IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v26y2023i2p89-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contestation and participation: Concepts, measurement, and inference

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Alexandra Boese

    (University of Gothenburg, Sweden; WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Germany)

  • Matthew Charles Wilson

Abstract

Contestation and participation are commonly viewed as two main constituent dimensions of electoral democracy. How exactly have these two dimensions been conceptualized and measured in the literature? Are they empirically observable and do they matter for democratic development and stability? This article answers the first of these questions and considers their implications for the second by reviewing the literature on these two dimensions. We discuss three issues that affect conclusions about dimensions of democracy and their relevance for understanding democratic development: First, conceptual ambiguities—substantive overlap between the two concepts—obscure the meanings of each of the two dimensions. Such ambiguities led to a second issue, which is a concept-measurement mismatch. The conceptual contributions were never really met with an empirical equivalent that would allow us to properly measure the two dimensions. Scholars continue to invoke theoretical understandings from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but represent them using measures that were not explicitly concerned with measuring them, which presents the third issue of concept reification. As a result of these three issues, inferences about how democracy has developed and its relevance for democratic stability or for transitions to democratic rule is potentially obscured. Based on these issues, we provide three suggestions for future research concerning the concepts of contestation and participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Alexandra Boese & Matthew Charles Wilson, 2023. "Contestation and participation: Concepts, measurement, and inference," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 26(2), pages 89-106, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:26:y:2023:i:2:p:89-106
    DOI: 10.1177/22338659221120970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/22338659221120970
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/22338659221120970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miller, Michael K., 2015. "Democratic Pieces: Autocratic Elections and Democratic Development since 1815," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 501-530, July.
    2. Adcock, Robert & Collier, David, 2001. "Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 529-546, September.
    3. Wright, Joseph, 2008. "Political Competition and Democratic Stability in New Democracies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 221-245, April.
    4. Scott Gates & Håvard Hegre & Mark P. Jones & Håvard Strand, 2006. "Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: Polity Duration, 1800–2000," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 893-908, October.
    5. Hadenius,Axel, 1992. "Democracy and Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521416856.
    6. Gurr, Ted Robert, 1974. "Persistence and Change in Political Systems, 1800–1971," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 1482-1504, December.
    7. Hellmeier, Sebastian & Cole, Rowan & Grahn, Sandra & Kolvani, Palina & Lachapelle, Jean & Lührmann, Anna & Maerz, Seraphine F. & Pillai, Shreeya & Lindberg, Staffan I., 2021. "State of the world 2020: autocratization turns viral," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(6), pages 1053-1074.
    8. Mehmet Gurses, 2011. "Elites, Oil, and Democratization: A Survival Analysis," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 92(1), pages 164-184, March.
    9. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    10. Pemstein, Daniel & Meserve, Stephen A. & Melton, James, 2010. "Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 426-449.
    11. Casper, Gretchen & Tufis, Claudiu, 2003. "Correlation Versus Interchangeability: The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(02), pages 196-203, March.
    12. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2018. "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 105-116.
    13. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vanessa A Boese, 2019. "How (not) to measure democracy," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 95-127, June.
    2. Pierre-Guillaume Méon & Khalid Sekkat, 2016. "A time to throw stones, a time to reap: How long does it take for democratic transitions to improve institutional outcomes?," Working Papers CEB 16-016, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Sara McLaughlin & Scott Gates & HÃ¥vard Hegre & Ranveig Gissinger & Nils Petter Gleditsch, 1998. "Timing the Changes in Political Structures," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 231-242, April.
    4. Pavel S. Pronin, 2020. "International Trade And Democracy: How Trade Partners Affect Regime Change And Persistence," HSE Working papers WP BRP 75/PS/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Jamie Levin & Joseph MacKay & Anne Spencer Jamison & Abouzar Nasirzadeh & Anthony Sealey, 2021. "A test of the democratic peacekeeping hypothesis: Coups, democracy, and foreign military deployments," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 355-367, May.
    6. Giebler, Heiko & Ruth, Saskia P. & Tanneberg, Dag, 2018. "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    7. Mikael Sandberg & Per Lundberg, 2012. "Political Institutions and Their Historical Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-10, October.
    8. Heiko Giebler & Saskia P. Ruth & Dag Tanneberg, 2018. "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    9. Krieger, Tommy, 2022. "Measuring democracy," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    11. William R. Thompson & Richard Tucker, 1997. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 462-477, June.
    12. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    13. William R. Thompson & Richard Tucker, 1997. "A Tale of Two Democratic Peace Critiques," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 428-454, June.
    14. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    15. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2018. "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 105-116.
    16. Walter Riker, 2009. "The Democratic Peace is Not Democratic: On Behalf of Rawls’ Decent Societies," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(3), pages 617-638, October.
    17. Sidartha Gordon & Alessandro Riboni, 2015. "Doubts and Dogmatism in Conflict Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 1790-1817, December.
    18. Jo Jakobsen & Thomas Halvorsen, 2019. "Geographical and temporal patterns of interstate security competition: Global and regional evidence," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 226-246, September.
    19. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    20. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.

    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:sae:intare:v:26:y:2023:i:2:p:89-106. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.