Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:32:43.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Good Polity Attainable? – Measuring the Quality of Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

António Costa Pinto ,
Pedro C. Magalhães  and
Luís de Sousa
António Costa Pinto*
Affiliation:
Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, Lisbon 1600-189, Portugal
Pedro C. Magalhães*
Affiliation:
Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, Lisbon 1600-189, Portugal
Luís de Sousa*
Affiliation:
Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, Lisbon 1600-189, Portugal
*
E-mail: acpinto@ics.ul.pt
E-mail: pedro.magalhaes@ics.ul.pt
E-mail: luis.sousa@ics.ul.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article introduces a discussion on defining, measuring, and assessing the quality of democracy. Providing a short overview of the papers of the Symposium, it places them within a broader context of current academic debate on various methodological, theoretical, and policy outreach dimensions of the topic.

Keywords

quality of democracydemocratisationcompetition

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
European Political Science , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 447 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 European Consortium for Political Research

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altman, D. and Pérez-Liñán, A. (2002) ‘Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness, and participation in eighteen Latin American countries’, Democratization 8(2): 85–100. 10.1080/714000256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreev, S.A. (2005) Conceptual Definitions and Measurement Indicators of the Quality of Democracy: An Overview. EUI Working Papers/RSCAS 2005/05, ISSN 1028-3625.Google Scholar
Beetham, D. (ed.) (1994) Defining and Measuring Democracy, London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Beetham, D. (2005) ‘Freedom as the Foundation’, in Diamond, L. and Morlino, L. (eds.) Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
Berg-Schlosser, D. (2006) ‘The Quality of Democracies in Europe as Measured by Current Indicators of Democratization and Good Governance’, in Hutcheson, D. and Korosteleva, E. (eds.) The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe, London/NY: Routledge, pp. 28–55.Google Scholar
Bobbio, N. (ed.) (1988) O Futuro da Democracia, Lisboa: Publicações Dom Quixote.Google Scholar
Camp, R.A. (ed.) (2001) Citizen Views of Democracy in Latin America, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt5hjp4vCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, M. (2004) ‘Quality of Democracy and Its Measurement’, in O’Donnell, G. Cullell, J.V. and Iazzetta, O.M. (eds.) The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Shin, D.C. and Jou, W. (2007) ‘Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places’, Journal of Democracy 18(4): 142–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, L. and Morlino, L. (eds.) (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geissel, B. (2008) ‘Migliorare la Qualità delle Democrazia a Livello Locale: Esperienze Innovative di Democrazia Partecipativa in Germania’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 38(3): 365–391. Google Scholar
Landman, T. (ed.) (2008) Assessing the Quality of Democracy: An Overview of the International IDEA Framework, Stockholm: IDEA – International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mény, Y. (1999) ‘Five (hypo)theses on democracy and its future’, Progressive Governance for the XXI Century, Florence: EUI and NYU Law, pp. 111–126.Google Scholar
Morlino, L. (2006) ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Democracies: How to Conduct Research into the Quality of Democracy’, The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe, in Hutcheson, D. and Korosteleva, E. (eds.) London/NY: Routledge, pp. 5–27.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, G. (2010) Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, G., Cullell, J.V. and Iazzetta, O.M. (eds.) (2004) The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.10.2307/j.ctvpj74f5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plattner, M. (2005) ‘A Skeptical Perspective’, in Diamond, L. and Morlino, L. (eds.) Assessing the Quality of Democracy, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 77–81.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (2010) Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, S. (2007) What Democracy Is For? On Freedom and Moral Government, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P.C. and Karl, T.L. (1991) ‘What democracy is… and is not’, Journal of Democracy 2(3): 75–88. 10.1353/jod.1991.0033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhanen, T. (1997) Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries, London: Routledge.Google Scholar