IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v46y2016i04p731-741_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power

Author

Listed:
  • Doyle, David
  • Elgie, Robert

Abstract

This article aims to maximize the reliability of presidential power scores for a larger number of countries and time periods than currently exists for any single measure, and in a way that is replicable and easy to update. It begins by identifying all of the studies that have estimated the effect of a presidential power variable, clarifying what scholars have attempted to capture when they have operationalized the concept of presidential power. It then identifies all the measures of presidential power that have been proposed over the years, noting the problems associated with each. To generate the new set of presidential power scores, the study draws upon the comparative and local knowledge embedded in existing measures of presidential power. Employing principal component analysis, together with the expectation maximization algorithm and maximum likelihood estimation, a set of presidential power scores is generated for a larger set of countries and country time periods than currently exists, reporting 95 per cent confidence intervals and standard errors for the scores. Finally, the implications of the new set of scores for future studies of presidential power is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Doyle, David & Elgie, Robert, 2016. "Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 731-741, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:46:y:2016:i:04:p:731-741_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123414000465/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua Holzer, 2019. "Reevaluating the presidential runoff rule: Does a provision promote the protection of human rights?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-11, May.
    2. Joshua Holzer, 2020. "The effect of copartisan justice ministers on human rights in presidential democracies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Joshua Holzer, 2020. "The effect of two-round presidential elections on human rights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:46:y:2016:i:04:p:731-741_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.