satisfaction with Democracy: Do Institutions Matter?’, Electoral Studies 27: 5-18.
Adcock, R. and D. Collier (2001). ‘Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research', American Political Science Review 95: 529-546.
Almond, G.A. (1956). ‘Comparative Political Systems’, The Journal of Politics 18: 391-409.
Anderson, L. (2001). ‘The Implications of Institutional Design for Macroeconomic Performance. Reassessing the Claims of Consensus Democracy’, Comparative Political Studies 34: 429-452.
Anderson, C.D. (2009). ‘Institutional Change, Economic Conditions and Confidence in Government: Evidence from Belgium’, Acta Politica 44: 28-49.
Andeweg, R.B. (2000). ‘Consociational Democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science 3: 509-536.
Andeweg, R.B. (2001). ‘Lijphart versus Lijphart: The Cons of Consensus Democracy in Homogeneous Societies’, Acta Politica 36: 117-128.
Armingeon, K. (2002). ‘The Effects of Negotiation Democracy: A Comparative Analysis’, European Journal of Political Research 41: 81-105.
Blais, A. and R.K. Carty (1996). ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?’, European Journal of Political Research 18: 167-181.
Bogaards, M. (1998). ‘The Favourable Factors of Consociational Democracy: A Review’, European Journal of Political Research 33: 475-496.
Bogaards, M. (2000). ‘The Uneasy Relationship between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 12: 395-423.
Burnell, P. and R. Youngs (eds.) (2010). New Challenges to Democratization. London: Routledge.
Bulsara, H. and B. Kissane (2009). ‘Arend Lijphart and the Transformation of Irish Democracy’, West European Politics 32: 172-195.
Castles, F.G. (1994). ‘The Political Consequences of Proportional Representation: A Sceptical Commentary’, Political Science 46: 161-171.
Cox, G.W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crepaz, M.L. (1996a). ‘Constitutional Structures and Regime Performance in 18 Industrialized Democracies: A Test of Olson’s Hypotheses’, European Journal of Political Research 29: 87-104.
Crepaz, M.L. (1996b.) ‘Consensus versus Majoritarian Democracy: Political Institutions and Their Impact on Macroeconomic Performance and Industrial Disputes’, Comparative Political Studies 29: 4-26.
Crozier, M. J., S. P. Huntington and J. Watanuki (1975). The Crisis in Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
Doorenspleet, R. (2000). ‘Reassessing the Three Waves of Democratization’, World Politics 52: 384-406.
Doorenspleet, R. (2005). ‘Electoral systems and good governance in divided countries’, Ethnopolitics 4: 365-380.
Duverger, M. (1964). Political Parties, their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Science Editions.
Flinders, M. (2010). Democratic Drift - Majoritarian Modification and Democratic Anomie in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University.
Fortin, J. (2008). ‘Patterns of Democracy? Counterevidence from Nineteen Post-Communist Countries’, Zeitschrift Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 2: 198-220.
Freitag, M. and A. Vatter (2009). ‘Patterns of Democracy: A sub-national Analysis of the German Lander’, Acta Politica 44: 410-438
Fuchs, D. and H.D. Klingemann (1998). ‘Citizens and the State: A Relationship Transformed’ in H.D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds.), Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 419-444.
Ganghof, S. (2005). ‘Normative Modelle, institutionelle Typen und beobachtbare Verhaltensmuster: Ein Vorschlag zum Vergleich parlamentarischer Demokratien’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 46: 406-31.
Gerring, J. and S.C. Thacker and C. Moreno (2005). 'Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry', American Political Science Review 99: 567-581.
Gerring, J. and S.C. Thacker (2008). A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golder, M. (2005). 'Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946 – 2000’, Electoral Studies 24: 103-121.
Goertz, G. (2005). Social Science Concepts: A Users Guide. Princeton University Press.
Horowitz, D.L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1981.) American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Huntington, S.P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Jackman, R.W. (1987). ‘Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies’, American Political Science Review 81: 405-423.
Katz, R.S. (1980). A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Katz, R.S. and R. Koole (2001). 'Political Data in 2001', European Journal of Political Research 41: 885-896.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi (2004). 'Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996 – 2002', The World Bank Economic Review 18: 253 - 287.
Keman, H. and P. Pennings (2008). ‘The Changing Landscape of Dutch Politics Since the 1970s: A Comparative Exploration’, Acta Politica 43: 154-179.
Knutsen, C.H. (2010). 'Which Democracies Prosper? Electoral Rules, Form of Government and Economic Growth, Electoral Studies 30: 83-90.
Lewin, L. (2000). ‘Introduction. Special Issue: The Future of Democracy’, Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 245.
Linz, J. (2000). ‘Democratic Political Parties: Recognizing Contradictory Principles and Perception’, Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 252-265.
Lijphart, A. (1968). ‘Typologies of Democratic Systems’, Comparative Political Studies 1: 3-44.
Lijphart, A. (1969). ‘Consociational Democracy', World Politics 2: 207-225.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1985). ‘Non-Majoritarian Democracy: A Comparison of Federal and Consociational Theories’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15: 3-15.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (2000a). ‘The Future of Democracy: Reasons for Pessimism, but Also Some Optimism', Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 265-273.
Lijphart, A. (2000b). ‘Definitions, Evidence, and Policy’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 12: 425-431.
Lijphart, A. (2001). ‘The Pros and Cons - But Mainly Pros - of Consensus Democracy’, Acta Politica 36: 129-139.
Lijphart, A. (2002). ‘Negotiation Democracy versus Consensus Democracy: Parallel Conclusions and Recommendations’, European Journal of Political Research 41: 107-113.
Lijphart, A. (2008). Thinking About Democracy. Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, second edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Loewenstein, K. (1957). Political Power and the Governmental Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Muller-Rommel, F. (2008). ‘Demokratiemuster und Leistungsbilanz von Regierungen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Arend Lijphart's ‘Patterns of Democracy’, Zeitschrift Vergleichende Politikwissenschaften 2: 78-94.
Newton K. and I. Budge (1997). The Politics of the New Europe: From the Atlantic to the Urals. London: Longmans.
Norris, P. (1999a). ‘Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens?, in P. Norris (ed.) Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-31.
Norris, P. (1999b). ‘Conclusions: The Growth of Critical Citizens and its Consequences’ in: P.Norris (ed.) Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257 – 273.
Norris, P. (2008). Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. (1982). Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rae, D.W. (1967). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Renwick (2008). ‘The Politics of Electoral Reform in Established Democracies’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 28-31 August 2008.
Renwick, A. (2011). ‘Electoral System Choice in Europe since 1945’, West European Politics 34 (3): 456-77.
Reynolds, A. (ed.) (2002). The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riker (1975). ‘Federalism’ in F. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science 5: 93-172.
Roberts, A. (2005). ‘The Quality of Democracy’. Comparative Politics 37 (3): 357-376.
Roeder, P.G. and D. Rothchild (eds.) (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Roller, E. (2005). The Performance of Democracies. Political Institutions and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, R. (1992). What are the Political Consequences of PR? London: Electoral Reform Society.
Sartori, G. (1970). 'Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics', American Political Science Review 64: 1033–1053.
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative Constitutional Engineering. An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. London: Macmillan.
Shugart, M. and M. Wattenberg (2001). Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siaroff, A. (2000). ‘The Fate of Centrifugal Democracies: Lessons from Consociational Theory and System Performance’, Comparative Politics 32: 317-332.
Sinardet, D. (2010). ‘From Consociational Consciousness to Majoritarian Myth: Consociational Democracy, Multi-level Politics and the Belgian Case of Brussels-halle-Vilvoorde’, Acta Politica 45: 346-369.
Schmidt, M.G. (2002). 'Political Performance and Types of Democracy: Findings from Comparative Studies', European Journal of Political Research 41: 147-163.
Taagepera, R. and M.S. Shugart (1989). The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Taagepera, R. (2003). ‘Arend Lijphart's Dimensions of Democracy: Logical Connections and Institutional Design’, Political Studies 51: 1-19.
Tavits, M. (2004). ‘The Size of Government in Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 34: 340-359.
Van Cranenburgh, O. and P. Kopecky (2004). ‘Political Institutions in New Democracies: (not so) Hidden Majoritarianism in Post-Apartheid South Africa’, Acta Politica 39: 279-96.
Vatter, A. (2007). ‘Lijphart goes Regional: Different Patterns of Consensus in Swiss Democracies’, West European Politics 30: 148-171.
Vatter, A. (2009). ‘Lijphart Expanded: Three Dimensions of Democracy in Advanced OECD Countries?’ European Political Science Review 1: 125-54.
Vatter, A. and J. Bernauer (2009). 'The Missing Dimension of Democracy: Institutional Patterns of 25 EU Member States between 1997 and 2006', European Union Politics 10: 335-360.
Ware, A. (2000). ‘All-embracing Comparative Analysis’, Government and Opposition 35: 412-414.