Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:18:29.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of Latin American Political Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Russell H. Fitzgibbon  and
Kenneth F. Johnson
Russell H. Fitzgibbon
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Kenneth F. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Social scientists are finding an increasingly useful and stimulating tool in the application of statistical techniques to their problems. As in the employment of any new tool, both the utility and the limitations of this one must be learned. It seems beyond reasonable doubt, however, that quantification of data in the social sciences will become a more widely used and rewarding procedure as time goes on.

Prudence dictates that stress be laid on its limitations. The enthusiasm with which a new tool—toy, some would say—is adopted should not blind the user to dangers which may be implicit in its overuse. One cannot squeeze more juice from an orange than the orange contains, no matter how modern the squeezer. Care must be exercised, too, lest the bitter essence of the rind become mixed with the nourishing juice of the fruit itself.

The present analysis is an attempt, in not too complex a fashion, to make use of such techniques to organize and validate data which might otherwise permit only the broadest sort of generalizations by way of conclusion, conclusions unsatisfactory roughly in proportion to their breadth. The senior author of this article has for more than a decade and a half been interested in the problem of objective measurement of certain aspects of political change in Latin America with particular respect to the sum total of phenomena falling under the rubric of “democracy.” On four occasions, 1945, 1950, 1955, and 1960, he conducted a survey among groups of specialists on Latin America to elicit evaluations which then, with the help of such statistical procedures as seemed useful, were summarized and analyzed.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1961 , pp. 515 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* The authors gratefully acknowledge grants to assist in the research for this paper from the Senate Committee on Research and the Department of Political Science of the University of California, Los Angeles, and advice in connection with procedures from Thomas Ferguson, Joseph A. Gengerelli, and Dwaine Marvick of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harold Guetzkow of Northwestern University.

1 In the first two surveys ten persons participated each time; in the third survey, twenty; and in the fourth, forty. The following list identifies by a superscript “all” those taking part in each of the four surveys and by the appropriate numbers those participating in fewer instances: Robert J. Alexander4 (Rutgers), Marvin Alisky4 (Arizona State), Samuel F. Bemis1,2 (Yale), George I. Blanksten2,3,4 (Northwestern), Spruille Braden4 (former Assistant Secretary of State), Frank R. Brandenburg4 (National University of Mexico), James L. Busey4 (Colorado), Howard Cline4 (Director, Hispanic Foundation, Library of Congress), Harold E. Davis3,4 (American), Jules Dubois3,4 (Chicago Tribune), Russell H. Fitzgibbona11 (California, Los Angeles), William Forbis4 (Time), Jesús de Galíndez3 (Columbia), Federico G. Gil4 (North Carolina), Rosendo Gomez4 (Arizona), Stephen S. Goodspeed3,4 (California, Santa Barbara), Paul E. Hadley4 (Southern California), Robert M. Hallett3 (Christian Science Monitor), Clarence H. Haring1 (Harvard), Hubert C. Herringa11 (Claremont Graduate School), Henry F. Holland4 (former Assistant Secretary of State), Preston E. James4 (Syracuse), Bertram B. Johansson4 (Christian Science Monitor), Miguel Jorrin3,4 (New Mexico), Harry Kantor3,4 (Florida), Merle Kling4 (Washington, St. Louis), Leo B. Lott4 (Ohio State), Austin F. Macdonalda11 (California, Berkeley), William Manger4 (former Assistant Secretary General, Organization of American States), Herbert L. Matthews4 (New York Times), J. Lloyd Mechama11 (Texas), Edward G. Miller, Jr.4 (former Assistant Secretary of State), Dana G. Munroa11 (Princeton), Harry B. Murkland3,4 (Newsweek), L. Vincent Padgett4 (San Diego State), William L. Schurz3,4 (American Institute of Foreign Trade), Robert E. Scott3,4 (Illinois), K. H. Silvert4 (Tulane), James H. Stebbins4 (Executive Vice President, W. R. Grace and Company), William S. Stokesa11 (Claremont Men's), Graham H. Stuart1,2 (Stanford), Philip B. Taylor, Jr.3,4 (Tulane), Martin B. Travis, Jr.3,4 (Stanford), Arthur P. Whitakera11 (Pennsylvania), A. Curtis Wilgus4 (Florida).

2 By the senior author, “Measurement of Latin-American Political Phenomena; A Statistical Experiment,” Review, Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 517–23Google Scholar; “How Democratic is Latin America?,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, Vol. 9 (Spring, 1956), pp. 65–77 Google Scholar; “A Statistical Evaluation of Latin-American Democracy,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 9, (1956), pp. 607–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Gabriel A. Almond has warned against the error of applying the norms of mature Western societies to developing nations characterized by pre-industrial societies. The basic methodological danger of this mixture of Western rational systems with traditional routines is that the researcher may find himself treating the underdeveloped societies as pathologies. The present writers have kept this admonition in mind. In instructing the respondents as to judgmental components for evaluating the fifteen basic criteria, a conscious effort was made to apply norms which reasonable men in pre-industrial societies would regard as valid. Cf. Almond, Gabriel A. “Comparative Political Systems,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 18 (1956), pp. 391–409, passim CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Minimum and maximum scores given by a single respondent in the four surveys were: 1945, 750 and 1,229½ (a range of 479½); 1950, 798 and 1,184 (a range of 386); 1955, 741½ and 1,186 (a range of 444½); and 1960, 911½ and 1,334½ (a range of 423).

5 Adjusted minima and maxima for the successive surveys were: 1945, 178 and 892; 1950, 173 and 865; 1955, 176 and 881; 1960, 158 and 792.

6 An apparent anomaly will be noted in the case of six states (Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, and Panama) whose rank positions declined between 1955 and 1960 although their percentages improved. This is explained by the considerably higher total scores assigned by respondents in 1960 over those given in 1955. This same apparent contradiction occurred, but less frequently, in the changes between 1945 and 1950 and between 1950 and 1955.

7 In the X2 formula oij represents the observed cell frequencies of the various contingency tables and eij the expected or theoretic cell frequencies.

8 N represents the total number of cases, i.e., 800.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.