Different types of deficient democracies: Reassessing the relevance of diminished subtypes
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512121995686 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Research Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512121995686
International Political Science Review
2023, Vol. 44(2) 212 –229
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512121995686
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Different types of deficient
democracies: Reassessing the
relevance of diminished subtypes
Hans-Joachim Lauth , Oliver Schlenkrich
and Lukas Lemm
University of Würzburg, Germany
Abstract
Typologies are widely applied tools in democracy research. There are two prominent ways of constructing
subtypes of democracies: whereas the classical approach adds traits successively to gain regular subtypes, the
radial approach subtracts traits from the concept to obtain diminished subtypes. Conceptually, we argue that
radial types have distinct advantages over the classical approach. Diminished subtypes can deal with complex
concepts with multiple interrelated dimensions without a clear hierarchy and can account for the gradual
nature of political phenomena. We derive three diminished subtypes of democracy: illiberal, inegalitarian and
unaccountable democracies. The empirical analysis draws on a customized version of the new Varieties of
Democracy dataset. Contrary to the dominating criticism of the radial delusion by the classical approach, an
elaborate cluster analysis with a strong focus on validation and robustness checks can identify empirically the
deductively proposed diminished subtypes of democracies which could not be demonstrated so far.
Keywords
Typology, diminished subtypes of democracies, cluster analysis, illiberal, inegalitarian and unaccountable
democracy, quality of democracy
Introduction
Types and typologies are fundamental and widely applied tools in comparative politics.1 They
enable us to reduce the empirical complexity of politics by selecting and combining relevant infor-
mation and aspects and thus ordering and structuring political phenomena. In recent years, various
efforts have been made to improve our understanding of types and typologies (Collier and Adcock,
1999; Collier and Levitsky, 1997; Collier and Mahon, 1993; Gerring et al., 2018; Møller and
Skaaning, 2010; Sartori, 1970, 1984). This discussion is closely linked to the research on political
regimes and is particularly important since the third wave of democratization (Huntington, 1993).
Corresponding author:
Hans-Joachim Lauth, Institute of Political Science and Sociology, University of Würzburg, Wittelsbacherplatz 1,
Würzburg, 97074, Germany.
Email: hans-joachim.lauth@uni-wuerzburg.de
995686IPS0010.1177/0192512121995686International Political Science ReviewLauth et al.
research-article2021
Original Research Article
Lauth et al. 213
The unambiguous assignment of the majority of these cases to either a fully fledged democracy or
autocracy no longer seems adequate (Diamond, 2002; Ottaway, 2003). New typologies had to be
created and thus proposals were discussed concerning how to build typologies in general. The two
most prominent strategies in recent years are Sartori’s classical approach and radial concepts in the
sense of diminished subtypes (Collier and Mahon, 1993).
Types and typologies are powerful if they not only accomplish theoretical and conceptual coher-
ence but also possess empirical relevance. One critical finding is that especially radial concepts
with their diminished subtypes of democracies do not hold up to empirical scrutiny. Møller and
Skaaning call this the ‘radial delusion’, meaning that the ‘conceptualization of different types of
democracy is not empirically fruitful’ (Møller and Skaaning, 2010: 262). The authors therefore
dismissed the radial type with its diminished subtypes and turn to the classical categorization,
which has recently been presented in a more profound way as the ‘lexical’ scale (Gerring et al.,
2018). However, in our contribution we reassess the relevance of diminished subtypes by propos-
ing a conceptual reformulation and drawing on new empirical data to show the conceptual and
empirical relevance of such constructed radial subtypes.
Conceptually, we argue that the classical approach and its further development in the form of
the lexical scale suffer from major drawbacks: the classical approach bases on a clear hierarchy and
requires binary or dichotomous attributes. But these two presuppositions rarely apply in the social
and political realm. In contrast, diminished subtypes provide a more advantageous strategy. They
can be used in conjunction with multidimensional concepts which do not offer a clear hierarchy but
instead consist of dense networks of interrelations and dependencies between attributes (dimen-
sions or functions). Additionally, we will show that it is possible to account for the gradual nature
of social and political phenomena with diminished subtypes.
Empirically, we present new evidence against the argument of the radial delusion. We draw on
the Democracy Matrix (DeMaX) dataset (Lauth and Schlenkrich, 2019) which is a customized
version of the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset (Coppedge et al., 2019). DeMaX differenti-
ates between three central dimensions of democracy: political freedom, political equality, and
political and legal control (Lauth, 2004, 2015). We deductively derive three diminished subtypes:
an illiberal, an inegalitarian and an unaccountable diminished subtype of democracy. Each dimin-
ished subtype obtains its label from the attribute, which is only partly present and thus deficient.
We perform a cluster analysis with strong focus on cluster validation to empirically test the pro-
posed typology.
To develop our argument in systematic fashion, we begin with a review of typology formation
in the research on democracy. We contrast the classical categorization approach, focusing espe-
cially on the lexical scale, with the construction of diminished subtypes in the sense of radial con-
cepts. We then propose our own typology based on the democracy concept of the 15-Field Matrix
of Democracy. Then, we introduce the data and methods of our study, present the empirical results
and discuss them. Finally, we present a conclusion.
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Classical versus Diminished Subtypes: Binary versus Gradual Construction
of Reality
The dominant method of a concept-driven typology is based on the classical idea of developing
subtypes (see Figure 1 Section A), which goes hand in hand with the ladder of abstraction (Sartori,
1970). Beginning with a root concept, additional traits are added, extending the original concept.
For example, starting with the political regime as the root concept, we then add the trait of type of
To continue reading
Request your trial