Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:27:20.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lijphart expanded: three dimensions of democracy in advanced OECD countries?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Adrian Vatter
Adrian Vatter*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, CIS, University of Zürich, Seilergraben 53, CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article attempts to examine the relationship between the most important political institutions and direct democracy in 23 modern OECD democracies by expanding Lijphart’s concept of majoritarian and consensus democracy. The article updates Lijphart’s data collection for the most recent period (1997–2006); it responds to criticisms of Lijphart’s measurement of a number of variables and of case selection, and it integrates direct democracy as an additional variable. Based on factor analysis, the main finding is that there are not just two, but three dimensions of democracy in advanced democracies. The horizontal dimension comprises the disproportionality of the electoral system, the number of parties, the executive–legislative relationship, the interest groups, and the degree of central bank independence. In the vertical dimension of democracy, we find federalism, decentralization, bicameralism, the rigidity of constitutional provisions, and the strength of judicial review. The top-to-bottom dimension of democracy comprises the type of cabinet government and the strength of direct democracy. In contrast to earlier research, our empirical analysis furnishes the hypothesis that direct democracy is not a variable that is independent of all other political institutions. While active direct democracy goes hand-in-hand with broadly supported multi-party governments, purely representative constitutions frequently appear in conjunction with minimal winning cabinets.

Keywords

majoritarian democracyconsensus democracydirect democracypolitical institutionsadvanced democraciesLijphart’s model of democracy
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 125 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

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.)

References

Armingeon, K. (2002), ‘The effects of negotiation democracy: a comparative analysis’, European Journal of Political Research 41(1): 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K. (2004), ‘Institutional change in OECD democracies, 1970–2000’, Comparative European Politics 2: 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K., Leimgruber, P., Beyeler, M.Menegale, S. (2006), Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2004, Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.Google Scholar
Bogaards, M. (2000), ‘The uneasy relationship between empirical and normative types in consociational theory’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(4): 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D.Ranney, A. (1994), Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F.G. (1999), ‘Decentralization and the post-war political economy’, European Journal of Political Research 36(1): 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Winter, L. (2005), ‘Theoretical, conceptual and methodological problems in applying Lijphart’s patterns of democracy to autonomous regions in Europe’, Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Granada, April 14–19, 2005.Google Scholar
Driffill, J. (2006), ‘The centralization of wage bargaining revisited: what have we learnt?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(4): 731–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elazar, D.J. (1997), ‘Contrasting federal and unitary systems’, International Political Science Review 18(3): 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M. (2005), ‘Majoritarian democracy in Britain: new labour and the constitution’, West European Politics 28(1): 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, M.Uleri, P.V. (1996), The Referendum Experience in Europe, London/New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, B. (2000), ‘Arend Lijphart and the new institutionalism’, in M. Crepaz, T. Koelble and D. Wilsford (eds), Democracy and Institutions. The Life Work of Arend Lijphart, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 43–73.Google Scholar
Gross, A.Kaufmann, B. (2002), IRI Europe Country Index on Citizenlawmaking, Amsterdam and Berlin: IRI Europe.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A.Taylor, R. (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(4): 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamon, F. (1995), Le référendum. Etude comparative, Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Huber, E., Ragin, C.Stephens, J.D. (1993), ‘Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state’, American Journal of Sociology 99: 711–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. (2004), ‘Occurrence and policy consequences of referendums. A theoretical model and empirical evidence’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(3): 321–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S.Tsebelis, G. (2002), ‘Veto players and referendums around the world’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(4): 465–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, W.G. (1998), ‘Statistical graphics for visualizing multivariate data’, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 120, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 33–37.Google Scholar
Jung, S. (1996), ‘Lijpharts Demokratietypen und die direkte Demokratie’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 6(3): 623–647.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. (1997), ‘Types of democracy. From classical to new institutionalism’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(4): 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A., Lehnert, M., Miller, B.Sieberer, U. (2002), ‘The democratic quality of institutional regimes: a conceptual framework’, Political Studies 50: 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keman, H. (2000), ‘Federalism and policy performance’, in U. Wachendorfer-Schmidt (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance, London/New York: Routledge, pp. 196–227.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, L. (2003), ‘Quantitative indicators of corporatism’, International Journal of Sociology 33(3): 10–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.O.Mueller, C.W. (1978), ‘Factor analysis. Statistical methods and practical issues’, in E.M. Uslander (ed.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 14, Beverly Hills, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kristjansson, S. (2004), ‘Iceland: searching for democracy’, Scandinavian Political Studies 27(2): 153–174.Google Scholar
Laakso, M.Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘“Effective” number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDuc, L. (2003), The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective, Buffalo: Broadview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, W. (1998), Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies, 2nd edn., Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1971), ‘The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research’, Comparative Political Studies 8: 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1984), Democracies. Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven/London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2000), ‘Varieties of nonmajoriatarian democracy’, in M. Crepaz, T. Koelble and D. Wilsford (eds), Democracy and Institutions. The Life Work of Arend Lijphart, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2002), ‘Negotiation democracy versus consensus democracy: parallel conclusions and recommendations’, European Journal of Political Research 41(1): 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2003), ‘Measurement validity and institutional engineering – reflections on Rein Taagepera’s meta-study’, Political Studies 51(1): 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, A. (2005), ‘How to measure constitutional rigidity? Four concepts and two alternatives’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 17(3): 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundell, K.Karvonen, L. (2003), A comparative data set on political institutions, Department of Political Science, Abo Akademi, Finland.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, S. (2001), ‘Two models of democracy’, Journal of Democracy 12(3): 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W.Strom, K. (2000), Coalition Government in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J.H. (2000), ‘Expanding the spectrum of democracies: reflections on proportional representation in New Zealand’, in M. Crepaz, T. Koelble, and D. Wilsford (eds), Democracy and Institutions. The Life Work of Arend Lijphart, Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press, pp. 113–127.Google Scholar
Neidhart, L. (1970), Plebiszit und pluralitäre Demokratie, Eine Analyse der Funktion des schweizerischen Gesetzesreferendums, Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
OECD (2005), Employment Outlook, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Pennings, P., Keman, H., Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2003), Doing Research in Political Science. An Introduction to Comparative Methods and Statistics, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A.Teune, H. (1970), The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Qvortrup, M. (2000), ‘Are referendums controlled and pro-hegemonic?’, Political Studies 48: 821–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qvortrup, M. (2005), A Comparative Study of Referendums. Government of the People, 2nd edn., Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Rodden, J. (2004), ‘Comparative federalism and decentralization. On meaning and measurement’, Comparative Politics 2: 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1998), ‘Political institutions: an overview’, in R.E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarrow, S.E. (2001), ‘Direct democracy and institutional change’, Comparative Political Studies 34(6): 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M.G. (2000), Demokratietheorien, 3rd edn., Opladen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnapp, K.-U.Harfst, P. (2005), ‘Parlamentarische Informations- und Kontrollressourcen in 22 westlichen Demokratien’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 36(2): 348–372.Google Scholar
Setälä, M. (1999), Referendums and Democratic Government, London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. (2006), ‘On the problems of responsibility and accountability in referendums’, European Journal of Political Research 45(4): 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M.Carey, J. (1992), Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaroff, A. (1999), ‘Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement’, European Journal of Political Research 36(1): 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaroff, A. (2003), ‘Varieties of parliamentarianism in the advanced industrial democracies’, International Political Science Review 24(4): 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. (1976), ‘The functional properties of the referendum’, European Journal of Political Research 4(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soskice, D. (1990), ‘Wage determination: the changing role of institutions in advanced industrialized countries’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6(4): 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa, P.A.B. (2003), Central Bank independence and democratic accountability, Departamento de Economia, Universidade Portucalense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, J. (1974), Amicable Agreement Versus Majority Role: Conflict Resolution in Switzerland, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. (2002), ‘The consociational theory and Switzerland – revisited thirty years later’, Acta Politica 37(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Suksi, M. (1993), Bringing in the People, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, P. (1996), ‘Denmark: the referendum as minority protection’, in M. Gallagher and P.V. Uleri (eds), The Referendum Experience in Europe, London, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, R. (2003), ‘Arend Lijphart’s dimensions of democracy: logical connections and institutional design’, Political Studies 51(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uleri, P.V. (1996), ‘Introduction’, in M. Gallagher and P.V. Uleri (eds), The Referendum Experience in Europe, London/New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uleri, P.V. (2002), ‘On referendum voting in Italy: yes, no, or non-vote? How Italian parties learned to control referendums’, European Journal of Political Research 41(4): 863–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2000), ‘Consensus and direct democracy: conceptual and empirical linkages’, European Journal of Political Research 38(1): 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2002), Kantonale Demokratien im Vergleich, Opladen: Leske+Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2005), ‘Bicameralism and policy performance: the effects of cameral structure in comparative perspective’, Journal of Legislative Studies 11(2): 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.L. (1998), ‘Federalism, federal political systems, and federations’, Annual Review of Political Science 1: 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, K.R., Rockman, B.A.. (1993), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad, Washington.Google Scholar