IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v8y2020i1p178-187_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression

Author

Listed:
  • Cope, Kevin L.
  • Crabtree, Charles
  • Fariss, Christopher J.

Abstract

Until recently, researchers who wanted to examine the determinants of state respect for most specific negative rights (i.e., physical integrity and empowerment rights) needed to rely on data from the CIRI or the Political Terror Scale (PTS). The new Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset offers scholars a potential alternative to the individual human rights variables from CIRI. We analyze a set of key Cingranelli–Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project and V-Dem negative rights indicators, finding unusual and unexpectedly large patterns of disagreement between the two sets. First, we discuss the new V-Dem dataset by comparing it to the disaggregated CIRI indicators, discussing the history of each project, and describing its empirical domain. Second, we identify a set of disaggregated human rights measures that are similar across the two datasets and discuss each project’s measurement approach. Third, we examine how these measures compare to each other empirically, showing that they diverge considerably across both time and space. These findings point to several important directions for future work, such as how conceptual approaches and measurement strategies affect rights scores. For the time being, our findings suggest that researchers should think carefully about using the measures as substitutes.

Suggested Citation

  • Cope, Kevin L. & Crabtree, Charles & Fariss, Christopher J., 2020. "Patterns of disagreement in indicators of state repression," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 178-187, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:178-187_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847018000626/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua Holzer, 2020. "The effect of copartisan justice ministers on human rights in presidential democracies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    2. K Chad Clay & Ryan Bakker & Anne-Marie Brook & Daniel W Hill Jr & Amanda Murdie, 2020. "Using practitioner surveys to measure human rights: The Human Rights Measurement Initiative’s civil and political rights metrics," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 715-727, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:178-187_14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.