AARERE CITIZENSCITIZENS FITFIT FORFOR
DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY??Pippa NorrisHarvard UniversityHarvard University www.pippanorris.com
STRUCTURE
I. Can citizens judge the health of democratic
6/8/2
governance?Rational and informed evaluations by public?
Best judge of their own interests?
008www.pip
Or technical ‘elite’ judgments preferable?
II. Evidence for mass against elite evaluationsDemocratic governance
ppanorris.com
Corruption Human rights
III. Do mass and elite evaluations correlate?Complex and far from straightforward relationship
IV. Discussion and conclusion Where mass or elite diverge, which evaluations are more e e ass o e te d e ge, c e a uat o s a e o ereliable, valid, accurate, credible, and legitimate standards? 2
I. CI. CANAN CITIZENSCITIZENS JUDGEJUDGE THETHE
HEALTHHEALTH OFOF THEIRTHEIR OWNOWN
DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY??
6/8/2
Diagnostic tools
008www.pip
Public evaluations Elite evaluations
panorris.com
Democratic auditRepresentative public opinion
'Expert' perceptual Composite Democratic audit
E.g. Britain,
public opinion surveys
E.g. World
perceptual surveys
E.g. TI
indicators
E g KK GoodgCanada, Sweden,
Australia
gValues Survey, Afrobarometer
gCorruption
Perception Index
E.g. KK Good Governance
4
II EII EVIDENCEVIDENCE OFOF MASSMASS ANDANDII. EII. EVIDENCEVIDENCE OFOF MASSMASS ANDAND
ELITEELITE EVALUATIONSEVALUATIONS
MANY CROSS‐NATIONAL SURVEYS GAUGEPUBLIC EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
6/8/2
Series Series started Frequency Total nations(latest survey) 008
www.pip
Euro‐barometer and related studies 1970 Bi‐annual 27
European Values/ World Values Study 1981‐1983 Approx. 5 years 92
International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 1985 Annual 38
d f l l d l
panorris.com
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)
1996‐2001 Module every 5 years 31
Comparative National Election Study 1990 Irregular 19
Global‐barometers, including:
New Europe Barometers 1991 Irregular 16
Afrobarometer 1999 Annual 18
Latino‐barometer 1995 Annual 18
Asian barometer 2001 Annual 17Asian barometer 2001 Annual 17
Arab Barometer 2005 Annual 5
The European Social Survey (ESS) 2002 Biennial 21
Transatlantic Trends 2002 Annual 136The Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2002 Irregular 54
Gallup International Voice of the People 2002 Annual 60
WORLD VALUES SURVEYPublic evaluations of democratic governance
(Q163): “How democratically is this country being governed today?
6/8/2(Q ) y y g g y
Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” (2005 wave)
bl l f h h
008www.pip
Public evaluations of human rights“(Q164) How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country?
Do you feel there is A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4) Fairly much
ppanorris.com
Do you feel there is.. A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” (1995‐2005)
Public perceptions of corruptionQ200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you thinkQ200 201: Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified (1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…
Cheating on taxes if you have a chance..
S ti b ib i th f th i d ti ”Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties.” 7
SELECTED ‘ELITE’ EVALUATIONS
6/8/2Democracy Corr HR 008
Democracy HRLiberal
democracyConstitution
al democracy
Participatory democracy
Contested democracy
Corruption Perception
Index
Human Rights
Source Freedom House
Polity IV Vanhanen Przeworski et al./ Cheibub and Gandhi
Transparency International
Cingranelli-Richards
Core Political rights Democracy Electoral Contestation Perceptions of Measures
attributes and civil liberties
and autocracy
competition and electoral participation
of executive and legislature
corruption practices in 13 types of human rights
Measuremen Continuous 7‐ Continuous 100‐point Dichotomous Continuous Continuous easu e et of attributes
o uouspoint scales for each
o uous20‐point scale
00 poscales
c o o ousclassification global ranking scales
A l 1972 t d t 1800 t 1999 1810 t 2000 1946 t 2002 1995 to date 1981 20068Annual
Observations1972 to date 1800 to 1999 1810 to 2000 1946 to 2002 1995 to date 1981-2006
III CIII CORRELATIONORRELATION BETWEENBETWEENIII. CIII. CORRELATIONORRELATION BETWEENBETWEEN
MASSMASS ANDAND ELITEELITE VIEWSVIEWS??•Democracy
•Human rights
•Corruption
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY DIFFERl ( l d) N of countries
6/8/2
Correlation
with public
evaluations of
Sig. (2‐tailed) N. of countries
008www.pip
democracy
Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) .234 .151 39
ppanorris.com
Participatory Democracy (Vanhanen) .025 .883 36
Constitutional Democracy (Polity) 022 .895 38Constitutional Democracy (Polity) .022
Contested Democracy (Cheibub and
Gandhi )
.097 .557 39
Note: Public evaluations of democracy are the mean national scores derived from the World Values Survey 2005‐7 (Q163): “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?”Sources: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007.Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV
10Sources: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007.Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800‐2003. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/; Tatu Vanhanen. 2000. ‘A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810‐1998.’ Journal of Peace Research 37(2): 251‐265; Jose Cheibub and Jennifer Gandhi. 2004. ’A six‐fold measure of democracies and dictatorships.’ Unpublished paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
6/8/2008www.pipppanorris.com
11Notes: Freedom House rating of liberal democracy, 2005 (7‐point scale of civil liberties and political rights with the score reversed, so that more democratic = high). WorldValues Survey 2005‐7 Q163: “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and
10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” Sources: Freedom House World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER…
6/8/2
Correlation Sig. (2‐tailed)Physical Integrity Rights Index .211 008
www.pip
y g y g
Disappearances .166
Extrajudicial killings .114Political imprisonment .142 ppanorris.com
Political imprisonment .142Torture .277 **
Empowerment Rights Index .222Freedom of Association .072Freedom of Movement .128Freedom of Movement .128
Freedom of Speech .154Political Participation Rights .138
Freedom of religion .140Worker’s rights 144Worker s rights .144Women’s economic rights .306 **
Women’s political rights .452 **
Women’s social rights .348 **
12Notes:World Values Survey 1995‐2005 Q:164: “How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is.. A greatdeal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” 77 nations Sources: David L. Cingranelliand David L. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER6/8/2008
www.pipppanorris.com
13Notes: World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q:164: How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is.. A greatdeal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” Sources: David L. Cingranelli and DavidL. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF CORRUPTION DIFFER…6/8/2008
www.pipppanorris.com
ld l “ l ll f h f h f ll h h h k l b f d( ) b14Notes:World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.”Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005
AS DO MASS AND ELITE PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION6/8/2008
www.pipppanorris.com
ld l “ l ll f h f h f ll h h h k l b f d( ) b f d15Notes:World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties.”Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005
IV. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
WHY DIFFERENCE?
Polls give false reading?
6/8/2g gPublic in repressive states feels unable to express honest sentiments in opinion polls?
Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?
008www.pip
Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?Public deluded by regime propaganda?
Relative judgments?
ppanorris.com
j gPublic expectations too high or too low? Critical citizens…
Complex and technical concepts? Public ill‐informed, esp. where they lack direct experience of democracy and HR
Or ‘expert’ elite indicators are wrong…?Or expert elite indicators are wrong…?17
CONCLUSIONS
Mass and elite evaluations often divergeg
Where this occurs, analysts need to decide which provide more valid and reliable judgments
www.pip
Elite evaluations may have greater credibility for the international community
ppanorris.com
Mass evaluations (public opinion surveys in countries with freedom of speech) have greater legitimacy for national policymakersnational policymakers
More details: www.pippanorris.com
18