Abstract
This article shows the outcomes of the first project in Spain aiming to measure the quality of its democracy. The research, led by the Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), is based on a survey allowing citizens to evaluate the performance of their democracy. The analysis is based on eight dimensions of democratic quality, following the normative framework proposed by Morlino (2009): rule of law, electoral accountability, inter-institutional accountability, participation, competition, liberty, equality and sensitivity (or responsiveness).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a summary of the literature, see Munck and Verkuilen (2002).
See, e.g., Weir and Beetham (1999) or Bühlmann et al (2007) for analytical frameworks on the quality of democracy different to that proposed here.
By ‘results’, we mean primarily the effect that certain public policies have on social and/or economic terms (greater social redistribution, existence of certain social, economic or cultural rights and so on).
According to Diamond and Morlino (2005: 12), ‘a good democracy is […] first a broadly legitimized regime that satisfies citizen expectations of governance’.
This variable measured on question: ‘People like me have no chance of being heard by politicians’.
In a good democracy, this kind of rights is also extended to all adults residents in a given territory, so that immigrants can also participate in this part of the political process.
References
Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W. and Wessels, B. (2007) ‘The quality of democracy: Democracy Barometer for established democracies’, National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR), Working Paper No 10.
Chang, A., Chang, Y. and Chu, Y. (2009) ‘Political values and regime evaluation in East Asia’, Paper presented at the European Consortium of Political Research General Conference, 10–12 September, Postdam Germany.
Coppedge, M. and Reinicke, W.H. (1991) ‘Measuring Polyarchy’, in A. Inkeles (ed.) On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 47–68.
Dalton, R.J. (1999) ‘Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, in P. Norris (ed.) Critical Citizens: Support for Democratic Governance, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–77.
Dalton, R.J. (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices, New York: Oxford University Press.
Diamond, L. and Morlino, L. (eds) (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Freedom House. (2000) Annual Survey of Freedom Country Scores, 1972–1973 to 1999–2000, www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm.
Gastil, R.D. (1991) ‘The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions’, in A. Inkeles (ed.) On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 21–46.
Inglehart, R. (1998) Modernización y Posmodernización: El Cambio Cultural, Económico y Político en 43 Sociedades, Madrid: CIS.
Logan, C. and Mattes, R. (2010) ‘Democratizing the measurement of democratic quality: Public attitude data and the evaluation of African political regimes’, CSSR Working Paper No. 281. Democracy in Africa Research Unit.
Magalhaes, P. (2009) ‘A Qualidade da Democracia em Portugal: A Perspectiva dos Cidadãos’, Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Empirical Analysis’, 15 January, Lisbon Portugal.
Marshall, M.G. and Jaggers, K. (2001) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–1999. The Polity IV Dataset, www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/polity.
Montero, J.R. and Torcal, M. (eds) (2006) Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies: Social Capital, Institutions, and Politics, London: Routledge.
Morlino, L. (2009) ‘Qualities of democracy: How to analyze them’, Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Empirical Analysis’, 15 January, Lisbon Portugal.
Munck, G.L. and Verkuilen, J. (2002) ‘Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices’, Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 5–34.
Pharr, S.J. and Putnam, R.D. (2000) What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M.E., Cheibub, J.A. and Limongi, F. (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990, Cambridge: University Press.
Vanhanen, T. (1997) Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries, London, New York: Routledge.
Vanhanen, T. (2000) ‘A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998’, Journal of Peace Research 37 (2): 251–265.
Vanhanen, T. (2003) Democratization: A Comparative Analysis of 170 Countries, London, New York: Routledge.
Verba, S. and Nie, N.H. (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, New York: Harper & Row.
Weir, S. and Beetham, D. (1999) Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fortes, B., Brihuega, I. Testing the Quality of Democracy: The Case of Spain. Eur Polit Sci 11, 492–508 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.48
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.48