Fitzgibbon Survey of Latin American Democracy: An Update of the 2000 Tabulations
+++++
by Phil Kelly
Background to the Fitzgibbon Democracy Survey
The origins of the democracy survey date back to 1945 when Professor Russell H.
Fitzgibbon, a UCLA political scientist, asked a panel of ten distinguished U.S.
latinamericanist scholars to rank the twenty Latin American republics according to a set
of criteria that he felt would measure the extent of democracy in each of the countries.
His criteria for assessing the strength of democracy, fifteen in all, encompassed the
following describers (complete definitions for each of the criteria were furnished
panelists in addition to the survey instrument):
| Educational Level |
Judiciary |
| Standard of Living |
Government Funds |
| Internal Unity |
Social Legislation |
| Political Maturity |
Civilian Supremacy |
| Freedom from Foreign Domination |
Ecclesiastical Domination |
| Freedom of Press, etc. |
Government administration |
| Free Elections |
Local government |
| Party organization |
|
On a five-point evaluation, panelists were to rate the republics separately according
to each of the criteria, and the poll results were tallied later.
Fitzgibbon replicated his canvass at regular five-year intervals
through 1970, adding more panelists than his original ten but maintaining the original
fifteen criteria. Kenneth Johnson became associated with the project in 1960 and he
assumed sole authorship of the 1975 and 1980 polls after Fitzgibbon's retirement. As the
present director of the democracy project, Phil Kelly assisted Johnson in 1985 and
administered the instrument alone for the three most recent evaluations, 1991, 1995, and
2000. In total, twelve democracy surveys, taken every five years and all adhering to
Fitzgibbon's original format, have been conducted since 1945. Over one-hundred panelists
contributed to the 2000 survey. 1
All three project directors, Fitzgibbon, Johnson, and Kelly,
experimented with the poll; most changes were tried only once and not continued. For
example, Fitzgibbon gave certain criteria more weight than other criteria, and he also
attempted a "self-assessment as to the respondent's familiarity with both [Latin
American] states and [the fifteen] criteria" (Fitzgibbon 1967, 155). Both attempts
were inconclusive and dropped. Likewise, Fitzgibbon tested for statistical associations
between the democracy scales and an assortment of national attributes, but he found none.
Johnson composed a separate political scale drawn from five "select criteria"
among the total fifteen (Fitzgibbon 1976, 131-132), and he and Miles Williams created a
"Power Index" that sought to measure various groups' impact on politics (Johnson
and Williams 1978, 37-47). But again, neither innovation was kept. Nor did a later
"Attitudinal Profile" of panel respondents' backgrounds by Johnson and Kelly
enjoy long life. In sum, Fitzgibbon's original 1945 survey has continued for the past
fifty-five years without significant adjustment.
The most notable legacy of the Fitzgibbon democracy survey is its long
life, fifty-five years and twelve different polls since 1945. No other surveys can boast
of such longevity and repetition over a time span that has seen so many changes and
perhaps improvements in democracy and government in Latin America. Also, this survey is
the only panel-of-experts technique for gauging the extent of democracy, as other
assessments of democracy, described below, rely on census and other secondary statistical
data or a variety of subjective measures. As stated by Fitzgibbon, "[Panel]
Specialists are likely to introduce desirable nuances and balances which are impossible in
the use of cold statistical information, even of the most accurate sort" (Fitzgibbon
1967, 135). In addition, the canvass possesses both conceptual and operational definitions
of democracy, the former rendered in the fifteen criteria and the latter in the survey
method itself, such that ordinal and interval data measurements become available and hence
statistical analysis can be performed between the democracy ranking scales and an
assortment of independent variables. More on the results of the author's statistical
analysis below. Finally, despite the absence of major overhauling of the project's
approaches since 1945, the panel procedure remains open to adjustment and to replication
by others (Kelly 1998, 3-11).
Of course, problems are inherent to the Fitzgibbon approach as well.
Are panelists indeed sufficiently familiar with enough elements of political life in Latin
America to gauge accurately the depth of democracy in each one of the twenty republics?
Most likely not. Accordingly, are panelists'"images" and perceptions of the
Latin communities strong enough indicators of constitutionalism? Despite yearly
comparisons made among countries over the years, we do not know in general if democracy
itself is more grounded in the Southern Hemisphere's political culture. Likewise, are
certain reformist and/or radical states, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, given higher scale
rankings because the majority of survey participants reflect a "liberal" bias as
was seen in the1985 Johnson-Kelly Attitudinal Profile? Should the poll be made annually or
at two-year intervals instead of each five years, and might certain of the democracy
criteria be eliminated and others given more weight?
Analysis of the Survey
Table One shows the democracy standings for each of the twelve
Fitzgibbon canvasses (1945-2000) plus the cumulative ratings when the ordinal positions of
each country are summed and the totals ranked (extreme right-hand column).
TABLE ONE
FITZGIBBON-JOHNSON INDEX: SPECIALISTS' VIEW OF
DEMOCRACY IN LATIN AMERICA, 1945-2000
| Country |
Rank 1945 |
Rank 1950 |
Rank 1955 |
Rank 1960 |
Rank 1965 |
Rank 1970 |
Rank 1975 |
Rank 1980 |
Rank 1985 |
Rank 1991 |
Rank 1995 |
Rank 2000 |
Rank Totals |
| Argentina |
5 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
11 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
| Bolivia |
18 |
17 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
17 |
18 |
16 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
| Brazil |
11 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
8 |
10 |
9 |
12 |
9 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
| Chile |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
11 |
14 |
14 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3.5 |
| Colombia |
4 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
12 |
7 |
| Costa Rica |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1** |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Cuba |
6 |
4 |
7 |
15 |
18 |
13 |
7 |
6 |
10 |
12 |
16 |
15 |
10.5 |
| Dominican Republic |
19 |
19 |
19 |
18 |
14 |
14 |
13 |
8 |
13 |
11 |
13 |
9 |
15 |
| Ecuador |
14 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
12 |
9 |
14 |
9 |
11 |
9 |
9 |
13 |
10.5 |
| El Salvador |
13 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
11 |
8 |
10 |
16 |
17 |
19 |
17 |
10 |
13 |
| Guatemala |
12 |
10 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
15 |
17 |
19 |
18 |
19 |
19 |
16 |
| Haiti |
16 |
18 |
17 |
19 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
| Honduras |
17 |
15 |
12 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
16 |
15 |
15 |
17 |
18 |
16 |
17 |
| Mexico |
7 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
3.5 |
| Nicaragua |
15 |
16 |
18 |
17 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
7 |
12 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
14 |
| Panama |
8 |
11 |
9 |
11 |
10 |
11** |
12 |
10 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
8 |
9 |
| Paraguay |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
18 |
16 |
15 |
17 |
19 |
| Peru |
10 |
13 |
16 |
9 |
9 |
11** |
8 |
5 |
8 |
13 |
12 |
18 |
12 |
| Uruguay |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1** |
3 |
6 |
13 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Venezuela |
9 |
12 |
13 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
Table Two separately presents the cumulative democracy rankings of the twenty
republics. Costa Rica places first in the total figures, having scored first since the
1965 poll. Uruguay stands some way below in second place, and a clustering arises among
the next five republics, only ten points separating Chile and Mexico from Colombia. Cuba
and Ecuador match each other's position in the scale's middle, and a bunching again
appears among Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Honduras. Paraguay and
Haiti occupy the lowest positions on the democracy survey.
Table Two - 2000 Survey Rankings of the Original Twenty Latin
American Republics
| 1. Costa Rica |
2,344* |
11. Nicaragua |
4,470 |
| 2. Uruguay |
2,722 |
12. Colombia |
4,514 |
| 3. Chile |
2,774 |
13. Ecuador |
4,608 |
| 4. Argentina |
3,079 |
14. Bolivia |
4,667 |
| 5. Brazil |
3,460 |
15. Cuba |
4,676 |
| 6. Mexico |
3,502 |
16. Honduras |
4,739 |
| 7. Venezuela |
3,975 |
17. Paraguay |
4,797 |
| 8. Panama |
4,005 |
18. Peru |
5,019 |
| 9. Dominican Republic |
4,304 |
19. Guatemala |
5,028 |
| 10. El Salvador |
4,435 |
20. Haiti |
6,151 |
* Total ranking responses of the one-hundred and three survey participants
In the 2000 poll Kelly added thirteen newly-independent Caribbean
countries, as revealed in Table Three, enlisting the original Fitzgibbon survey
instrument. But, just thirty-nine of the 103 panel respondents felt sufficiently
knowledgeable to evaluate these states. He then integrated four of the Caribbean countries
(those with the greatest panelists' responses) within the 2000 ratings of the twenty
original Latin American republics (Table Four).
Table Three - 2000 Survey Rankings of the Newly-Independent
Caribbean Countries
| 1. Barbados |
27.65* |
8. St. Lucia |
37.66 |
| 2. Bahamas |
31.20 |
9. St. Vincent-Grenadines |
37.80 |
| 3. Trinidad-Tobago |
32.80 |
10. St. Kitts-Nevis |
38.20 |
| 4. Jamaica |
35.11 |
11. Grenada |
38.94 |
| 5. Belize |
35.50 |
12. Guyana |
43.08 |
| 6. Dominica |
36.43 |
13. Suriname |
44.34 |
| 7. Antigua-Barbudo |
36.60 |
|
|
* Average of ranking responses of thirty-nine survey participants
Table Four - 2000 Survey Rankings of Twenty Original Republics
plus Four Caribbean States
| 1. Costa Rica |
22.75* |
13. El Salvador |
43.05 |
| 2. Uruguay |
26.42 |
14. Nicaragua |
43.39 |
| 3. Chile |
26.93 |
15. Colombia |
43.82 |
| 4. Barbados |
27.65 |
16. Suriname |
44.34 |
| 5. Argentina |
29.89 |
17. Ecuador |
44.73 |
| 6. Brazil |
33.59 |
18. Bolivia |
45.31 |
| 7. Mexico |
34.00 |
19. Cuba |
45.39 |
| 8. Jamaica |
35.11 |
20. Honduras |
46.00 |
| 9. Belize |
35.50 |
21. Paraguay |
46.57 |
| 10. Venezuela |
38.59 |
22. Peru |
48.72 |
| 11. Panama |
38.88 |
23. Guatemala |
48.81 |
| 12. Dominican Republic |
41.78 |
24. Haiti |
59.71 |
*Average of ranking responses
Kelly assembled an array of fifty independent variables (taken from
Kurian 1979) to test for possible statistical linkages between the 1945-2000 cumulative
democracy rankings (as his dependent variable) and certain national traits of the twenty
Latin American states. Enlisting first a Spearman rho coefficient as a preliminary
barometer of associational strength, he found the following ten independent variables
exhibiting very high bivariate associations with the democracy rankings: telephones per
capita, urbanization, electrical energy consumption per capita, general energy consumption
per capita, physical quality-of-life index (life expectancy, infant mortality, and
literacy), daily newspaper circulation per capita, tractors per hectare, public education
expenditures per capita, gross national product per capita, and steel consumption per
capita.
To carry these comparisons further, Kelly next grouped all eleven
variables (one dependent and ten independent) together within a stepwise regression
procedure in order to assay a more concise prediction of democracy in Latin America. This
technique possesses the advantages of controlling for spuriousness and of reducing the
number of variables into a model for simpler utilization. From this endeavor, four of the
independent variables proved to be particularly strong in associating with the democracy
rankings, in order, newspaper circulation per capita, tractors per hectare, energy
consumption per capita, and public education expenditures per capita. The best statistical
fit among these four, that being the strongest predictor model, were the first two
variables, newspaper circulation per capita and tractors per hectare, together producing
an R2 score of .87. Consequently, these two variables accounted for 87 percent
of the variance among the ten traits in forecasting Latin American democracy.
Interestingly, a similar regression was performed between these variables and the
1945-1995 democracy rankings, with a .84 rho score for the newspapers and tractors
variables (Kelly 1998, 10). In sum, democracy seems to be present wherever substantial per
capita newspaper circulation and widely mechanized or tractor-oriented agriculture exist,
according to the Fitzgibbon democracy surveys.
Comparisons of Other Surveys of Democracy
No other of the extant democracy surveys focus exclusively on Latin
America. However, this author is aware of four other polls that use different sorts of
data and criteria to assess democracy, and rating tabulations of the Latin America states
can be gleaned from their total listings. Accordingly, in this section of the article the
author will briefly describe these four democracy rankings and make comparisons between
them and the Fitzgibbon democracy scales.
For example, Kenneth Bollen (in Inkeles 1991, 3-20, especially 10,
16-19) combined six "subjective" indicators for democracy into single indexes
for the years 1960 and 1965: "press freedom, the freedom that political parties have
to organize and oppose the government, and the extent of government sanctions imposed on
individuals and groups [in addition to] fairness of elections, whether the chief executive
came to office via an election, and the effectiveness and elective/nonelective nature of
the national legislative body," taking this data from several secondary sources. His
tabulations for Latin America when culled from his universal data set quite closely
corresponded to those years of the Fitzgibbon surveys, a spearman rho association of .85
in 1960 and of .82 in 1965 (Table Five).
Table Five - Kenneth A. Bollen
| |
Fitzgibbon '65 |
Bollen '65 |
Fitzgibbon '60 |
Bollen '60 |
| Argentina |
6 |
12 |
4 |
13 |
| Bolivia |
17 |
18 |
16 |
14 |
| Brazil |
8 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
| Chile |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| Colombia |
7 |
9 |
12 |
6 |
| Costa Rica |
1.5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
| Cuba |
18 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
| Dominican Republic |
14 |
17 |
19 |
18 |
| Ecuador |
12 |
15 |
5 |
10 |
| El Salvador |
11 |
8 |
15 |
12 |
| Guatemala |
13 |
16 |
11 |
13 |
| Haiti |
21 |
19 |
18 |
19 |
| Honduras |
15 |
13 |
10 |
14 |
| Mexico |
4 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
| Nicaragua |
16 |
11 |
16 |
17 |
| Panama |
10 |
5 |
8 |
11 |
| Paraguay |
19 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
| Peru |
9 |
4 |
6 |
9 |
| Uruguay |
1.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Venezuela |
5 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
(Rank orders, lower scores = most democratic)
Rho Correlation Score = .85
Rho Correlation Score = .82
Compiled from: Bollen, Kenneth 1991. Political democracy: conceptual and measurement
traps. In On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, ed.Alex
Inkeles, 16-19). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
The "Freedom Ratings" of Raymond Duncan Gastil (in Inkeles
1991, 21-46, especially 23, 38-42 ) offer another comparison to Fitzgibbon. For the years
1978 and 1988, he evaluated each country of the world "against a reference book
description. . . of following news about a country in a variety of sources, and
occasionally changing ratings when the news did not fit the established rating level. In
effect, the author developed rough models in his mind as to what to expect of a country at
each rating level, reexamining his ratings only when current information no longer
supported this model." The Gastil system for 1988 closely paralleled Fitzgibbon's
scale with a rho figure of .94, although this was not the case for 1978 with a much lower
comparable figure of .45 (Table Six).
Table Six - Raymond Duncan Gastil
| |
Fitzgibbon '80 |
Gastil '78 |
Fitzgibbon '85 |
Gastil '88 |
| Argentina |
11 |
16.5 |
3 |
2.5 |
| Bolivia |
18 |
8 |
16 |
9 |
| Brazil |
12 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
| Chile |
14 |
16.5 |
14 |
15.5 |
| Colombia |
4 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
| Costa Rica |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Cuba |
6 |
18.5 |
10 |
20 |
| Dominican Republic |
8 |
3 |
13 |
5 |
| Ecuador |
9 |
8 |
11 |
5 |
| El Salvador |
16 |
8 |
17 |
12.5 |
| Guatemala |
17 |
5 |
19 |
12.5 |
| Haiti |
20 |
20 |
20 |
18.5 |
| Honduras |
15 |
11.5 |
15 |
9 |
| Mexico |
3 |
8 |
6 |
14 |
| Nicaragua |
7 |
14 |
12 |
15.5 |
| Panama |
10 |
14 |
9 |
17 |
| Paraguay |
19 |
14 |
18 |
18.5 |
| Peru |
5 |
11.5 |
8 |
9 |
| Uruguay |
13 |
18.5 |
4 |
5 |
| Venezuela 2 2 2 2.5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2.5 |
(Rank orders, lower scores = most democratic)
Rho Correlation Score = .45
Rho Correlation Score = .94
Source: Raymond Gastil. 1991.The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and
Suggestions. In On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitant, ed. (Alex
Inkeles, 38-42). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
A third democracy index, a "Polyarchy Scale" of 1984 again
of all nations by Michael Coppedge and Wolfgang Reinicke (in Inkeles 1991, 47-68,
especially 49, 59-62), assembled data from a variety of "collection efforts" by
the Department of State, Freedom House, and elsewhere into five rating variables: extent
of suffrage, freedom of expression, freedom of organization, existence of alternative
sources of information, and free and fair elections. Their scaling results exhibited
fairly strong rho correlations (.68) when compared to Fitzgibbon's ratings as shown in
Table Seven.
Table Seven - Michael Coppedge and Wolfgang H. Reinicke
| |
Polyarchy Scale 1984 |
Fitzgibbon 1985 |
| Argentina |
3.5 |
3 |
| Bolivia |
11 |
16 |
| Brazil |
3.5 |
9 |
| Chile |
16.5 |
14 |
| Colombia |
3.5 |
5 |
| Costa Rica |
3.5 |
1 |
| Cuba |
20 |
10 |
| Dominican Republic |
8.5 |
11 |
| Ecuador |
8.5 |
11 |
| El Salvador |
13.5 |
17 |
| Guatemala |
16.5 |
19 |
| Haiti |
19 |
20 |
| Honduras |
3.5 |
15 |
| Mexico |
13.5 |
6 |
| Nicaragua |
15 |
12 |
| Panama |
12 |
9 |
| Paraguay |
18 |
18 |
| Peru |
10 |
8 |
| Uruguay |
3.5 |
4 |
| Venezuela |
3.5 |
2 |
Rho Correlations = .68
Rank Orders (lowest = most democratic)
Compiled from: Coppedge, Michael and Wolfgang Reinicke. 1991. Measuring Polyarchy. IN On
Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, ed. Alex Inkeles, 59-62. New
Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
Finally, Ted Robert Gurr, Keith Jaggers, and Will Moore (in Inkeles
1991, 69-104, and especially 72-73; 82-83) expanded and updated a POLITY I data set of
others into their own POLITY II and compared democracy and autocracy tendencies for 1978
of states from two world regions, one being Latin America. Their rankings differed
significantly from Fitzgibbon's, revealing a low rho score of .34 (Table Eight).
Table Eight - Gurr, Jaggers, and Moore
| |
DEMOC:1978 |
Fitzgibbon 1980 |
| Argentina |
11 |
10 |
| Bolivia |
11 |
17 |
| Brazil |
6 |
12 |
| Chile |
18 |
13 |
| Colombia |
1.5 |
4 |
| Costa Rica |
1.5 |
1 |
| Cuba |
18 |
5 |
| Dominican Republic |
4 |
7 |
| Ecuador |
11 |
8 |
| El Salvador |
6 |
15 |
| Guatemala |
6 |
16 |
| Haiti |
11 |
19 |
| Honduras |
11 |
14 |
| Mexico |
11 |
3 |
| Nicaragua |
11 |
6 |
| Panama |
18 |
9 |
| Paraguay |
11 |
18 |
| Peru |
- |
- |
| Uruguay |
11 |
12 |
| Venezuela |
3 |
2 |
Rho Correlations = .34
Rank Orders (lowest = most democratic)
Compiled from: Gurr, Ted Robert, Keith Jaggers, and Will Moore. 1991. The
transformation of the western state: the growth of democracy, autocracy, and state power
since 1800. IN On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, ed.
Alex Inkeles, 82-83. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
Accordingly, some tabulations of the other four approaches of measuring
democracy closely approximated the Fitzgibbon survey and others correspondingly did not.
But, again the strength of Fitzgibbon in contrast comes from its expansive life span of
fifty-five years and the repetition of an every-five-year-cycle of surveys, the
participation of a significant number of expert panelists, the wider variety of its
democracy criteria, the flexibility of its definition and operationalization, and the ease
of enlisting statistical measures for testing likely factors associated with democracy.
Conclusions
Much more could be said about democracy in Latin America and in
general. Indeed, is democracy the most efficient form of government, the best protector of
citizens' rights and of the natural environment, or the most peaceful (the
"democratic peace" thesis)? Can the concept and practice of democracy be
accurately defined and compared? Which type of environment is most fertile for the rise
and maintenance of constitutionalism? What role has the United States played in the
institutionalization of democracy in Latin America? How can any country or regional
association like the Organization of American States promote political stability and
democracy elsewhere? Such queries understandably are very difficult to answer, and
obviously are well beyond the scope of this article.
Yet, it is asserted that the Fitzgibbon democracy survey project has
made a positive contribution to the study of Latin American government and politics. We
know, roughly at least according to the panelists' images, the most and the least
democratic states, how these rankings have or have not changed over the past fifty-five
years, and certain environmental attributes (per capita newspaper circulation and tractors
per hectores, for instance) that could be statistically associated with constitutionalism.
1 2000 Fitzgibbon Democracy Survey Panel
Participants: Juan del Águila, Emory University; Marvin Alisky, Arizona State; José
Álvarez, University of Georgia; Christopher Anderson, University of Kansas; Craig
Auchter, Butler University; John Bailey, Georgetown University; Steven Barracca,
University of Texas - El Paso; Lorraine Bayard de Volo, University of Kansas; Marc Becker,
Truman State University; Robert Biles, Sam Houston State University; Jan Knippers Black,
Monterey Institute of International Studies; Alvaro Félix Bolaños, University of
Florida; Dallas Browne, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville; Winfield Burggraaff,
University of Missouri; David Bushnell, University of Florida; Damarys Canache, Florida
State University; Henry Carey, Georgia State University; John Carey, Washington
University; Jack Child, American University; Richard Clinton, Oregon State University;
Michael Coppedge, University of Notre Dame; Irasema Coronado, University of Texas - El
Paso; Brian Crisp, University of Arizona; Alfred Cuzán, University of West Florida; Lee
Daniel, Texas Christian University; David Dent, Towson University; Henry Dietz, University
of Texas; Gary Elbow, Texas Tech University; Julio Fernández, State University of New
York at Cortland; Cornelia Butler Flora, Iowa State University; David Foster, Arizona
State University; Bill Furlong, Utah State University; Connie García-Blanchard, Fort
Lewis College; John Garganígo, Washington University; Michael Gold-Biss, Saint Cloud
State University; Louis Goodman, American University; Yvon Grenier, St. Francis Xavier
University; Claudio Grossman, American University; John Hart, University of Houston;
Richard Hillman, St. John Fisher College; Kathryn Hochstetler, Colorado State University;
Jamie Elizabeth Jacobs, West Virginia University; Mark Jones, Michigan State University;
Phil Kelly, Emporia State University; Harvey Kline, University of Alabama; Michael
Kryzanek, Bridgewater State College; William LeoGrande, American University; Tom Leonard,
University of North Florida; Todd Lutes, University of Arizona South; Don Mabry, Mississippi
State University; Scott Mainwaring, University of Notre Dame; Christian Maisch, American
University; Gabriel Marcella, U.S. Army War College; Jennifer McCoy, Carter Center; Terry
McCoy, University of Florida; Ron McDonald, Syracuse University; J. Michael McGuire,
University of the Incarnate Word; Frank O. Mora, Rhodes College; Stephen Mumme, Colorado
State University; David Myers, Pennsylvania State University; Fred Nunn, Portland State
University; Harley Oberhelman, Texas Tech University; Guillermo O'Donnell, University of
Notre Dame; Salvador Oropesa, Kansas State University; David Scott Palmer, Boston
University; John Passé-Smith, University of Central Arkansas; Neale Pearson, Texas Tech
University; John Peeler, Bucknell University; Orlando Pérez, Central Michigan University;
Anibal Pérez-Liñan, University of Notre Dame; Robert Peterson, University of Texas - El
Paso; David Pion-Berlin, University of California - Riverside; Guy Poitras, Trinity
University; Nancy Powers, Florida State University; Gary Reich, University of Kansas;
Steve Ropp, University of Wyoming; Mark Ruhl, Dickinson College; Henry Schmidt, Texas
A&M University; Cathy Schneider, American University; Friedrich Schuler, Portland
State University; Mitchell Seligson, University of Pittsburgh; Eduardo Silva, University
of Missouri- St. Louis; Shawn Smallman, Portland State University; Paul Sondrol,
University of Colorado - Colorado Springs; Charles Stansifer, University of Kansas; Dale
Story, University of Texas - Arlington; Dean Talbott, University of Northern Iowa; Robert
Tomasek, University of Kansas; John Tuman, Texas Tech University; Roberto Villarreal,
University of Texas - El Paso; Richard Walter, Washington University; Christopher Welna,
University of Notre Dame; Joseph Werna, Southeast Missouri State University; Howard
Wiarda, University of Massachusetts; Marvin Will, University of Tulsa; Edward Williams,
University of Arizona; Miles Williams, Central Missouri State University; Philip Williams,
University of Florida; Larman Wilson, American University; Ralph Lee Woodward, Texas
Christian University; Eduardo Zayas-Bazán, Middle Tennessee State University; Daniel
Zirker, Montana State University; Clarence Zuvekas, Annandale, Virginia.
Bibliography
Bollen, Kenneth. 1991. Political democracy: conceptual and measurement traps. In On
Measuring Democracy: Its consequences and concomitants,
ed. Alex Inkeles, 3-20. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Coppedge, Michael and Wolfgang Reinicke. 1991. Measuring polyarchy. In On Measuring
Democracy: Its consequences
and concomitants, ed. Alex Inkeles, 47-68. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Fitzgibbon, Russell. 1967. Measuring political change in Latin America . Journal of
Politics 19: 129-166.
Gastil, Raymond. 1991. The comparative survey of freedom: Experiences and suggestions. In On
Measuring Democracy: Its
consequences and concomitants, ed. Alex Inkeles, 21-46. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Gurr, Ted, Keith Jaggers, and Will Moore. 1991. The transformation of the western state:
The growth of democracy, autocracy, and state power
since 1800. In On Measuring Democracy: Its consequences and concomitants,
ed. Alex Inkeles, 69-104. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Johnson, Kenneth. 1976. Scholarly images of Latin American political democracy in 1975. Latin
American Research Review 11: 129-140.
Johnson, Kenneth and Miles. Williams. 1978. Democracy, Power, and Intervention in
Latin American Political Life: A study of scholarly images.
Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, Arizona State University, Special Studies no.
17.
Kelly, Philip. 1998. Measuring democracy in Latin America. In Assessing Democracy in
Latin America, ed. Philip. Kelly, 3-11. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Kurian, George. 1979. The Book of World Rankings. New York: Facts on File.
