Abstract
AbstractThis study provides a systematic comparative analysis of seven common cross-national measures of state capacity by focusing on three measurement issues: convergent validity, interchangeability, and case-specific disagreement. The author finds that the convergent validity of the measures is high, but the interchangeability of the measures is low. This means that even highly correlated measures of state capacity can lead to completely different statistical inferences. The cause of this puzzling finding lies in strikingly large disagreements on some of the country scores. The author shows that these disagreements depend on two factors: differences in underlying components and the level of state capacity. Considering the findings of this study, users of measures of state capacity must not assume that any highly correlated indicator is appropriate. They should instead look at what the indicators actually measure and ensure that a given definition of state capacity matches the chosen indicator.
Funder
Università degli Studi dell'Insubria
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Statistics and Probability
Reference59 articles.
1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J.A.: The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty. Penguin Press, New York (2019)
2. Adcock, R., Collier, D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95(3), 529–546 (2001)
3. Anaya-Muñoz, A., Murdie, A.: The will and the way: how state capacity and willingness jointly affect human rights improvement. Hum Rights Rev (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-021-00636-y
4. Andersen, D., Møller, J., Rørbæk, L.L., Skaaning, S.-E.: State capacity and political regime stability. Democratization 21(7), 1305–1325 (2014)
5. Bäck, H., Hadenius, A.: Democracy and state capacity: exploring a J-shaped relationship. Governance 21(1), 1–24 (2008)
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献