Against recent criticism, this article demonstrates that the effective democracy index (EDI) has scale properties that are fully consistent with the normative premises of the index’s construction logic. Empirically, it is shown that the EDI deviates from all other indices of democracy in a perfectly intended way that incorporates substantiating qualities of democracy which the other indices neglect. As a result, the EDI outperforms all other democracy indices in its associative strength with key theoretical correlates of democracy, conditional and consequential. From a substantive point of view, the EDI is the most reliable and valid index of democracy that is currently available.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–45.
2.
AlexanderAWelzelC (2008) Measuring effective democracy: The human empowerment approach. World Values Research1(1): 1–34.
3.
AlexanderAWelzelC (2011) Measuring effective democracy: The human empowerment approach. Comparative Politics43(3): 271–89.
CollierDAdcockR (1999) Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science2: 537–65.
11.
CollierDLevitskyS (1997) Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics49(3): 430–51.
12.
ColtmanTDivenneyTMMidgleyDF. (2008) Formative versus reflective measurement models. Journal of Business Research61: 1250–62.
13.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
DavenportC (2007) State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DavenportCArmstrongD (2004) Democracy and the violation of human rights. American Journal of Political Science48(3): 538–54.
16.
DentonT (2008) Indexes of validity and reliability for cross-societal measures. Cross-Cultural Research42(2): 118–47.
17.
DiamantopoulosAWinklhoferHM (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research38: 269–77.
18.
DiamondL (2002) Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy13: 21–35.
19.
DiamondL (2008) The Spirit of Democracy. New York: Times Books.
GoertzG (2006) Social Science Concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
HadeniusATeorellJ (2005) Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy. Studies in Comparative International Development39: 87–106.
28.
HeldD (2006) Models of Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
HellerP (2000) Degrees of democracy: Some comparative lessons from India. World Politics52(4): 484–519.
30.
HuntingtonSP (1991) The Third Wave of Democratization. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
31.
InglehartRWelzelC (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
InglehartRWelzelC (2006) Emancipative values and democracy: Response to Hadenius and Teorell. Studies in Comparative International Development41(3): 74–94.
33.
KaufmannDKraayAMastruzziM (2006) Governance Matters V, World Bank Policy Research Department Working Paper 3630. Washington, DC: World Bank.
34.
KnutsenCH (2010) Measuring effective democracy. International Political Science Review31(2): 109–28.
35.
MerkelW (2004) Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization11(5): 33–58.
36.
MøllerJSkaaningS-E (2010) Beyond the radial delusion: Conceptualizing and measuring democracy and non-democracy. International Political Science Review31: 261–83.
37.
MunckGLVerkuilenJ (2002) Conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Comparative Political Studies35(1): 5–34.
38.
O’DonnellG (2003) Human development, human rights, and democracy. In: O’DonnellGCullellJVIazzettaOM (eds) The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 9–92.
39.
RoseR (2009) Democratic and non-democratic states. In: HaerpferC. (eds) Democratization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
RussettBOnealJR (2001) Triangulating Peace. New York: WW Norton.
41.
SenA (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
42.
StockemerD (2008) The democratic peace: An evaluation of the dyadic and monadic hypotheses and intra-state conflict. Paper presented at the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252933_index.html.
