Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Polity Score Analysis× | State Capacity Measurement× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | International Relations | International Relations |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2020 | 2010 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Ted Robert Gurr, Monty Marshall & Keith Jaggers (Center for Systemic Peace) | State-capacity literature; measurement synthesis by Cullen Hendrix |
| Tyyppi≠ | Composite ordinal measure of regime authority characteristics | Measurement of the state's ability to penetrate, extract, and enforce |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Marshall, M. G., & Gurr, T. R. (2020). Polity5: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2018 (Dataset Users' Manual). Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic Peace. link ↗ | Hendrix, C. S. (2010). Measuring state capacity: Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47(3), 273–285. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | Polity IV Analysis, Polity5 Analysis, Polity2 Score, Polity Index of Democracy and Autocracy | Measuring State Capacity, State Strength Measurement, Bureaucratic and Fiscal Capacity Measures, State Capacity Indicators |
| Liittyvät | 3 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Polity score analysis uses the Polity dataset to measure and compare the regime characteristics of states on a continuum from full autocracy to full democracy. Maintained by the Center for Systemic Peace (Marshall and Gurr), Polity codes institutional features — how chief executives are recruited, the constraints on their authority, and the openness of political competition — into separate democracy and autocracy indices that combine into a single polity score from −10 to +10. It is one of the most widely used measures of regime type in comparative politics and international relations. | State capacity measurement is the effort to quantify how able a state is to do the things states do — raise revenue, administer territory, and enforce its will — a variable central to explaining civil conflict, development, and governance. Because capacity is abstract, researchers operationalize it through observable indicators of fiscal, bureaucratic, and coercive strength. Hendrix (2010) systematically compared fifteen common operationalizations, using factor analysis to show that they reduce to a few underlying dimensions, and clarified which measures best capture the capacity relevant to conflict. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|