Most of the extant research on the relationship between democratic values and democratic support examine the issue from the perspective of the evolution of democratic culture and institutional learning. These studies conclude that it takes time for people to understand the essence of democracy and to support democracy. We argue that a certain value orientation is crucial to democratic support at some stages of democratic transition. To empirically examine the association between the different dimensions of democratic values and democratic support, we analyzed survey data from 1995 to 2020 in Taiwan. Based on item response theory, we found that, first, throughout that 25-year period, we can distinguish three dimensions of democratic values in Taiwan; second, Taiwanese considered fundamental human rights to be an essential democratic value; and finally, the curvilinear relationship between democratic support and separation of powers implies that Taiwanese people emphasize electoral democracy more than horizontal accountability after democratization is complete.
AghA (2001) Early Democratic Consolidation in Hungary and the Europeanisation of the Hungarian Polity. In: PridhamGAghA (eds) Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in East-Central Europe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, pp.157–179.
2.
AlmondGAVerbaS (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
4.
AsomahJYDimEE (2021) Determinants of citizens’ support for democracy in Ghana. Social Science Quarterly102(6): 2578–2590.
5.
BealALGrahamL (2014) Foundations for change: rule of law, development, and democratization. Politics and Policy42(3): 311–345.
ChalmersRP (2012) mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software48(6): 1–29.
8.
ChangAChuY-hWelshB (2013) Southeast Asia: sources of regime support. Journal of Democracy24(2): 150–164.
9.
ChangY-t (2011) Electoral outcomes, political learning, and support for democracy: changes in citizens’ attitudes towards democracy in Taiwan after the year 2000. Taiwan Journal for Democracy8(2): 99–137.
10.
ChangY-tChuY-hParkC-m (2007) The democracy barometers (part I): authoritarian nostalgia in Asia. Journal of Democratization18(3): 66–80.
11.
ChenWHsuJC-s (2016) Horizontal accountability and the rule of law. In: ChuY-hDiamondLTemplemanK (eds) Taiwan’s Democracy Challenged: The Chen Shui-bian Year. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp.145–171.
12.
ChristmannP (2018) Economic performance, quality of democracy and satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies: 53: 79–89.
13.
ChuY-hDiamondL (1999) Taiwan’s 1998 elections: implications for democratic consolidation. Asian Survey39(5): 808–822.
14.
ChuY-hHuangM-h (2010) The meanings of democracy: solving an Asian puzzle. Journal of Democracy21(4): 114–122.
15.
ChuY-hShinDC (2005) South Korea and Taiwan. In: DiamondLLeonardo MorlinoL (eds) Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.188–212.
16.
ChuY-hDiamondLNathanAJ, et al. (2008) Introduction: comparative perspectives on democratic legitimacy in East Asia. In: ChuY-hDiamondLNathanAJ, et al. (eds) How East Asians View Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press, pp.1–38.
17.
ClarkeHDDuttN (1991) Measuring value change in Western industrialized societies: the impact of unemployment. American Political Science Review85(3): 905–920.
18.
CoppedgeMAlvarezAMaldonadoC (2008) Two persistent dimensions of democracy: contestation and inclusiveness. Journal of Politics70(3): 632–647.
19.
CopperJ (1992) Taiwan’s 1992 Legislative Yuan election. World Affairs155(2): 71–79.
20.
CrozierMHuntingtonSPWatanukiJ (1975) The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
21.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
DahlRA (1982) Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy Vs. Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
DahlRA (1988) On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
DahlRA (1998) On Democracy. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
25.
DaltonR (1999) Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.57–77.
26.
DaltonR (2000) Value change and democracy. In: PharrSJPutnamRD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.252–269.
27.
DaltonRJShinDC (2006) Citizens, democracy, and markets. In: DaltonRJShinDC (eds) Citizens, Democracy, and Markets around the Pacific Rim: Congruence Theory and Political Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.1–17.
EastonD (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
30.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
31.
ElsterJ (1993) Introduction. In: ElsterJSlagstadR (eds) Constitutionalism and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–17.
32.
EmbretsonSEReiseSP (2000) Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
FairCCMalhotraNShapiroJN (2014) Democratic values and support for militant politics: evidence from a National Survey of Pakistan. Journal of Conflict Resolution58(5): 743–770.
34.
FinkelSEMullerENSeligsonMA (1989) Economic crisis, incumbent performance and regime support: a comparison of longitudinal data from West Germany and Costa Rica. British Journal of Political Science19(3): 329–351.
GibsonJLDuchRMTedinKL (1992) Democratic values and the transformation of the Soviet Union. The Journal of Politics54(2): 329–371.
37.
GuntherRMonteroJR (2004) Attitudes toward Democracy in Seven Countries: Dimensional Structure and Behavioral Correlates. Studies in Public Policy No. 385. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
38.
HaggardSKaufmanRR (2021) The anatomy of democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy32(4): 27–41.
39.
HernándezE (2016) Europeans’ views of democracy: the core elements of democracy. In: FerrínMKriesiH (eds) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.43–63.
40.
HsiehJF-S (2002) Continuity and change in Taiwan’s electoral politics. In: HsiehJF-sNewmanD (eds) How Asia Votes. New York: Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, pp.32–49.
41.
HsiehJF-SNiouEMS (1996) Issue voting in the Republic of China on Taiwan’s 1992 Legislative Yuan election. International Political Science Review17(1): 13–27.
42.
HuFChuY-h (1996) Neo-authoritarianism, polarized conflict and populism in a newly democratizing regime: Taiwan’s emerging mass politics. Journal of Contemporary China5(11): 23–41.
43.
HuFChenT-yChuC-h (1978) Value orientation of power: construction and evaluation of conceptual framework. Social Science Journal (National Taiwan University)27: 3–40.
44.
HuangM-HChuY-hChangY-t (2013) Popular understandings of democracy and regime legitimacy in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy9(1): 147–171.
45.
HuntingtonS (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. London: University of Oklahoma Press.
46.
InglehartR (1988) The renaissance of political culture. American Political Science Review82(3): 1203–1230.
47.
InglehartR (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
InglehartRWelzelC (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
InglehartRWelzelC (2010) Changing mass priorities: the link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 551–567.
51.
JeitschkoTDLinzSJNogueraJ, et al. (2014) Economic security and democratic capital: why do some democracies survive and others fail?Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics50: 13–28.
52.
KingzetteJNebloM (2021) The civic culture(s): groups, norms, and the health of democracy. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics6(1): 144–156.
53.
KornbergAClarkeHD (1994) Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: the Canadian case. Political Research Quarterly47(3): 537–563.
54.
KriesiHSarisWMoncagattaP (2016) The structure of Europeans’ views of democracy: citizens’ models of democracy. In: FerrínMKriesiH (eds) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.64–89.
55.
LinzJJStepanA (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore, MD and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
LipsetSM (1959) Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review53(1): 69–105.
57.
LordFM (1968) An analysis of the verbal scholastic aptitude test using Birnbaum’s three-parameter logistic model. Educational and Psychological Measurement28(4): 989–1020.
58.
McAllisterI (2016) Democratic consolidation in Taiwan in comparative perspective. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics1(1): 44–61.
59.
MolinoLMonteroJR (1995) Legitimacy and democracy in Southern Europe. In: GuntherRPDiamanndourosNPuhleH-J (eds) The Politics of Democratic Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore, MD and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.231–260.
60.
MullerESeligsonM (1994) Civic culture and democracy: the question of causal relationship. The American Political Science Review88(3): 635–652.
61.
NorrisP (1999) Introduction: the growth of critical citizens? In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.1–30.
62.
O’DonnellG (1998) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy9(3): 112–126.
63.
OshriOSheaferTShenhavSR (2016) A community of values: democratic identity formation in the European Union. European Union Politics17: 1114–1137.
RizopoulosD (2006) ltm: an R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software17(5): 1–25.
66.
RoseRShinDC (2001) Democratization backward: the problem of third-wave democracies. British Journal of Political Science31(2): 331–354.
67.
SanbornH (2015) Democratic consolidation: participation and attitudes toward democracy in Taiwan and South Korea. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(1): 47–61.
68.
SawyerA (2008) Emerging patterns in Liberia’s post-conflict politics: observations from the 2005 elections. African Affairs107(427): 177–199.
69.
SchedlerASarsfieldR (2004) Democrats with adjectives: linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. Studies in Public Policy394: 2–42.
70.
ShengECJ (1992) A study of Taiwanese democratic value and political trust: a comparison before and after the alternation of power. Journal of Electoral Studies10(1): 111–169.
71.
ShinDC (2015) Cultural hybridization in East Asia: exploring an alternative to the global democratization thesis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(1): 10–30.
72.
SignéLKorhaK (2016) Horizontal accountability and the challenges for democratic consolidation in Africa: evidence from Liberia. Democratization23(7): 1254–1271.
73.
SwiggerN (2013) The online citizen: is social media changing citizens’ beliefs about democratic values?Political Behavior35(3): 589–603.
74.
ThomassenJ (2007) Democratic values. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) The Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.418–434.
75.
WelzelC (2013) Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
WelzelC (2021) Why the future is democratic?Journal of Democracy32(2): 132–144.
77.
WuN-t (2000) The role of moral value in political change: explaining democratic transition in Taiwan. Taiwan Political Science Review4: 57–103.
78.
ZhaiY (2019) Popular conceptions of democracy and democratic satisfaction in China. International Political Science Review40(2): 246–262.
79.
ZhaiY (2020) Popular perceptions of democracy in China: characteristics and longitudinal changes. Asian Survey60(3): 557–582.
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.
