Democracy and socio-economic scores of development: qualitative comparative analysis and Russian case
Abstract
The author deals with the question of the interrelation between democracy and socioeconomic indicators. Author gives a new look at the classical hypothesis of S. Lipset about the dependence of socio-economic development and democracy. Using the method of qualitative comparative research and index analysis; it was noted that the components of the quality of public administration are crucial in the case of Russia and a number of other countries. It is concluded that the pace of economic development does not have a significant impact on the development of democracy; the factor of involving the population in government is crucial for maintaining democracy and reducing the protest potential.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Русский)References
Источники
Deyatel’nost’ obshchestvennykh institutov, VTSIOM: https://wciom.ru/news/ratings/odobrenie_deyatelnosti_obshhestvennyx_institutov/. Institutsional’noye doveriye, Levada-Tsentr: https://www.levada.ru/2018/10/04/institutsionalnoe-doverie-4/.
Perekhodnyye obshchestva, Freedom House – otchet po Rossii –https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2018/russia.
Pokazateli kachestva gosudarstvennogo upravleniya, Baza dannykh Mirovogo Banka, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/WGI/#reports.
Литература
Alfred Jr., The failure of democratization in Russia: A comparative perspective, “Journal of Eurasian Studies” 2011/2.
Amy A., Inglehart R., Measuring Effective Democracy, “International Political Science Review” 2012.
Amy C. A., Welzel C., Measuring Effective Democracy. The Human Empowerment Approach, “Comparative Politics”, April 2011.
Anderson Ch. J., Mendes S. M., Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential, “Britain Journal of Political Science” 2005, No36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000056.
Dalton U., Sickle A., Weldon S., The Individual–Institutional Nexus of Protest Behaviour, “British Journal of Political Science” 2010, Vol. 40, Issue 1.
Hill D.W., Democracy and the Concept of Personal Integrity Rights, “Journal of Politics” 2016, 78 (3).
Joshi D., Maloy J., Peterson T., Popular vs. Elite Democratic Structures and International Peace, “Journal of Peace Research” 2016, 63(1).
Kołczyńska Marta, Democracy and Trust: A Quantitative and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of European Countries/ the 4th ECPR Graduate Conference, Bremen, July 4th-6th, 2012, https://ecpr.eu/ Filestore/PaperProposal/843992ca-f6aa-45ba-b355-f5ee1b2342ca.pdf/
Marcus A., The Internet and Democratization: The Development of Russian Internet Policy, “Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-soviet Democratization” 2004/12.
Pay L., Nezapadnyy politicheskiy protsess, „Politicheskaya nauka” 2003, №2.
Ragin Charles C., What is Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)? http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/250/1/ What_is_QCA.pdf/
Sakwa R., The crisis of Russian democracy: The dual state, factionalism and the Medvedev succession, Cambridge University Press 2010.
Schneider C. Q., Wagemann C., Reducing complexity in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy, “European journal of political research”, august 2006, 45. Towards a Comparative Analysis of Democratic Innovations: Lessons from a pilot fs-QCA of Participatory Budgeting. – ECPR General Conference Paper 2011 – https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5f5/41df858a98833b4272b32e1a8fc6414338c5.pdf/
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/we.2019.5.1.101-117
Date of publication: 2019-12-23 10:11:10
Date of submission: 2019-12-22 22:14:53
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.