Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:56:16.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Level of Democracy during Interregnum Periods: Recoding the polity2 Score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Thomas Plümper  and
Eric Neumayer
Thomas Plümper*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK, and Centre for the Study of Civil War, International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Hausmanns gate 7, NO-0186 Oslo, Norway
Eric Neumayer
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, UK, and Centre for the Study of Civil War, International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Hausmanns gate 7, NO-0186 Oslo, Norway. e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The polity2 variable from the Polity IV project is the most popular measure of a country's political regime. This article contends that the coding rules employed to create a polity2 score during years of so-called interregnum and affected transitions produce a measure of democracy that lacks face validity. Using both single and multiple imputation methods, we construct and evaluate several variables that offer alternative measures to polity2 during such periods. We recommend that scholars using polity2 test whether their results are robust to using our alternatives and using multiple imputation techniques instead. Where robustness cannot be established, scholars need to theoretically justify the choice of either polity2 or one of the alternatives.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 206 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: Equal authorship. We thank three anonymous referees, the editors as well as Kristian S. Gleditsch, Nils Petter Gleditsch, Håvard Strand, and Michael D. Ward for helpful comments. The data for the replication analyses as well as our alternative polity variables will be made available for download from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/neumayer or http://www.polsci.org/pluemper/.

References

Allison, Paul D. 2000. Multiple imputation for missing data. A cautionary tale. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Comoros. Africa Research Bulletin 35: 13317–8.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Mario Joaquim 1998. Roots of violence. A history of war in Chad. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1999. Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy 107(6): S158–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittain, Victoria. 1998. The death of dignity. Angola's civil war. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Burkhart, Ross E., and Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1994. Comparative democracy. The economic development thesis. American Political Science Review 88: 903–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Zeller, Richard A. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, Harry, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1975. Patterns of authority: A structural basis for political inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D. 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency and civil war. American Political Science Review 97: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian S. 2002. Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 712–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Ward, Michael. 1997. Double take. A reexamination of democracy and autocracy in modern politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 361–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Ward, Michael. 2006. Diffusion and the international context of democratization. International Organization 60: 911–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Wallensteen, Peter, Erikson, Mikael, Sollenberg, Margareta, and Strand, Harvard. 2002. Armed conflict 1946–2001. A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research 39: 615–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert 1974. Persistence and change in political systems, 1800–1971. American Political Science Review 68: 1482–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honaker, James, and King, Gary. Forthcoming. 2010. What to do about missing values in time series cross-section data. American Journal of Political Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1995. Tracking democracy's third wave with the Polity III data. Journal of Peace Research 32: 469–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1986. How no to lie with statistics. Avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. American Journal of Political Science 30: 666–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. Analyzing incomplete political science data. An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review 95: 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, Volker, and Suzuki, Susumu. 2005. Causes of civil war in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: A comparison. Social Science Quarterly 86(1): 160–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin 1959. Some social requisites of democracy. Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review 53: 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter. 1998. The Taliban: War, religion and the new order in Afghanistan. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. 2002. Polity IV Project Dataset Users’ Manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. 2007. Polity IV project: Dataset users’ manual. George Mason University and Center for Systemic Peace. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Limongi, Fernando. 1997. Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics 49(2): 155–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Benjamin. 2004. State functioning and state failure in the South Pacific. Australian Journal of International Affairs 58: 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1976. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63: 581–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1996. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Barnett R. 2000. The political economy of war and peace in Afghanistan. World Development 28: 1789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkees, M. R. 2000. The correlates of war data on war. An update to 1997. Conflict Management and Peace Science 18(1): 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2000. A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research 37: 251–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Kieran. 1997. The Prague spring and its aftermath: Czechoslovak politics, 1968–1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zack-Williams, Alfred B. 1999. Sierra Leone. The political economy of civil war, 1991–1998. Third World Quarterly 20(1): 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar