Journal•ISSN: 1045-5736
Journal of Democracy
Johns Hopkins University Press
About: Journal of Democracy is an academic journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Democracy & Politics. It has an ISSN identifier of 1045-5736. Over the lifetime, 1842 publications have been published receiving 110164 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Putnam as discussed by the authors showed that crucial factors such as social trust are eroding rapidly in the United States and offered some possible explanations for this erosion and concluded that the work needed to consider these possibilities more fully.
Abstract: After briefly explaining why social capital (civil society) is important to democracy, Putnam devotes the bulk of this chapter to demonstrating social capital’s decline in the United States across the last quarter century. (See Putnam 1995 for a similar but more detailed argument.) While he acknowledges that the significance of a few countertrends is difficult to assess without further study, Putnam concludes that crucial factors such as social trust are eroding rapidly in the United States. He offers some possible explanations for this erosion and concludes by outlining the work needed to consider these possibilities more fully.
11,187 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The Johns Hopkins University Press is committed to respecting the needs of scholars as discussed by the authors, and return of that respect is requested. But no copies of the below work may be distributed electronically, in whole or in part, outside of their campus network without express permission (permissions@muse.jhu.edu).
Abstract: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html 5/28/2012 Copyright © 1995 The National Endowment for Democracy and The Johns Hopkins University Press. Registered users of a subscribed campus network may download, archive, and print as many copies of this work as desired for use within the subscribed institution as long as this header is not removed -no copies of the below work may be distributed electronically, in whole or in part, outside of your campus network without express permission (permissions@muse.jhu.edu). Contact your institution's library to discuss your rights and responsibilities within Project Muse, or send email to copyright@muse.jhu.edu. The Johns Hopkins University Press is committed to respecting the needs of scholars -return of that respect is requested.
10,462 citations
TL;DR: In the last quarter of the twentieth century, trends in seven different regions converged to change the political landscape of the world: 1) the fall of right-wing authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe in the mid 1970s; 2) the replacement of military dictatorships by elected civilian governments across Latin America from the late 1970s through the late 1980s; 3) the decline of authoritarian rule in parts of East and South Asia starting in mid-1980s; 4) the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, 5) the breakup of the Soviet
Abstract: In the last quarter of the twentieth century, trends in seven different regions converged to change the political landscape of the world: 1) the fall of right-wing authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe in the mid1970s; 2) the replacement of military dictatorships by elected civilian governments across Latin America from the late 1970s through the late 1980s; 3) the decline of authoritarian rule in parts of East and South Asia starting in the mid-1980s; 4) the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s; 5) the breakup of the Soviet Union and the establishment of 15 post-Soviet republics in 1991; 6) the decline of one-party regimes in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa in the first half of the 1990s; and 7) a weak but recognizable liberalizing trend in some Middle Eastern countries in the 1990s. The causes, shape, and pace of these different trends varied considerably. But they shared a dominant characteristic—simultaneous movement in at least several countries in each region away from dictatorial rule toward more liberal and often more democratic governance. And though differing in many ways, these trends influenced and to some extent built on one another. As a result, they were considered by many observers, especially in the West, as component parts of a larger whole, a global democratic trend that thanks to Samuel Huntington has widely come to be known as the “third wave” of democracy. This striking tide of political change was seized upon with enthusiasm by the U.S. government and the broader U.S. foreign policy community. As early as the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State Thomas Carothers is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. He is the author of many works on democracy promotion, including Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (1999), and is the coeditor with Marina Ottaway of Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion (2000).
2,203 citations
TL;DR: The post-Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hybrid political regimes as discussed by the authors, and scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transitional forms of democracy, yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic.
Abstract: The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hybrid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transitional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a variety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.” 1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses. First, many studies are characterized by a democratizing bias. Analyses frequently treat mixed regimes as partial or “diminished” forms of democracy, 2 or as undergoing prolonged transiSteven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union.
1,807 citations
TL;DR: Many countries have adopted the form of democracy with little of its substance as mentioned in this paper, which makes the task of classifying regimes more difficult,but also more important, making it more difficult to classify regimes.
Abstract: Many countries have adopted the form of democracy with little of its substance.This makes the task of classifying regimes more difficult,but also more important.
1,700 citations