Democratic development in the modern world: modeling paths of political changes

Data entry

After the variables were selected, they were, divided into eight hypothetical factors groups according to prior theoretical development. After the database was compiled, we calculated the correlations between the variables, and also the means and standard deviations for each variable. Standard deviations for each variable were rescaled to the form 0.x, which does not affect the computation results, but allows to create an invertible covariance matrix.

Data analysis.

Two different programs were used to analyze the data. Statistical analysis was complete using modules in R. Hypotheses testing were performed using Latent Variables Structural Equation Models, or LVSEM, using LISREL version 8.8 for Windows, the program designed specifically for building structural equation models.

Structural equation modeling.

Structural equation modeling consists of a group of statistical methods intended to test theoretical models on few different levels at the same time. It has some preferences over traditional methods such as regression, which pay attention on modeling of individual observations. LVSEM point out on modeling the covariances, taking into account a more profound comprehension of the interactions in the data. It is a very general system of linear structural equations, which applies to the latent and observed variables. With help of this method we can use a holistic approach to the data analysis, which includes simultaneous evaluation of the latent factor structure and structural relationships between factors (both latent and observed variables). It provides an opportunity to test theory by merging together the theoretical and empirical domains in their models. Structural equation modeling allows for deeper understanding of the conceptual meaning of the constructs. In these constructs every component defines the construct and distinguishes it from other, similar constructs, and relating it to the correlates in the constructs' nomological network. LVSEM gives the opportunity to obtain the empirical meaning of the model by establishing formal correspondence rules, or the auxiliary hypotheses about the relationships between the theoretical constructs and the observed variable indicators. All models could be tested on the level of operational definitions (creating a factor structure), assessed as formative indicator models (where the empirical meaning also defines the cause of theoretical terms), or the reflective indicator models, where the observations are caused by the basic constructs.

Structural equation modeling allows accounting for spurious meaning by modeling measurement error. Measurement error can be divided into random and systematic components. In this case the major source of systematic measurement error is method variance. LVSEM lets for procedural and statistical remedies of systematic measurement error, providing for a more exact estimation of the structural and measurement relation.

In this paper, all latent factors were reflective, first-order factors. Lisrel 8.8 output (provided in the Appendix 2) gives the output necessary to evaluate the variables and their relationships, from model specifications, to variable and factor variances and correlations, to the structural relationships (in our case, manifested as regression coefficients).

Modeling approach.

We performed empirical model testing using structural equations modeling (SEM) in Lisrel 8.8, with matrices of correlations and vectors of standard deviations as inputs. For identification purposes, we set the diagonal elements of latent factor intercorrelations to 1. Even though we used secondary data, they were not previously validated in theoretical context of the factors in our framework. Therefore, we followed the methodological recommendations for SEM-based theory testing and development provided by Anderson and Gerbing.

In doing so, we first built measurement models assessing individual item fit on each theorized factor using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA is a rigorous tool designed to confirm a priori hypothesis about the relationship between the indicators chosen and their respective factors, which can determine threats to dimensionality and problems with correlated measurement terms. Moreover, performing the CFA on the data prior to testing hypothesized relationships allows avoiding interpretational confounding. As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing, the model evaluation process was iterative, with item loadings, overall model fit, and modification indices evaluated at each iteration. Even though all items originally loaded on their hypothesized factors, we removed items with low loadings (below 0.7, as recommended by Nunally), high cross-loadings on other factors, and/or items with substantially correlated measurement errors.

In the second step of Anderson and Gerbing two-step approach, we analyzed the structural models of the relationships between exogeneous predictors and democratic endogenous factors. Following the same iterative approach, we have tested structural relationships between constructs and removed non-significant structural paths. In the testing process, full and partial mediated relationships were revealed; mediation coefficients were obtained using the “EF” option in Lisrel output. Because all indexes used as indicators were from secondary sources, there was a chance that predictor and criterion variables were “measured using the same medium,” or similar methodology. Using the same methodology could be the root of common method bias. To control for the possibility of such bias, we introduced a methods variance factor into each of the models, as suggested by Podsakoff et al.. We found that such factor was not necessary, indicating that despite the common sources for some of the secondary data, common method bias was not an issue with these data.

Final model demonstrates an excellent fit of models to the data and contains only the relationships significant at least the 0.05 level. All goodness of fit indexes (normed fit index (NFI); non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and incremental fit index (IFI)) exceeded the standards of model fit (>0.90) (for NFI, NNFI, CFI and IFI) proposed by Bentler & Bonnett and RMSEA<0.10.

3. Results

The measurement model for both the endogenous (dependent) and the exogenous (independent) factors (the structure of the factor) was evaluated before any additional testing of the hypotheses is carried out. We assumed, a priori, that there were eight factors that influence the change in political institutions, where each factor is measured by a very specific and precise index or real numbers (as for GDP). The exogenous measurement model, tested with CFA, performed as expected. We obtained an 8-factor model with item loadings all within the recommended methodological ranges, greater than 0.7 for all cases. Exogenous factor model is presented in Figure 2.

The endogenous factor model generated four factors - Minimalist, ExMinimalist, Liberal, and Maximalist - instead of the hypothesized five. This is somewhat different from the Collier and Levitsky's model, and it may be the result of the changes in the world observed past the 2010, in the new wave of democratization. The four factors indicate the four stages of “building” democracy. The first stage is the Minimum Democracy (Minimalist), when the countries start with an election process. The second is with the increase in the stateness, free elections, main rights and freedoms of its citizens (including expression of an opinion and personal autonomy), or the Exminimum. The next stage of development is the expansion of individual freedoms - equality, deliberation everywhere, freedom of participation, etc. - what is called Liberal democracy (in our model, it is conceptualized as its opposite, Autocracy). So these factors represent different levels of democracy, or the different trajectories of democratic development. All the factors are also represented in Figure 2.

Factor loadings and structural weights are presented as fully standardized loadings, independent of scale, with an absolute value of 0-1, which allows direct comparison of the parameter value (presented in Figure 2), and all these ratios are significant at 0.05 (t-values are presented in Figure 3). In the case of a direct comparison of fully standardized loads, the load of 0.25 is exactly half the load of 0.5, which usually does not correspond to standard regression coefficients, which depend on the scale. A detailed breakdown of all loads ("lambda-x" and "lambda-y", loads of objects on their factors) and structural relationships ("gamma" for exogenous endogenous compounds and "beta" for between endogenous compounds) is presented in the Appendix.

The final model showed the suitability of the model (with chi-square relative to the degrees of freedom in the permissible limits, <2) and the corresponding factor structure corresponding to the hypothetical theoretical model, as indicated.

Structural model.

With adequate fitting of the model and the corresponding factor structure, we could begin to create a structural model. The structural model, which includes all possible control variables and evaluates all the relationships between independent and dependent variables, was created iteratively, with the variables introduced sequentially. To the measurement model, we first added all the control variables. Having estimated their significance level, we removed all nonessential relations from the model (as in the case of regression). Then we tested the structural relationships - the theorized relationship between the coordination structures of dependent and independent variables - until the complete model was created. Again, this model contains only significant relationships between all the variables in the model.

Figure 2 below shows the complete structural model. Note that all relationships are also scaled to fully standardized loads, allowing you to directly compare the strength of the relationship.

The overall model demonstrates an excellent quality model. Its compliance indices are within acceptable limits (RMSEA, for example, is 0.09, which is considered a very good indicator), and, given the complexity of the model, the goodness-of-fit indicators of the model are very good, all above the 0.9 levels recommended in the methodological literature (as described above).

Thus, when interpreting the general model, it is possible to say the following; democratization in the general context is not influenced by such factors as the Economy, the Labor Market, and the Nation's Health. But in turn, it is interesting that the group of variables responsible for freedom of speech is positively influenced by such factors as Education and Oil. In turn, Education negatively affects the group of variables responsible for Autocracy. That is, this means that the lower the level of education, the more likely that the country will not be democratic.

Specifically, we observe the following relationships: environmental pollution factor is negatively related to the minimalist democracy; dependence on oil is positively related to the liberal democracy and negatively - to the maximalist. Political parties are negatively related to the Exminimalist democracy; education - negatively to the exminimalist and Autocracy, and positively - to Maximalist, the highest level of democratic development.

Figure 2. Complete Structural Model



Figure 3. t-values of the structural model

Conclusion

Democracy is one of the most frequently discussed and tested concepts in political science. Over the years, a number of definitions and typologies of the concept were developed, and a myriad of empirical studies have looked at various relationships that democracy forms both as the antecedent and as the consequence.

In this study, we have attempted to test the Collier and Levitsky's typology of democracy, one of the most influential typologies for this concept. The need for such a test arouse out of the new developments on the world political arena after the Arab Spring, post-2010, which some people refer to as the “fourth wave” of democratization. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have attempted to verify the composition of the typology in the most recent years, on the most recent data available.

The main contribution of this study is that while we have verified that hypothesized factors act as predictors of the democratic trajectory development, only four, not five, trajectories were established with the most recent data. The reasons behind such a finding remain a key research direction for future study of democracy.

References

Acemoglu D. et al. From education to democracy? // American Economic Review, 2005, Vol. 95, №. 2. Pp. 44-49.

Achen, Christopher H. "Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research." Political behavior 14, no. 3 (1992): 195-211.

Almond G., Вебра С. Civil culture and stable democracy // Political studies, 1992. Vol.4. P. 122-134.

Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. "Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach." Psychological bulletin 103, no. 3 (1988): 411.

Bagozzi, R. P. A prospectus for theory construction in marketing // The Journal of Marketing. 1984. Pp.11-29.

Bagozzi, R. P. Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: A further comment. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1983): 449-450.

Baxi, Upendra. "Voices of suffering, fragmented universality, and the future of human rights." In Human Rights, pp. 159-214. Routledge, 2017.

Begunov Yu. K., Ponidelko A. V., Lukashev A. V. 13 Theories of Democracy. Business-Press, 2002, 240 p.

Bellin, Eva. "Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring." Comparative Politics 44, no. 2 (2012): 127-149.

Bentler, Peter M. "Comparative fit indexes in structural models." Psychological bulletin 107, no. 2 (1990): 238.

Bentler, Peter M., and Douglas G. Bonett. "Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures." Psychological bulletin 88, no. 3 (1980): 588.

Beshler J. Democracy: Analit. essay // Larionova LG Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, UNESCO, 1994.

Besley T, Kudamatsu M. Health and Democracy. The American Economic Review. 2006, Vol. 96. Pp. 313-318.

Besley, Timothy, and Masayuki Kudamatsu. "Health and democracy." American Economic Review 96, no. 2 (2006): 313-318.

Bollen, K. A. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. // Psychological bulletin. 1990. Vol.107, №2.

Bollen, K. A. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. 1989.

Bosko, Katerina. "Reacting to Uncertainty in Partial Democracies: The Role of Negative Framing in Power Struggles in Ukrainian Energy Politics, 1990s-2000s." PhD diss., Universitдt Bremen, 2017.

Burau, Viola, and Robert H. Blank. "Comparing health policy: an assessment of typologies of health systems." Journal of comparative policy analysis 8, no. 01 (2006): 63-76.

Burnell, P. Democracy, democratization and climate change: complex relationships // Democratization. 2012. Vol.19, №5. С. 813-842.

Burroway, Rebekah. "Democracy and child health in developing countries." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 57, no. 5 (2016): 338-364.

Burt, R. S. Confirmatory factor-analytic structures and the theory construction process. Sociological Methods and Research, 2 (1973): 131-187.

Burt, R. S. Interpretational confounding of unobserved variables in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 5 (1976): 3-52.

Cameron, David R., and Mitchell A. Orenstein. "Post-Soviet Authoritarianism: The Influence of Russia in Its" Near Abroad"." Post-Soviet Affairs 28, no. 1 (2012): 1-44.

Campante, Filipe R., and Davin Chor. "Why was the Arab world poised for revolution? Schooling, economic opportunities, and the Arab Spring." Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 2 (2012): 167-88.

Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research // World politics, 1997, Vol. 49, №. 3. Pp. 430-451.

Covel C. The impact of oil dependence on democracy. - Georgetown University, 2012.

Dahl R. A. On Democracy. Yale university press, 2008. P. 16.

De la Dehesa, Rafael. Queering the public sphere in Mexico and Brazil: Sexual rights movements in emerging democracies. Duke University Press, 2010.

Diamond L. J. Is the third wave over? // Journal of democracy. - 1996, Vol. 7, №. 3, Pp. 20-37.

Diamond, Larry. "A fourth wave or false start." Foreign Affairs22 (2011).

Doorenspleet, Renske. Democratic transitions: Exploring the structural sources of the fourth wave. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005.

Escamilla, Javier Albert. "Democracy and the environment in Latin America." (2009).

Faber, Daniel J., ed. The struggle for ecological democracy: Environmental justice movements in the United States. Guilford Press, 1998.

Fornell, C. “Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: A comment.” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1983): 443-448.

Freedom in the World // Freedom House URL: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW%202013%20Booklet.pdf (May, 13, 2018).

Fuchs, Dieter. "Participatory Democracy." The Participatory Cultures Handbook (2012): 163.

Gel'man, Vladimir. "The unrule of law in the making: the politics of informal institution building in Russia." Europe-Asia Studies 56, no. 7 (2004): 1021-1040.

Gibson, James L., Raymond M. Duch, and Kent L. Tedin. "Democratic values and the transformation of the Soviet Union." The Journal of Politics 54, no. 2 (1992): 329-371.

Global Footprint Network Glossary // Global Footprint Network URL: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/ (13, May, 2018).

Grosjean P., Senik C. Democracy, market liberalization, and political preferences // The Review of Economics and Statistics. - 2011. - Vol. 93, №. 1. Pp. 365-381.

Hill, Matthew Alan. Democracy Promotion and Conflict-Based Reconstruction: The United States & Democratic Consolidation in Bosnia, Afghanistan & Iraq. Routledge, 2012.

Howard P. N., Hussain M. M. Democracy's fourth wave?: digital media and the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press on Demand, 2013.

Howard, Philip N., Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil M. Hussain, Will Mari, and Marwa Maziad. "Opening closed regimes: what was the role of social media during the Arab Spring?." (2011).

Howard, Philip N., and Muzammil M. Hussain. Democracy's fourth wave?: digital media and the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2013.

Huber, Daniela. Democracy promotion and foreign policy: identity and interests in US, EU and non-western democracies. Springer, 2015.

Human Development Index (HDI) // Environmental Performance Index URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi (13, May, 2018).

Huntington S. P. The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. - University of Oklahoma press, 1993. Vol. 4. - 368 p.

Jones, Peter. "Human rights, group rights, and peoples' rights." In Human Rights, pp. 277-304. Routledge, 2017.

Jцreskog, K.G., & Sцrbom, D. LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International. 2006.

Krueger M.P, Dove K, and Denney J.T. Democracy and Self-Rated Health across 67 Countries: A Multilevel Analysis // Soc Sci Med.. 2015. Vol. 143. С. 137-144.

Kryukova Е.В. Democratization: factors and effectiveness // Vlast. 2014. Vol.12. Pp. 97-100.

Kurtz, Marcus J. "Free markets and democratic consolidation in Chile: the national politics of rural transformation." Politics & Society 27, no. 2 (1999): 275-301.

Layne, Christopher. "The unipolar illusion revisited: The coming end of the United States' unipolar moment." International security 31, no. 2 (2006): 7-41.

Lipset S. Comparative analysis of social conditions necessary for the establishment of democracy / / International Journal of Social Sciences, 1993. Vol. 3. P. 5-34.

Lober, V.L. Democracy: from the origin of the idea to our days. M., 199, 64 p.

Lotan, Gilad, Erhardt Graeff, Mike Ananny, Devin Gaffney, and Ian Pearce. "The Arab Spring| the revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions." International journal of communication 5 (2011): 31.

Mainwaring, Scott, and Mariano Torcal. "Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization." Handbook of party politics 11, no. 6 (2006): 204-227

McFaul, Michael. "The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: noncooperative transitions in the postcommunist world." World politics 54, no. 2 (2002): 212-244.

Melville A. Yu. Conditions of democracy and the limits of democratization // XII International Scientific Conference on the Problems of Development of the Economy and Society. In four books. Book 2, Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2012, Pp. 206-216.

Melville A. Yu. Political atlas of the present: The experience of multidimensional statistical analysis of political systems of modern states, MGIMO-University, 2007.

Melville A.Yu. Democratic transit. Moscow: The Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2007. P. 123-134.

Nunally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1978.

O'brien, Kevin J., and Rongbin Han. "Path to democracy? Assessing village elections in China." Journal of Contemporary China 18, no. 60 (2009): 359-378.

Pearson F. S., Walker S., Stern S. Military intervention and prospects for democratization // International Journal of Peace Studies, 2006, Pp. 63-86.

Pierson, Paul. "The new politics of the welfare state." World politics 48, no. 2 (1996): 143-179.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. "Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies." Journal of applied psychology 88, no. 5 (2003): 879-903.

Przeworski A. Transitions to Democracy // The Way. International Philosophical Journal. 1993. Vol.3. P. 3-56.

Quality of Government. Codebook // Quality of Government URL: https://www.qogdata.pol.gu.se/data/qog_std_jan18.pdf (May, 13, 2018).

Risse-Kappen, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Vol. 66. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Rudra, Nita, and Stephan Haggard. "Globalization, democracy, and effective welfare spending in the developing world." Comparative Political Studies 38, no. 9 (2005): 1015-1049.

Schatz, Sara. Conceptual Structure and Social Change: The Ideological Architecture of Democratization. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002.

Schumpeter J. A. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Routledge, 2010.

Shestack, Jerome J. "The philosophic foundations of human rights." In Human Rights, pp. 3-36. Routledge, 2017.

Shmitter F.K. Threats and dilemmas of democracy // Journal of Russian. Anthology. Limits of power, 1997. Vol.1.

Sklar R. L. Developmental democracy // Comparative studies in society and history, 1987, Vol. 29, №. 4, Pp. 686-714.

Ted R. Gurr, “Persistence and Change in Political Systems, 1800-1971”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 68, No. 4, 1974, p. 1483.

Tsai, Kellee S. Capitalism without democracy: The private sector in contemporary China. Cornell University Press, 2007.

Tucker, Ledyard R., and Charles Lewis. "A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis." Psychometrika 38, no. 1 (1973): 1-10.

Tusalem, Rollin F. "A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third-and fourth-wave democracies." International Political Science Review 28, no. 3 (2007): 361-386.

Valenzuela J. S. Labor movements in transitions to democracy: A framework for analysis // Comparative Politics, 1989, Vol. 21, №. 4, Pp. 445-472.

Water and Sanitation // Environmental Performance Index URL: http://archive.epi.yale.edu/our-methods/water-and-sanitation (13, May, 2018).

Wells-Dang, Andrew. Civil society networks in China and Vietnam: Informal pathbreakers in health and the environment. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Yalaeva KT The Development of Democracy in the Modern World in the Light of the Theory of "Waves of Democratization" // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 2012. Vol. 1 (255)

Appendix 1

Table 1

Statistic	N	Mean	St. Dev.	Min	Max
carb	168	1.71	1.84	0.00	11.38
ef	178	3.15	2.22	0.50	13.09
acsat	180	73.86	23.25	0.00	100.00
eh	180	69.84	18.58	23.08	99.05
ehwater	180	70.64	24.75	7.09	100.00
epi	180	66.05	15.21	25.65	90.59
ev	180	62.25	16.28	14.98	89.98
watsup	180	72.22	27.94	0.00	100.00
hdi	186	0.69	0.16	0.34	0.94
acel	193	79.44	30.34	4.05	100.00
acelr	188	72.32	36.82	0.70	100.00
acelu	188	88.94	20.26	8.68	100.00
acis	182	72.07	29.51	6.70	100.00
acisr	179	65.84	33.16	3.20	100.00
acisu	182	78.48	24.45	16.40	100.00
aciw	182	88.41	14.75	39.90	100.00
aciwr	179	83.11	19.23	28.20	100.00
co2	190	4.52	5.88	0.03	37.78
prfilo	177	47.34	16.26	8.15	83.11
prilo	177	57.99	11.81	33.74	85.44
prmilo	177	68.29	10.54	42.07	93.94
pryfilo	177	32.03	17.26	2.18	73.26
pryilo	177	38.06	15.23	11.25	75.02
prymilo	177	43.68	15.25	14.39	78.52
lfpfilo15	177	52.48	16.02	12.56	86.54
lfpilo15	177	63.49	10.58	39.95	86.59
lfpmilo15	177	74.17	8.58	44.75	94.03
lfpyfilo	177	39.44	16.76	8.20	76.89
lfpyilo	177	46.02	13.91	15.36	78.15
lfpymilo	177	52.16	13.63	18.85	87.89
l_s	190	205.23	258.97	14	2,978
l_w	190	42.44	62.37	0	635
afpt	168	160,116.80	380,118.10	120	2,993,000
trade	177	93.22	49.70	23.73	365.96
shhc	170	0.62	0.20	0.05	1.17
gas_exp	168	225.51	834.11	0.00	7,801.08
gas_prod	166	161.49	592.33	0.00	5,605.12
oil_prod	173	21,755,525.00	68,109,339.00	0.00	500,681,408.00
fce	193	81.79	19.73	18.40	137.33
gdp	193	291,385,697,174.00	1,210,189,010,138.00	26,207,277.00	14,400,000,000,000.00
gdppc	193	15,647.59	25,637.97	136.22	174,635.70
gse	193	43.27	29.54	0.31	192.35
gsi	193	49.66	25.97	1.68	169.24
gdpcur	187	14,717.74	22,961.62	282.76	173,528.10
gdpgr	185	2.03	4.70	-36.83	27.49
gnippcur	182	17,218.46	18,835.31	620	120,290
gnipcur	182	565,796,808,695.00	1,931,755,476,557.00	54,591,849.00	17,100,000,000,000.00
cs	170	2,066,642.00	6,697,051.00	2,095.85	60,943,980.00
plcf	170	0.68	0.28	0.30	2.69
plgc	170	0.60	0.38	0.07	2.07
plhc	170	0.65	0.28	0.27	1.60
rgdp	170	586,857.60	1,895,433.00	604.94	16,099,333.00
gcf	192	24.63	9.06	6.73	57.49
gdpppcur	183	17,637.07	19,657.86	618.51	126,913.00
gdppcur	183	564,146,352,807.00	1,912,989,090,693.00	36,059,747.00	16,800,000,000,000.00
gniatlcur	184	13,645.49	19,009.18	280	104,180
gnicur	186	407,808,745,112.00	1,555,991,446,501.00	58,017,281.00	17,100,000,000,000.00
broadb	186	11.03	12.41	0.001	44.66
ea1524f	187	10.03	3.36	1.68	15.85
ea1524m	187	9.92	2.64	2.88	14.99
ea2534f	187	9.75	3.99	0.92	15.45
ea2534m	187	10.18	2.98	2.76	15.16
ea3544f	187	8.75	4.25	0.69	15.38
ea3544m	187	9.63	3.22	1.92	15.13
ea4554f	187	7.53	4.42	0.35	14.90
ea4554m	187	8.77	3.48	1.08	14.82
ea5564f	187	6.24	4.34	0.13	14.48
ea5564m	187	7.58	3.74	0.48	14.70
ea65f	187	4.87	3.98	0.04	13.67
ea65m	187	6.16	3.76	0.19	14.05
internet	189	40.88	28.96	0.90	96.55
mobile	191	100.85	39.81	5.60	190.29
tele	192	17.98	18.38	0.00	123.84
sg	188	49.58	22.36	15.53	91.44
birth	186	21.84	10.65	7.90	49.06
death	186	7.94	2.76	1.49	15.03
drbs	187	790.16	271.85	112.80	1,592.70
drf	187	739.30	270.73	100.90	1,473.80
drm	187	841.96	283.37	112.60	1,714.80
lebs0001	187	71.41	8.04	47.87	83.44
lef0001	187	73.86	8.38	50.50	86.55
lem0001	187	69.02	7.82	45.33	80.81
pop	170	41.53	147.34	0.05	1,362.51
fertility	184	2.88	1.44	1.19	7.38
lifexp	184	70.88	8.21	49.80	83.33
lifexpf	184	73.35	8.63	50.96	86.61
lrmd	181	0.83	1.35	0.004	6.66
mortinf	192	25.06	22.43	1.70	96.00
mortnn	192	14.40	11.60	0.70	48.60
mortu5	192	33.86	33.83	2.30	145.20
pop14	182	28.66	10.75	13.15	50.22
pop1564	182	63.44	7.02	47.26	85.48
pop65	182	7.89	5.63	0.94	24.63
popden	191	288.02	1,481.12	1.85	18,985.50
popf	182	49.89	3.29	24.16	54.15
popgr	192	1.45	1.44	-3.04	7.06
poprul	192	43.32	23.48	0.00	91.33
poprulgr	189	0.45	1.78	-7.70	6.09
popurb	192	56.68	23.48	8.67	100.00
popurbagr	192	2.10	1.86	-2.64	7.53
aor	194	7.64	3.88	0	12
cl	194	3.26	1.89	1	7
ep	194	7.80	4.26	0	12
feb	194	11.16	4.45	0	16
fog	194	6.47	3.67	0	12
ipolity2	194	6.77	3.05	0.00	10.00
pair	194	9.65	4.02	1	16
ppp	194	10.13	5.17	0	16
pr	194	3.32	2.12	1	7
rol	194	8.29	4.90	0	16
autoc	159	1.67	2.77	0	10
democ	159	5.91	3.75	0	10
fragment	166	0.20	0.65	0	3
parcomp	159	3.43	1.33	0	5
polity2	164	4.14	6.17	-10	10
xconst	159	5.17	1.95	1	7
xrcomp	159	2.14	1.05	0	3
xropen	159	3.41	1.34	0	4
xrreg	159	2.57	0.54	1	3
rsf_pfi	174	32.50	16.86	6.38	84.83
dl_delib	168	0.66	0.24	0.02	0.99
edcomthick	168	0.62	0.24	0.005	0.94
egal	168	0.62	0.20	0.09	0.97
gender	164	0.74	0.17	0.27	0.96
liberal	168	0.63	0.25	0.04	0.98
partip	168	0.47	0.16	0.04	0.71

Appendix 2

Table 2. Society Measurement Covariance Matrix

	fh_ep	fh_feb	fh_fog	fh_ipoli	fh_pair	fh_cl
fh_ep	0.198
fh_feb	0.170	0.216
fh_fog	0.140	0.145	0.147
fh_ipoli	0.124	0.127	0.102	0.102
fh_pair	0.145	0.156	0.134	0.109	0.177
fh_cl	-0.073	-0.079	-0.064	-0.054	-0.072	0.039
fh_pr	-0.087	-0.087	-0.073	-0.062	-0.077	0.038
p_autoc	-0.090	-0.093	-0.066	-0.072	-0.068	0.036
rsf_pfi	-0.053	-0.063	-0.047	-0.040	-0.049	0.025
vdem_dl_	0.080	0.085	0.070	0.058	0.071	-0.036
vdem_edc	0.092	0.092	0.077	0.066	0.081	-0.039
vdem_ega	0.058	0.061	0.056	0.043	0.063	-0.030
vdem_gen	0.055	0.059	0.048	0.041	0.056	-0.026
vdem_lib	0.094	0.098	0.082	0.068	0.085	-0.043
vdem_par	0.053	0.055	0.042	0.039	0.044	-0.023
p_polity	0.231	0.233	0.179	0.180	0.187	-0.095
p_xconst	0.072	0.071	0.056	0.055	0.059	-0.030
p_xrcomp	0.037	0.034	0.029	0.027	0.030	-0.015
p_xrreg	0.150	0.145	0.126	0.104	0.131	-0.063
ef_carb	0.014	0.015	0.022	0.009	0.028	-0.010
ef_ef	0.028	0.031	0.035	0.020	0.044	-0.017
co2	0.005	0.005	0.031	-0.001	0.042	-0.012
epi_acsa	0.032	0.027	0.033	0.022	0.048	-0.017
epi_eh	0.037	0.038	0.036	0.027	0.051	-0.020
epi_epi	0.030	0.032	0.030	0.022	0.041	-0.016
epi_wats	0.057	0.056	0.056	0.041	0.073	-0.030
undp_hdi	0.030	0.029	0.032	0.022	0.043	-0.016
acel	0.044	0.038	0.042	0.029	0.061	-0.022
acelr	0.054	0.042	0.051	0.036	0.076	-0.027
acelu	0.023	0.018	0.023	0.015	0.034	-0.012
acis	0.036	0.029	0.038	0.025	0.060	-0.020
acisr	0.039	0.031	0.043	0.028	0.067	-0.023
acisu	0.029	0.024	0.030	0.020	0.048	-0.016
aciw	0.026	0.024	0.025	0.019	0.035	-0.014
aciwr	0.035	0.032	0.035	0.026	0.047	-0.019
epiehwat	0.047	0.044	0.048	0.033	0.067	-0.025
empprfil	-0.002	0.003	0.002	0.000	0.002	-0.001
empprilo	-0.011	-0.009	-0.007	-0.008	-0.009	0.004
empprmil	-0.016	-0.017	-0.013	-0.012	-0.017	0.008
emppryfi	-0.007	-0.004	-0.001	-0.003	-0.002	0.001
emppryil	-0.012	-0.010	-0.007	-0.008	-0.010	0.004
empprymi	-0.015	-0.016	-0.012	-0.011	-0.016	0.007
lfpfilo1	0.000	0.006	0.004	0.002	0.004	-0.002
lfpilo15	-0.009	-0.006	-0.005	-0.006	-0.007	0.003
lfpmilo1	-0.132	-0.138	-0.118	-0.103	-0.145	0.066
lfpyfilo	-0.003	0.002	0.003	0.000	0.003	-0.001
lfpyilo	-0.007	-0.005	-0.003	-0.005	-0.005	0.002
lfpymilo	-0.011	-0.011	-0.009	-0.008	-0.011	0.005
gas_prod	-0.021	-0.022	-0.007	-0.008	0.003	0.004
gas_valu	-0.032 ...

Подобные документы

• Concepts of democracy

  The classical definition of democracy. Typical theoretical models of democracy. The political content of democracy. Doctrine of liberal and pluralistic democracy. Concept of corporate political science and other varieties of proletarian democracy.
  
  реферат [37,3 K], добавлен 13.05.2011
  

• Democracy as a form of government

  The definition of democracy as an ideal model of social structure. Definition of common features of modern democracy as a constitutional order and political regime of the system. Characterization of direct, plebiscite and representative democracy species.
  
  презентация [1,8 M], добавлен 02.05.2014
  

• General concepts of democracy

  Democracy as theoretical number of important qualities, that are important for human development. The general protection of property and the almost complete absence of taxes. Main details of enjoying full democracy. Analyzing democracy in reality.
  
  статья [15,8 K], добавлен 02.10.2009
  

• Political party system

  Study of legal nature of the two-party system of Great Britain. Description of political activity of conservative party of England. Setting of social and economic policies of political parties. Value of party constitution and activity of labour party.
  
  курсовая работа [136,8 K], добавлен 01.06.2014
  

• Civil society

  Functions of democracy as forms of political organization. Its differences from dictatorship and stages of historical development. Signs and methods of stabilizing of civil society. Essence of social order and duty, examples of public establishments.
  
  контрольная работа [24,4 K], добавлен 11.08.2011
  

• The political system of society

  The term "political system". The theory of social system. Classification of social system. Organizational and institutional subsystem. Sociology of political systems. The creators of the theory of political systems. Cultural and ideological subsystem.
  
  реферат [18,8 K], добавлен 29.04.2016
  

• Electorate influence on political and social environment: referendums

  Referendum - a popular vote in any country of the world, which resolved important matters of public life. Usually in a referendum submitted questions, the answers to which are the words "yes" or "no". Especially, forms, procedure of referendums.
  
  презентация [1,2 M], добавлен 25.11.2014
  

• To what extent Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory is valid nowadays? Modern Political Theory

  Analysis of Rousseau's social contract theory and examples of its connection with the real world. Structure of society. Principles of having an efficient governmental system. Theory of separation of powers. The importance of censorship and religion.
  
  статья [13,1 K], добавлен 30.11.2014
  

• Of the Polish political parties and organizations in Vilnius (1919 - 1922 gg.)

  Leading role Society Gard Kresevo (USC) in organizing social and political life of the Poland. The Polish People's Movement of Vilna Earth. The influence of the Polish Central Electoral Committee. The merger of the TNG "Emancipation" and PNC "Revival".
  
  реферат [18,3 K], добавлен 02.10.2009
  

• The political System of the United States

  Basis of government and law in the United States of America. The Bill of Rights. The American system of Government. Legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch. Political Parties and Elections. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press.
  
  презентация [5,5 M], добавлен 21.11.2012
  

• Islam in the eyes of the West

  The rivalry between Islam and Chistianity, between Al-Andalus and the Christian kingdoms, between the Christian and Ottoman empires triggered conflicts of interests and ideologies. The cultural explanation of political situations in the Muslim world.
  
  реферат [52,8 K], добавлен 25.06.2010
  

• The Demise of Democracy

  Thus democracy and modernism are closely intertwined, each providing a driving force. Darwinism, Freudianism, Leninism and Marxism combined to throw doubt on traditional Western mores, culture and standards of behavior. Rights Without Responsibility.
  
  статья [20,3 K], добавлен 25.11.2011
  

• Comparison of the policy of the two presidents

  Barack Hussein Obama and Dmitry Medvedev: childhood years and family, work in politics before the presidential election and political views, the election, the campaign and presidency. The role, significance of these presidents of their countries history.
  
  курсовая работа [62,3 K], добавлен 02.12.2015
  

• The political method of the International Socialist Organisation

  Thrее basic Marxist criteria. Rеlаting tо thе fоrmеr USSR. Nоtеs tо rеstоrе thе socialist prоjеct. Оrigins оf thе Intеrnаtiоnаl Sоciаlists. Thе stаtе cаpitаlist thеоry. Stаtе capitalism аnd thе fаll оf thе burеаucrаcy. Lоcаl prаcticе аnd pеrspеctivеs.
  
  реферат [84,6 K], добавлен 20.06.2010
  

• Do women rights suffer more in violent conflict than men’s

  The situation of women affected by armed conflict and political violence. The complexity of the human rights in them. Influence of gender element in the destruction of the family and society as a result of hostilities. Analysis of the Rwandan Genocide.
  
  реферат [10,9 K], добавлен 03.09.2015
  

• Leadership and hegemony in geostrategy of informal neo-empires

  Review the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. The formation of a multipolar world order with the "balance of power".
  
  статья [64,7 K], добавлен 19.09.2017
  

• Liberal and democratic political modes in a modern world

  Definition and the interpretation of democracy. Main factors of a democratic political regime, their description. The problems of democracy according to Huntington. The main characteristics of the liberal regime. Estimation of its level in a world.
  
  реферат [16,0 K], добавлен 14.05.2011
  

• Types of political regimes and their characteristics

  The political regime: concept, signs, main approaches to the study. The social conditionality and functions of the political system in society. Characteristic of authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic regimes. Features of the political regime in Ukraine.
  
  курсовая работа [30,7 K], добавлен 08.10.2012
  

• On some problems of classification of political parties

  Major methodological problem in the study of political parties is their classification (typology). A practical value of modern political science. Three Russian blocs, that was allocated software-political: conservative, liberal and socialist parties.
  
  реферат [8,7 K], добавлен 14.10.2009
  

• Political discourse

  The study of political discourse. Political discourse: representation and transformation. Syntax, translation, and truth. Modern rhetorical studies. Aspects of a communication science, historical building, the social theory and political science.
  
  лекция [35,9 K], добавлен 18.05.2011
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам