The article offers a systematic analysis of the comparative trajectory of international democratic change. In particular, it focuses on the resulting convergence or divergence of political systems, borrowing from the literatures on institutional change and policy convergence. To this end, political-institutional data in line with Arend Lijphart’s (1999, 2012) empirical theory of democracy for 24 developed democracies between 1945 and 2010 are analyzed. Heteroscedastic multilevel models allow for directly modeling the development of the variance of types of democracy over time, revealing information about convergence, and adding substantial explanations. The findings indicate that there has been a trend away from extreme types of democracy in single cases, but no unconditional trend of convergence can be observed. However, there are conditional processes of convergence. In particular, economic globalization and the domestic veto structure interactively influence democratic convergence.
AndersonJ. J. (2002). Europeanization and the transformation of the democratic polity, 1945-2000. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 792-822.
2.
ArmingeonK. (2002). The effects of negotiation democracy: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 81-105.
3.
ArmingeonK. (2004). Institutional change in OECD democracies, 1970–2000. Comparative European Politics, 2, 212-238.
4.
ArmingeonK.CarejaR. (2008). Institutional change and stability in postcommunist countries, 1990-2002. European Journal of Political Research, 47, 436-466.
BenoitK. (2004). Models of electoral system change. Electoral Studies, 23, 363-389.
8.
BlondelJ.BattegazzorreF. (2002). “Majoritarian” and “consensus” parliamentary democracies: A convergence towards “cooperative majoritarianism”?Quaderni di Scienza Politica, 9, 225-251.
9.
BlondelJ.BattegazzorreF. (2003). Have “consociational” forms of parliamentary government ceased to exist in Western Europe but is the majoritarian model on the way to becoming more “cooperative”? (Working Paper No. 223), Barcelona, Spain: Institute of Political and Social Sciences, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
10.
BoixC. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review, 93, 609-624.
11.
BörzelT. A. (1999). Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaption to Europeanization in Germany and Spain. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 573-596.
BraumoellerB. F. (2006). Explaining variance: Or, stuck in a moment we can’t get out of. Political Analysis, 14, 268-290.
14.
BraumoellerB. F.MattiacciE. (2010). Consensus, constraint, and peacekeeping success: More may be better. . . and worse. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
15.
BulsaraH.KissaneB. (2009). Arend Lijphart and the transformation of Irish democracy. West European Politics, 32, 172-195.
16.
CernyP. G. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalization. Government and Opposition, 32, 251-274.
17.
ChinnM. D.ItoH. (2008). A new measure of financial openness. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10, 309-322.
18.
ChurchC.VatterA. (2009). Opposition in consensual Switzerland: A short but significant experiment. Government and Opposition, 44, 410-435.
19.
CrepazM. L. (2001). Veto players, globalization and the redistributive capacity of the state: A panel study of 15 OECD countries. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 1-22.
20.
FlindersM. (2005). Majoritarian democracy in Britain. West European Politics, 28, 61-93.
21.
FlindersM. (2009). Democratic drift. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
FlindersM. (2010). Explaining majoritarian modification. International Political Science Review, 31, 1-20.
23.
FranzeseR. J.HaysJ. C. (2008). Interdependence in comparative politics: Substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 742-780.
24.
GanghofS. (2007). Die Konvergenz von Steuersystemen: Zur Rolle von Modernisierungs- und Globalisierungsprozessen [The convergence of tax systems: On the role of processes of modernization and globalization]. In HolzingerK.JörgensH.KnillC. (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion, und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 407-429). Wiesbaden, Hesse: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
25.
GiulianiM. (2003). Europeanization in comparative perspective: Institutional fit and national adaption. In FeatherstoneK.RadaelliC. M. (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization (pp. 134-157). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
GiulianiM. (2011a). Patterns of democracy reloaded. Thirty-five democracies and the challenge of change (Working Paper), Milan, Italy: Università degli studi di Milano.
27.
GiulianiM. (2011b, June14-16). A longitudinal perspective on models of democracy. Paper presented at the 1st EPSA Annual general conference, Dublin, Ireland.
28.
HaE. (2008). Globalization, veto players, and welfare spending. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 783-813.
29.
HeichelS.PapeJ.SommererT. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 817-840.
30.
HolzingerK. (2006). Methodological pitfalls of convergence analysis. European Union Politics, 7, 271-287.
31.
HolzingerK.JörgensH.KnillC. (2007). Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken: Konzepte und Kausalmechanismen [Transfer, diffusion and convergence: Concepts and causal mechanisms]. In HolzingerK.JörgensH.KnillC. (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 11-35). Wiesbaden, Hesse: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
32.
JochemS. (2012). Die politischen Systeme Skandinaviens [The political systems of Scandinavia]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
33.
KingG. (1989). Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
KnillC. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 764-774.
35.
KristensenP.LiljaK. (2011). Nordic capitalisms and globalization: New forms of economic organization and welfare institutions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
LijphartA. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65, 682-693.
37.
LijphartA. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. London, England: Yale University Press.
38.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy. London, England: Yale University Press.
39.
LijphartA. (2002). Negotiation democracy versus consensus democracy: Parallel conclusions and recommendations. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 107-113.
40.
LijphartA. (2008). Thinking about democracy. London, England: Routledge.
41.
LijphartA. (2012). Patterns of democracy (2nd ed.). London, England: Yale University Press.
42.
MainwaringS. (2001). Two models of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 12, 170-175.
43.
PlümperT.SchneiderC. J. (2009). The analysis of policy convergence, or: How to chase a black cat in a dark room. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 990-1011.
44.
PolilloS.GuillénM. F. (2005). Globalization pressure and the state: The worldwide spread of central bank independence. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1764-1802.
45.
PrzeworskiA.TeuneH. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
46.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
47.
SchmidtM. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30, 155-183.
48.
SchmidtM. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung [Theories of democracy. An introduction] (5th ed.). Opladen, Germany: Leske und Budrich.
49.
SelbP. (2009). A deeper look at the proportionality-turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 527-548.
50.
ShugartM. S. (2003). “Extreme” electoral systems and the appeal of the mixed-member alternative. In ShugartM. S.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 25-53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
SteinerJ. (2002). The consociational theory and Switzerland—Revisited thirty years later. Acta Politica, 37, 1-21.
52.
StudlarD.ChristensenK. (2006). “Is Canada a Westminster or consensus democracy? A brief analysis. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39, 837-841.
53.
SwankD. (2002). Global capital, political institutions, and policy change in developed welfare states. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
TaageperaR. (2003). Arend Lijphart’s dimensions of democracy: Logical connections and institutional design. Political Studies, 51, 1-19.
55.
TreierS.JackmanS. (2008). Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 201-217.
56.
TsebelisG. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism, and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289-326.
57.
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58.
Van SchuurW. H.KiersH. A. L. (1994). Why factor analysis often is the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use instead. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 97-110.
59.
VatterA. (2008). Vom Extremtyp zum Normalfall? Die schweizerische Konsensus-demokratie im Wandel [From extreme to normal case? The changing Swiss consensus democracy]. Swiss Political Science Review, 14, 1-47.
60.
VatterA. (2009). Lijphart expanded: Three dimensions of democracy in advanced OECD countries?European Political Science Review, 1, 125-153.
