New indices measuring the quality of democracy constitute a significant innovation in comparative political science. They might, however, provide a biased perspective because they largely focus on macro-level criteria. Thus, the question is whether the measurement of the quality of democracy can be improved by complementing the evaluations of these indices with assessments based on individual-level survey data. Using data from 20 established democracies in the European Social Survey 2012 and the Democracy Barometer, we compare the understandings and evaluations of the quality of democracy underlying these two measurement approaches. We demonstrate that while the results coincide to a certain extent, individual-level data provide an important complementary perspective that adds to the validity of the measurement of the quality of democracy.
CampbellDavid FJ (2012) Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive. In: HelmsLudgerWineroitherDavid M (eds) Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos, 293–315.
3.
CanacheDamarys (2012) Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies45(9): 1132–1158.
4.
CollierDavidMahonJames EJr (1993) Conceptual ‘stretching’ revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review87(4): 845–855.
5.
DaltonRussell JShinDoh CJouWilly (2007) Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy18(4): 142–156.
6.
DiamondLarryMorlinoLeonardo (eds) (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
EastonDavid (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
8.
EdwardsJeffrey R (2011) The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods14(2): 370–388.
LauthHans-Joachim (2004) Demokratie und Demokratiemessung: Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
14.
LazarsfeldPaul FMenzelHerbert (1961) On the relation between individual and collective properties. In: EtzioniAmitai (ed.) A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 499–516.
15.
LoganCarolynMattesRobert (2012) Democratising the measurement of democratic quality: Public attitude data and the evaluation of African political regimes. European Political Science11(4): 469–491.
MerkelWolfgangBochslerDanielBousbahKarimaBühlmannMarcGieblerHeikoHänniMiriamHeyneLeaMüllerLisaRuthSaskiaWesselsBernhard (2014b) Democracy Barometer: Data. Aarau: Zentrum für Demokratie. Available at: http://www.democracybarometer.org/dataset_en.html
18.
MorlinoLeonardo (2004) ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ democracies: How to conduct research into the quality of democracy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics20(1): 5–27.
NiedermayerOskar (2009) Bevölkerungseinstellungen zur Demokratie: Kein Grundkonsens zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen40(2): 383–397.
23.
O’DonnellGuillermo (1998) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy9(3): 112–126.
24.
PickelSusanneStarkToralfBreustedtWiebke (2015) Assessing the quality of quality measures of democracy: A theoretical framework and its empirical application. European Political Science14(4): 496–520.
25.
ScharpfFritz W (2003) Problem-Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU. MPIfG Working Paper 03/1. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Available at: http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp03-1/wp03-1.html
