Typologies are widely applied tools in democracy research. There are two prominent ways of constructing subtypes of democracies: whereas the classical approach adds traits successively to gain regular subtypes, the radial approach subtracts traits from the concept to obtain diminished subtypes. Conceptually, we argue that radial types have distinct advantages over the classical approach. Diminished subtypes can deal with complex concepts with multiple interrelated dimensions without a clear hierarchy and can account for the gradual nature of political phenomena. We derive three diminished subtypes of democracy: illiberal, inegalitarian and unaccountable democracies. The empirical analysis draws on a customized version of the new Varieties of Democracy dataset. Contrary to the dominating criticism of the radial delusion by the classical approach, an elaborate cluster analysis with a strong focus on validation and robustness checks can identify empirically the deductively proposed diminished subtypes of democracies which could not be demonstrated so far.

Is there a Decline of Democracy? Democracy measurement provides the basis for answering this question. However, there are different measurement tools based on different meanings of democracy that have been shown to vary in their concept validity. Therefore, it is relevant to examine whether the results of the different measurement tools converge or diverge with respect to a potential decline of democracy. Smolka (2021) finds a decline of democracy for new and old EU states based on standardized data from the Democracy Barometer. A re-analysis using the original data of the Democracy Barometer and the Democracy Matrix can hardly replicate these results. A comparison of further measurements shows that the instruments diverge rather than converge. I therefore conclude with some thoughts on overcoming the selection problem that arises in light of these contrasts.

No abstract

No abstract