The article by David Collier and Steven Levitsky discusses the challenges of conceptualizing democracy in the context of recent democratization. Scholars face the task of differentiating various forms of democracy while maintaining conceptual validity. This has led to the proliferation of alternative conceptual forms, including subtypes such as "authoritarian democracy," "neopatrimonial democracy," and "protodemocracy." Despite efforts to standardize the term "democracy" based on procedural definitions, the diversity of cases has led to continued conceptual innovation. The authors analyze strategies used to achieve conceptual differentiation and avoid conceptual stretching. Sartori's strategies of moving up and down the ladder of generality are discussed, with moving down the ladder increasing differentiation through classical subtypes, while moving up the ladder avoids conceptual stretching by using broader concepts like "regime." However, these strategies alone cannot achieve both goals simultaneously. Diminished subtypes, which are less than complete instances of democracy, offer a way to avoid conceptual stretching while still providing differentiation. These subtypes identify missing attributes of democracy, thereby creating new analytic categories. Precising the definition of democracy by adding defining attributes also helps in achieving differentiation and avoiding conceptual stretching. This involves modifying the definition to include criteria that are often overlooked in traditional analyses. Shifting the overarching concept from "regime" to "government" or "state" allows for different standards of democracy. For example, labeling a country as a "democratic situation" rather than a "democratic regime" lowers the standard for democracy. Conversely, shifting to "state" raises the standard, emphasizing the broader functioning of citizenship. The authors conclude that while conceptual innovation is necessary, there is a risk of conceptual confusion and excessive proliferation of terms. Scholars should aim for parsimony and avoid unnecessary complexity to maintain clarity and consistency in their analyses. The article emphasizes the importance of careful definition and use of concepts to ensure accurate and meaningful analysis of democratic regimes.The article by David Collier and Steven Levitsky discusses the challenges of conceptualizing democracy in the context of recent democratization. Scholars face the task of differentiating various forms of democracy while maintaining conceptual validity. This has led to the proliferation of alternative conceptual forms, including subtypes such as "authoritarian democracy," "neopatrimonial democracy," and "protodemocracy." Despite efforts to standardize the term "democracy" based on procedural definitions, the diversity of cases has led to continued conceptual innovation. The authors analyze strategies used to achieve conceptual differentiation and avoid conceptual stretching. Sartori's strategies of moving up and down the ladder of generality are discussed, with moving down the ladder increasing differentiation through classical subtypes, while moving up the ladder avoids conceptual stretching by using broader concepts like "regime." However, these strategies alone cannot achieve both goals simultaneously. Diminished subtypes, which are less than complete instances of democracy, offer a way to avoid conceptual stretching while still providing differentiation. These subtypes identify missing attributes of democracy, thereby creating new analytic categories. Precising the definition of democracy by adding defining attributes also helps in achieving differentiation and avoiding conceptual stretching. This involves modifying the definition to include criteria that are often overlooked in traditional analyses. Shifting the overarching concept from "regime" to "government" or "state" allows for different standards of democracy. For example, labeling a country as a "democratic situation" rather than a "democratic regime" lowers the standard for democracy. Conversely, shifting to "state" raises the standard, emphasizing the broader functioning of citizenship. The authors conclude that while conceptual innovation is necessary, there is a risk of conceptual confusion and excessive proliferation of terms. Scholars should aim for parsimony and avoid unnecessary complexity to maintain clarity and consistency in their analyses. The article emphasizes the importance of careful definition and use of concepts to ensure accurate and meaningful analysis of democratic regimes.