Abstract
Should we consider a civil society a relevant factor in the context of executive’s attitude toward a constitution? The essential goal of the study is to investigate the relationship between a strength of a country’s civil society on constitutional compliance of the executive. To do so, we use data for up to 179 countries from a 30-year period on civil society and compliance with constitutions from the V-Dem project. In a series of dynamic panel regressions, we find that civil society is positively associated with constitutional compliance. This evidence suggests that the validity of constitutional provisions in terms of lawfulness of the executive may be strengthened by civil society. The results of our study provide added value in better understanding the decisions of executives in the perspective of respect for the law. We relate our conclusions regarding ties between politics and the law to previous literature, covering the impact of institutional and social surroundings on the shape of politics.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
V-Dem is a unique collaboration involving over 3200 scholars and other experts relying on a complex research infrastructure to provide data on some 450 indicators (Coppedge et al. 2019). The indicators are divided into factual indicators (sourced from the country surveys), evaluative indicators coded by country experts, composite indices, and data from other sources. Multiple, independent coders are employed for each (evaluative) question along with inter-coder reliability tests built into a custom-designed Bayesian measurement model (Coppedge et al. 2019). A more detailed description of V-Dem and its methodology is presented in the codebook (Coppedge et al. 2020).
References
Albert, R., and B.E. Oder. 2018. An unamendable constitution? Unamendability in Constitutional Democracies. Cham: Springer.
Arato, A. 2000. Civil Society, Constitution and Legitimacy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Alberts, S. 2009. How Constitutions Constrain. Comparative Politics 41 (2): 127–143.
Barnett, M.N., and M. Finnemore. 1999. The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations. International Organization 53 (4): 699–732.
Bates, R.H., A. Greif, M. Levi, J.-L. Rosenthal, and B.R. Weingast. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Berman, Sh. 2013. Ideational Theorizing in the Social Sciences since “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State.” Governance 26 (2): 217–237.
Bertelli, A.M., and A.B. Whitford. 2009. Perceiving Credible Commitments: How Independent Regulators Shape Elite Perceptions of Regulatory Quality. British Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 517–537.
Bjoernskov, Ch., and J. Mchangama. 2019. Do Social Rights Affect Social Outcomes? American Journal of Political Science 63 (2): 452–466.
Boettke, P., and J.R. Subrick. 2003. Rule of Law, Development, and Human Capabilities. Supreme Court Economic Review 10: 109–126.
Boettke, P., Ch. Coyne, and P. Leeson. 2008. Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (2): 331–358.
Boix, C., and M.W. Svolik. 2013. The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government: Institutions, Commitment, and Power-Sharing in Dictatorships. The Journal of Politics 75 (2): 300–316.
Brown, D., Ch. Brown, and S. Desposato. 2007. Who Gives, Who Receives, and Who Wins?: Transforming Capital Into Political Change Through Nongovernmental Organizations. Comparative Political Studies 41 (1): 24–47.
Buchanan, J. 1990. The Domain of Constitutional Economics. Constitutional Political Economy 1 (1): 1–18.
Chilton, A., and M. Versteeg. 2017. Rights Without Resources: The Impact of Constitutional Social Rights on Social Spending. The Journal of Law and Economics 60 (4): 713–748.
Chilton, A., and M. Versteeg. 2020. How Constitutional Rights Matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coppedge, M., J. Gerring, S.I. Lindberg, S.-E. Skaaning, J. Teorell, D. Altman, M. Bernhard, M.S. Fish, A. Glynn, A. Hicken, C.H. Knutsen, K. McMann, P. Paxton, D. Pemstein, J. Staton, B. Zimmerman, R. Sigman, F. Andersson, V. Mechkova, and F. Miri. 2020. ‘V-Dem Codebook v10.’ Varieties of Democracy (VDem) Project.
Coppedge, M., J. Gerring, C.H. Knutsen, J. Krusell, J. Medzihorsky, J. Pernes, S.-E. Skaaning, N. Stepanova, J. Teorell, E. Tzelgov, S.L. Wilson, and S.I. Lindberg. 2019. The Methodology of ’Varieties of Democracy‘(V-Dem). Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/bulletin De Méthodologie Sociologique 143 (1): 107–133.
Davenport, Ch. 1996. Constitutional Premises and Repressive Reality: A Cross-National Time-Series Investigation. Journal of Politics 58 (3): 627–654.
De Mesquita, E.B., and M.C. Stephenson. 2007. Regulatory Quality Under Imperfect Oversight. American Political Science Review 101 (3): 605–620.
Diamond, L., and L. Morlino, eds. 2005. Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Edwards, M. 2009. Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Elazar, D.J. 2017. Covenant and Civil Society. The Constitutional Matrix of Modern Democracy. New Brunswick: Routledge.
Fallon, R.H. 2009. Constitutional Constraints. California Law Review 97 (4): 975–1038.
Feng, Y. 1997. Democracy, Political Stability and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science 27 (3): 391–418.
Gavison, R. 2002. What Belongs in a Constitution? Constitutional Political Economy 13 (1): 89–105.
Ginsburg, T. 2009. Constitutional Afterlife: The Continuing Impact of Thailand’s Postpolitical Constitution. International Journal of Constitutional Law 7 (1): 83–105.
Ginsburg, T., and A. Simpser, eds. 2013. Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, J. 2007. Organized Civil Society and Democratic Legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 333–357.
Gutmann, J., and S. Voigt. 2020. Judicial Independence in the EU: A Puzzle. European Journal of Law and Economics 49: 83–100.
Helmke, G., and S. Levitsky. 2004. Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, M., and E. Stolle. 2003. Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Iaryczower, M., P.T. Spiller, and M. Tomassi. 2002. Judicial Independence in Unstable Environments, Argentina 1935–1998. American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 699–716.
Kaufman, I.R. 1980. The Essence of Judicial Independence. Columbia Law Review 80 (4): 671–701.
Keith, L. 2012. Political Repression: Courts, and the Law. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kohler-Koch, B., and Ch. Quittkat. 2009. What is Civil Society and Who Represents Civil Society in the EU?—Results of an Online Survey Among Civil Society Experts. Policy and Society 28 (1): 11–22.
Kwok, C.C., and S. Tadesse. 2006. The MNC as an Agent of Change for Host-Country Institutions: FDI and Corruption. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 767–785.
Larkins, Ch.M. 1996. Judicial Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. The American Journal of Comparative Law 44 (4): 605–626.
Law, D., and M. Versteeg. 2013. Sham Constitutions. California Law Review 101 (4): 863–952.
Marciano, A., ed. 2011. Constitutional Mythologies. New Perspectives on Controlling the State. New York: Springer.
Marciano, A., A. Melcarne, and G. Ramello. 2019. The Economic Importance of Judicial Institutions, Their Performance and the Proper Way to Measure Them. Journal of Institutional Economics 15 (1): 81–98.
McAdams, R.H., and J. Nadler. 2008. Coordinating in the Shadow of the Law: Two Contextualized Tests of the Focal Point Theory of Legal Compliance. Law & Society Review 42 (4): 865–898.
Melton, J. 2013. Do constitutional rights matter? The relationship between de jure and de facto human rights protection. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.375.9784&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2021.
Metelska-Szaniawska, K. 2016. Economic Effects of Post Socialist Constitutions 25 Years from the Outset of Transition. The Constitutional Political Economy Approach. Brussels: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
Metelska-Szaniawska, K., and J. Lewkowicz. 2020. Post-socialist “Illiberal Democracies”: Do de jure Constitutional Rights Matter? Constitutional Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-020-09316-4.
Migdal, J.S. 2001. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute Each Other. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mohan, G. 2002. The Disappointments of Civil Society: The Politics of NGO Intervention in Northern Ghana. Political Geography 21 (1): 125–154.
Møller, J., and S.-E. Skaaning. 2013. Regime Types and Democratic Sequencing. Journal of Democracy 24 (1): 142–155.
Nelson, P. 1997. Conflict, Legitimacy, and Effectiveness: Who Speaks for Whom in Transnational NGO Networks Lobbying the World Bank? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26 (4): 421–441.
North, D.C. 1987. Institutions, Transaction Costs and Economic Growth. Economic Inquiry 25 (3): 419–428.
Oleart, A., and L. Bouza. 2017. Democracy at Stake: Multipositional Actors and Politicization in the EU Civil Society Field. Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (4): 870–887.
Ottaway, M., and T. Carothers, eds. 2000. Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Pejovich, S. 1999. The Effects of the Interaction of Formal and Informal Institutions on Social Stability and Economic Development. Journal of Markets & Morality 2 (2): 164–181.
Persson, T., and G. Tabellini. 2004. Constitutions and Economic Policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (1): 75–98.
Persson, T., and G. Tabellini. 2005. The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Poe, S.C., C.N. Tate, and L.C. Keith. 1999. Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976–1993. International Studies Quarterly 43 (2): 291–313.
Posner, R.A. 1998. Creating a Legal Framework for Economic Development. The World Bank Research Observer 13 (1): 1–11.
Raz, J. 1990. The Politics of the Rule of Law. Ratio Juris 3 (3): 331–339.
Rigobon, R., and D. Rodrik. 2005. Rule of Law, Democracy, Openness, and Income. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change 13 (3): 533–564.
Scholte, J.A., ed. 2011. Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skolnik, J.H. 2011. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.
Trebilcock, M., and J. Leng. 2006. The Role of Formal Contract Law and Enforcement in Economic Development. Virginia Law Review 92 (7): 1517–1580.
Versteeg, M., and E. Zackin. 2016. Constitutions Unentrenched: Toward an Alternative Theory of Constitutional Design. American Political Science Review 110 (4): 657–674.
Voigt, S. 2012. How (Not) to Measure Institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics 9 (1): 1–26.
Voigt, S. 2020. Mind the Gap: Analyzing the Divergence Between Constitutional Text and Constitutional Reality. ILE Working Paper Series, 32, 1–59.
Weingast, B. 1997. The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law. American Political Science Review 91 (2): 245–263.
Whitten-Woodring, J. 2009. Watchdog or Lapdog? Media Freedom, Regime Type, and Government Respect for Human Rights. International Studies Quarterly 53 (3): 595–625.
World Bank. 2020. World Development Indicators.
Wray, S. 1999. On Electronic Civil Disobedience. A Journal of Social Justice 11 (1): 107–111.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of a Beethoven project funded by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN, UMO-2016/23/G/HS4/04371) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, #381589259). The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous referees for valuable comments. The authors are also grateful to Jan Fałkowski, Jerg Gutmann, Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska and Stefan Voigt for helpful suggestions on previous versions of the text. Jacek Lewkowicz gratefully acknowledges the support of the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP).
Disclaimer
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the authors, and not necessarily to the authors’ employer, organization, committee, or other group or individual.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Description of variables and data sources
Appendix: Description of variables and data sources
Variable name | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
constitutional compliance | Continuous variable envisaging the extent up to which members of the executive respect the constitution. The higher the value of variable is, the less members of executive violate the constitution Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question” Do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government, and cabinet ministers) respect the constitution?”. Possible responses: 0: Members of the executive violate the constitution whenever they want to, without legal consequences 1: Members of the executive violate most provisions of the constitution without legal consequences, but still must respect certain provisions 2: Somewhere in between (1) and (3). Members of the executive would face legal consequences for violating most provisions of the constitution, but can disregard some provisions without any legal consequences 3: Members of the executive rarely violate the constitution, and when it happens they face legal charges 4: Members of the executive never violate the constitution | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
civil society index | Continuous variable envisaging how robust civil society is. The higher the value of variable is, the more robust is civil society in a given country. The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators for governmental control over entry and exit of CSOs into public life, CSOs’ repression and CSO participatory environment. The construction of the abovementioned indices is presented below | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
governmental control over entry and exit of CSOs into public life | Continuous variable envisaging the extent up to which the government achieves control over entry and exit by civil society organizations (CSOs) into public life. Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “To what extent does the government achieve control over entry and exit by civil society organizations (CSOs) into public life?”. Possible responses: 0: monopolistic control, 1: substantial control, 2: moderate control, 3: minimal control, 4:unconstrained | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
CSOs’ repression | Continuous variable envisaging the extent up to which the government attempts to repress civil society organizations (CSOs). Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “Does the government attempt to repress civil society organizations (CSOs)?”. Possible responses: 0: severely, 1: substantially, 2: moderately, 3: weakly, 4: no | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
CSOs’ consultation by policymakers | Continuous variable envisaging the extent up to which the major civil society organizations (CSOs) routinely consulted by policymakers on policies relevant to their members.). Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “Are major civil society organizations (CSOs) routinely consulted by policymakers on policies relevant to their members?”. Possible responses: 0: no, 1: to some degree, 2: yes | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
regulatory quality | Continuous variable including measures of the incidence of market unfriendly policies such as price controls or inadequate bank supervision, as well as perceptions of the burdens imposed by excessive regulation in areas such as foreign trade and business development | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
regime | Discrete variable classifying political regime of a country considering the competitiveness of access to power (polyarchy) as well as liberal principles into one of the following categories: 0: closed autocracy, 1: electoral autocracy, 2: electoral democracy, 3: liberal democracy | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
judicial independence | Continuous variable expressing how often judges' decisions in cases that are salient to the government merely reflect government wishes regardless of judges' sincere view of the legal record. The higher the value of variable is, the less judges’ decisions reflect government wishes. Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “When judges not on the high court are ruling in cases that are salient to the government, how often would you say that their decisions merely reflect government wishes regardless of their sincere view of the legal record?”. Possible responses: 0: Always 1: Usually 2: About half of the time 3: Seldom | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
international autonomy | Continuous variable envisaging the extent to which the state is autonomous from the control of other states with respect to the conduct of its foreign policy. The higher the value, the more autonomous the state is. Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “Is the state autonomous from the control of other states with respect to the conduct of its foreign policy?”. Possible responses: 0: Non-autonomous 1: Semi-autonomous 2: Autonomous | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
political power distribution | Continuous variable envisaging the extent to which political power is distributed according to socioeconomic position? The higher the value, the more equally the power is distributed Continuous version of the variable was created from the ordinal variable using the measurement model. The ordinal variable envisages the responses to the following question “Is political power distributed according to socioeconomic position?”. Possible responses: 0: Wealthy people enjoy a virtual monopoly on political power. Average and poorer people have almost no influence 1: Wealthy people enjoy a dominant hold on political power. People of average income have little say. Poorer people have essentially no influence 2: Wealthy people have a very strong hold on political power. People of average or poorer income have some degree of influence but only on issues that matter less for wealthy people 3: Wealthy people have more political power than others. But people of average income have almost as much influence and poor people also have a significant degree of political power 4: Wealthy people have no more political power than those whose economic status is | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
ln gdp pc | Log of gross domestic product per capita | Coppedge et al. (2020) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewkowicz, J., Lewczuk, A. Civil society and compliance with constitutions. Acta Polit 58, 181–211 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00240-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00240-z