The above chart displays the [Distribution] Percentage of DEMOC and AUTOC Scores and compares the distribution of scores during the early period (1800-1954) with the more recent period of interest (1955-2006). This perspective isolates the two key types of governing authority that are coterminous and may combine to define the patterns of institutionalized authority for any particular governance regime: autocratic (AUTOC) and democratic authority. Whereas the POLITY scale (charted above) combines these two measures to produce a convenient, single, summary indicator of the institutional quality and nature of governing regimes that define a state at any particular moment in time, it is these two, separate measures that provide the dual-authority evaluations that form the theoretical basis of the Polity scheme. The idea of a singular "polity continuum" that combines information on a regime's "autocratic-ness" and "democratic-ness" was not envisioned in the original theory proposed in the seminal work, Patterns of Authority, or it the original Polity (polity-case, Phase I, and annual times series, Phase II) coding schemes. The summary POLITY variable was first included with the Phase IV coding scheme as a convenience and an acknowledgement of its customary use in quantitative analyses by researchers. While there is documented evidence that the combined POLITY scale is useful in summarizing a fairly consistent, non-linear relationship between "coherent" authority institutionalization and the primacy of overt coercion in political relations (see, for example, "POLITY and the Onset of Political Instability, 1955-2006" (following on the Polity main page), researchers must consider carefully what measure(s) of institutionalized regime authority are most appropriate for their particular research design. In different applications, the fully POLITY scale, the individual DEMOC or AUTOC scale(s), or regime categorizations may be most appropriate. The theoretical perspective that provides the foundation of the Polity coding scheme makes no claim that "autocracy" should necessarily be considered a "negative form" or "negation" of "democracy," even though "autocracy" may be best distinguished from "democracy" by its primary reliance on "negative sanctions/incentives" (i.e., instrumental authority) in maintaining cohesion between ruling elites and the non-ruling populace, whereas "democracy" relies mainly on the use of "positive sanctions/incentives" (i.e., legitimate authority) to manage the political agenda and to ensure social order.

As evidenced in the chart above, the contemporary period (1955-2006) that has been characterized by the dynamics of decolonization (the emergence of newly independent states) and democratization is distinguished from the "classic" period by 1) a "refinement" of the ideal-types of autocracy and democracy (i.e., more regimes are measured as one form or the other -- with a zero measure in either AUTOC or DEMOC); 2) corresponding increases in the percentages of strongly autocratic or strongly democratic regimes (i.e., scoring high on either the AUTOC or DEMOC scales) and decreasing percentages of weakly autocratic or mixed regimes; and 3) a shift in autocratic authority away from hereditary monarchies (AUTOC = 10) to personalistic and one-party dictatorships (AUTOC = 7, 8, or 9).

The combined POLITY scale may approximate an authority-coherency continuum and may be used as such in many applications; however, the researcher must be aware that, by combining separate AUTOC and DEMOC scores, the combined POLITY variable loses, and confounds, some information regarding the actual combination of authority traits. For example, the three middle values on the POLITY scale (-1, 0, and 1) may each be obtained by four different combinations of values on the summed AUTOC and DEMOC variables. The following table lists the occurrences various combinations of AUTOC and DEMOC scores "lost" in the combined POLITY score: