Previous research has found evidence of an almost universal public desire for democracy, even in autocratic regimes. However, a single word may evoke different associations for different people. As such, the term democracy is unlikely to trigger the same or equivalent associations between different people. Inspired by the Anchoring Vignettes Approach, I qualify people’s stated desire for democracy with their representative, direct, social, or authoritarian perception of democracy. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process, I obtain idealized priorities of institutional configurations to determine the membership a specific perception has with regard to a procedural-liberal, participatory-liberal, or social-liberal normative benchmark. I perform a mixed-model analysis on World Values Survey Wave 5 data to test the empirical consequences of my conceptual calibration concerning explanatory factors for people’s democratic desires. Popular support for representative democracy has been consistently overstated, particularly in nondemocratic countries. The design of political institutions is the most important factor in predicting a person’s actual desire for democracy.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty (1st ed.). New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
3.
AlemánJ.WoodsD. (2016). Value orientations from the World Values Survey: How comparable are they cross-nationally?Comparative Political Studies, 49, 1039-1067.
4.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
AltmanD. (2015). Measuring the potential of direct democracy around the world (1900-2014). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2701164
ArielyG.DavidovE. (2011). Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the World Value Survey. Social Indicators Research, 104, 271-286.
8.
BagleyB. M. (1984). Colombia: National front and economic development. In WessonR.G. (Ed.), Politics, policies, and economic development in Latin America (pp. 124-160). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
9.
BarberB. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
BogaardsM. (2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16, 399-423.
11.
BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrownN. (2013). Tracking the “Arab Spring”: Egypt’s failed transition. Journal of Democracy, 24, 45-58.
13.
BuenoO. (2013). Perception and conception: Shaping human minds. Biosemiotics, 6, 323-336.
14.
BühlmannM.MerkelW.MüllerL.WeßelsB. (2012). The democracy barometer: A new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative research. European Political Science, 11, 519-536.
15.
CanacheD. (2012). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies, 45, 1132-1158.
16.
CarothersT. (2002). The end of transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5-21.
17.
CarrollR. J.RuppertD.StefanskiL. A.CrainiceanuC. M. (2006). Measurement error in nonlinear models: A modern perspective (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, 2nd ed., Vol. 105). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
18.
ChaiS.-K.LiuM.KimM.-S. (2009). Cultural comparisons of beliefs and values: Applying the grid-group approach to the World Values Survey. Beliefs & Values, 1, 193-208.
19.
CheibubJ, A.GandhiJ.VreelandJ. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143, 67-101.
20.
ChoY. (2015). How well are global citizenries informed about democracy? Ascertaining the breath and distribution of their democratic enlightenment and its sources. Political Studies, 63, 240-258.
21.
CollierD.AdcockR. (1999). Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choice about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537-565.
CollierD.LaPorteJ.SeawrightJ. (2012b). Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 217-232.
24.
CollierD.LevitskyS. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49, 430-451.
25.
CollierD.LevitskyS. (2009). Democracy: Conceptual hierarchies in comparative research. In CollierD.GerringJ. (Eds.), Concepts & methods in the social science: The tradition of Giovanni Sartori (pp. 269-288). London, England: Routledge.
26.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass societies. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.
27.
CoppedgeM. (2012). Democratization and research methods (Strategies for social inquiry). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
CroissantA. (2004). From transition to defective democracy: Mapping Asian democratization. Democratization, 11(5), 156-178.
30.
CroissantA.KailitzS.KöllnerP.WursterS. (Eds.). (2014). Democratization Special Issues: Comparing autocracies in the early twenty-first century: Vol. Unpacking autocracies-explaining similarity and difference. London, England: Routledge.
31.
CrowD. (2010). The party’s over: Citizens conceptions of democracy and political dissatisfaction in Mexico. Comparative Politics, 43, 41-61.
32.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
DahlR. A. (1985). A preface to economic democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
DahlR. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
DaltonR. J.ShinD. C.JouW. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18, 142-156.
36.
DavidovE.DülmerH.SchlüterE.SchmidtP.MeulemanB. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 558-575.
37.
DavidovE.MeulemanB.CieciuchJ.SchmidtP.BillietJ. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55-75.
38.
DavidovE.SchmidtP.SchwartzS. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420-445.
39.
de MesquitaB.SmithA.SiversonR. M.MorrowJ. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
DiamondL. J. (2011). Why democracies survive. Journal of Democracy, 22(1), 17-30.
41.
DunneM. (2015). After the Arab Spring: Caught in history’s crosswinds. Democratization, 26(4), 75-79.
42.
EastonD. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435-457.
43.
ElkinkJ. A. (2011). The international diffusion of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1651-1674.
44.
EpsteinB. (2015). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science: The ant trap: Rebuilding the foundations of the social sciences (1st ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245.
46.
GallieW. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167-198.
47.
GatesS.HegreH.JonesM. P.StrandH. (2006). Institutional inconsistency and political instability: Polity duration, 1800-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 893-908.
48.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In GeertzC. (Ed.), The interpretation of culture: Selected essays (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Basic Books.
49.
GilleyB. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 499-525.
50.
GilleyB. (2012). State legitimacy: An updated dataset for 52 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 693-699.
51.
GoertzG. (2006). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
GraberD. A.SmithJ. M. (2005). Political communication faces the 21st century. Journal of Communication, 55, 479-507.
53.
HajerM. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
HarknessJ. A.BraunM.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P.LybergL.MohlerP. P. (2010). Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
55.
HarknessJ. A.van de VijverF. J. R.MohlerP. P. (2003). Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
56.
HartlynJ.ValenzuelaA.BethellL. (1998). Democracy in Latin America since 1930. In BethellL. (Ed.), Latin America (pp. 3-66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2010). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. Quantitative methodology series. New York, NY: Routledge.
58.
HeldD. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
59.
HermanL. E. (2017). Democratic partisanship: From theoretical ideal to empirical standard. American Political Science Review, 111(4), 1-17.
60.
HopkinsD. J.KingG. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes: Designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 201-222.
61.
HoughM.JacksonJ.BradfordB. (2013). Legitimacy, trust and compliance: An empirical test of procedural justice theory using the European Social Survey, 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
HumeD. (2012). A treatise of human nature. Dover philosophical classics. Newburyport, MA: Dover.
64.
HuntingtonS. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations?Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
65.
InglehartM. R. (2014). Foreword: Pushing the envelope – Analyzing the impact of values. In DaltonR. J.WelzelC. (Eds.), The civic culture transformed (pp. xix-xxvi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 551-567.
68.
KailitzS. (2013). Classifying political regimes revisited: Legitimation and durability. Democratization, 20(1), 39-60.
69.
KingG.MurrayC. J. L.SalomonJ. A.TandonA. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191-207.
70.
KingG.MurrayC. J. L.SalomonJ. A.TandonA. (2009). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. In PickelS.JahnD.LauthH.-J.PickelG. (Eds.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen (pp. 317-346). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
71.
KlingemannH.-D. (1999). Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In NorrisP. (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 151-189). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
KlingemannH.-D.FuchsD.ZielonkaJ. (Eds.). (2006). Democracy and political culture in Eastern Europe. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
73.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
74.
KnutsenC. H. (2010). Measuring effective democracy. International Political Science Review, 31, 109-128.
75.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2002). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76.
LipsetM. S. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105.
77.
LuJ.ShiT. (2015). The battle of ideas and discourses before democratic transition: Different democratic conceptions in authoritarian China. International Political Science Review, 36, 20-41.
78.
MairP. (2011). Bini Smaghi vs. the parties: Representative government and institutional constraints (EUI Working Papers 22). Florence, Italy: European University Institute.
MaselandR.van HoornA. (2011). Why Muslims like democracy yet have so little of it. Public Choice, 147, 481-496.
81.
MaslowA. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
82.
MattesR.BrattonM. (2007). Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance, and experience. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1),192-217.
83.
MazzucaS. L. (2010). Access to power versus exercise of power: Reconceptualizing the quality of democracy in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45, 334-357.
84.
MedinaT. R.SmithS. N.LongJ. S. (2009). Measurement models matter: Implicit assumptions and cross-national research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21, 333-361.
MerkelW. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33-58.
87.
MerkelW. (2015). Die Herausforderungen der Demokratie [Challenges of democracy]. In MerkelW. (Ed.), Demokratie und Krise. Zum schwierigen Verhältnis von Theorie und Empirie (pp. 7-44). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
88.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
89.
MillerM. K. (2012). Economic development, violent leader removal, and democratization. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 1002-1020.
90.
MunckG. L. (2009). Measuring democracy: A bridge between scholarship and politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
91.
MunckG. L. (2015). What is democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy. Democratization, 23, 1-26.
92.
MunckG. L.VerkuilenJ. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(5), 534.
93.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
NussbaumM. C. (1999). Der aristotelische Sozialdemokratismus [Aristotelian social democracy]. In NussbaumM. C. (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit Oder Das Gute Leben (pp. 24-85). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
96.
OberJ. (2008). The original meaning of “democracy”: Capacity to do things, not majority rule. Constellation, 15, 3-9.
97.
O’DonnellG. A. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55-69.
98.
O’DonnellG. A. (1998). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy, 9, 112-123.
99.
O’DonnellG. A.SchmitterP.WhiteheadL. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies (Prospects for Democracy, Vol. 4). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
100.
PettitP. (2012). On the people’s terms: A republican theory and model of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
101.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
102.
PlattnerM. F. (2014). The end of the transitions era?Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 5-16.
103.
PrzeworskiA. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
104.
PrzeworskiA.LimongiN.PapaterraF. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49, 155-183.
105.
QvortrupM. (2014). Referendums around the world: The continued growth of direct democracy. London, England: Macmillan.
106.
RaginC. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
107.
RawlsJ. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. (Original work published 1971)
108.
RingenS. (2011). The measurement of democracy: Towards a new paradigm. Society, 48, 12-16.
109.
RobinsonJ. A. (2006). Economic development and democracy. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 503-527.
110.
RokeachM. (1979). Understanding human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
111.
RoschE. (1972). Principles of categorization. In RoachE.LloydB. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 2-48). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
112.
RübF. W. (2000). Hybride Regime - Politikwissenschaftliches Chamäleon oder neuer Regimetypus? [Hybrid regimes—A chameleon of political science or a new regime type?] In BendelP.CroiassantA.RübF. (Eds.), Zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur: Zur Konzeption und Empirie demokratischer Grauzonen (pp. 115-118). Opladen, Germany: Budrich.
113.
RübF. W. (2015). Die Zeit und die Unzeit der Politik [Time and untimeliness of politics]. In StraßheimH.UlbrichtT. (Eds.), Zeit der Politik. Demokratisches Regieren in einer beschleunigten Welt (pp. 195-217). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
114.
SaatyT. L. (2007). Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and dealing, our national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 1001-1016.
115.
SaatyT. L. (2008). Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal Services Science, 1, 83-98.
116.
SaatyT. L.VargasL. G. (2012). The seven pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In SaatyT. L.VargasL. G. (Eds.), International Series in Operations Research & Management Science: Vol. 175. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (2nd ed., pp. 23-40). New York, NY: Springer.
117.
SartoriG. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
118.
SartoriG. (1991). Comparing and miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3, 243-257.
119.
SartoriG. (1994). Compare why and how: Comparing, miscomparing and the comparative method. In DoganM.KazancigliA. (Eds.), Comparing nations: Concepts, strategies, substance (pp. 14-34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
120.
SchäferA. (2017). Deliberation in representative institutions: An analytical framework for a systemic approach. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52, 419-435.
121.
SchafferF. C. (2014). Thin descriptions: The limits of survey research on the meaning of democracy. Polity, 46, 303-330.
122.
SchafferF. C. (2016). Routledge Series on Interpretive Methods: Elucidating social science concepts: An interpretivist guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
123.
SchedlerA. (2002). Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36-50.
124.
SchedlerA. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
125.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 637-659.
126.
SchmidtM. G. (2008). Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung [Theories of democracy. An introduction] (4th ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
127.
SchubertS. (2016). Inwiefern universal? Zum Demokratiebegriff in der Vergleichenden Demokratieforschung. In de La RosaS.SchubertS.ZapfH. (Eds.), Transkulturelle Politische Theorie. Trans-und interkulturelle Politische Theorie und Ideengeschichte (pp. 285-303). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
128.
SchultzeR.-O. (2002). Demokratie [Democracy]. In NohlenD.SchultzeR.-O. (Eds.), Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft (Vol. 1, pp. 121-124). München, Germany: Beck.
129.
SchumpeterJ. (1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London, England: Routledge.
130.
SchwarzN. (1990). Assessing frequency reports of mundane behaviors: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction. In HendrickC.ClarkM. (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology. Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 98-119). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
131.
SenA. (2009). The idea of justice. London, England: Allen Lane.
132.
SkaaningS.-E.GerringJ.BartusevičiusH. (2015). A lexical index of electoral democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1491-1525.
133.
SkelcherC.TorfingJ. (2010). Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe. Regulation & Governance, 4(1), 71-91.
134.
StegmuellerD. (2011). Apples and oranges? The problem of equivalence in comparative research. Political Analysis, 19, 471-487.
135.
StepanA.LinzJ. J. (2013). Democratization theory and the “Arab Spring.”Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 15-30.
136.
SugdenR. (2016). Ontology, methodological individualism, and the foundations of the social sciences. Journal of Economic Literature, 54, 1377-1389.
137.
SvolikM. W. (2011). The politics of authoritarian rule: Cambridge studies in comparative politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
138.
TannebergD.StefesC.MerkelW. (2013). Hard times and regime failure: Autocratic responses to economic downturns. Contemporary Politics, 19,115-129.
139.
ThompsonM. (2008). Organising & disorganising: A dynamic and non-linear theory of institutional emergence and its implications (1st ed.). Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.
140.
TillyC. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
141.
VerkuilenJ. (2005). Assigning membership in a fuzzy set analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 462-496.
142.
VibertF. (2007). The rise of the unelected: Democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
143.
WahmanM.TeorellJ.HadeniusA. (2013). Authoritarian regime types revisited: Updated data in comparative perspective. Contemporary Politics, 19, 19-34.
144.
WarrenM. E. (2017). A problem-based approach to democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 111, 39-53.
145.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
146.
WelzelC. (2009). Werte- und Wertewandelforschung [Research on values and value change]. In KainaV.RömmeleA. (Eds.), Politische Soziologie. Ein Studienbuch (pp. 109-139). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
147.
WelzelC. (2013). Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
148.
WelzelC.AlvarezA. M. (2014). Enlightening people. In DaltonR. J.WelzelC.DaltonR. J.WelzelC. (Eds.), The civic culture transformed (pp. 59-88). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
149.
WelzelC.InglehartR. F. (2016). Misconceptions of measurement equivalence: Time for a paradigm shift. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 1068-1094.
150.
ZambakariC. D.KangT. K. (2016). The Arab Spring and the struggle for democracy in Egypt. Georgetown Public Policy Review, 21(1), 1-23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
