Freedom house

Matteo Demontis

Comparative Politics, Marco Giuliani

07/05/2012

Conceptualization

Freedom

Political Rights Civil Liberties

Rating Process

Political Rights (10 + 2 questions)

1. Electoral Process (3)2. Political Pluralism and Participation (4)3. Functioning of Government (3)4. Discretionary Questions (2)

Rating Process

Civil Liberties (15 questions)

1. Freedom of Expression and Belief (4)2. Associational and Organizational Rights (3)3. Rule of Law (4)4. Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (4)

ScoringDegree of Adherence to International Human Rights Standards:

0 No good practices

1 Few good practices OR

Some good practices, but no good laws

2 Some good practices OR

Many good practices, but few good laws

3 Many good practices OR

Most/all good practices, and some good laws

4 Most/all good practices and corresponding good laws

Aggregation

Political Rights (PR) Civil Liberties (CL)

Total scores Rating Total scores Rating

36-40 1 53-60 1

30-35 2 44-52 2

24-29 3 35-43 3

18-23 4 26-34 4

12-17 5 17-25 5

6-11 6 8-16 6

0-5 * 7 0-7 7

Aggregation

Combined Average of the PR and CL Ratings Country Status

1.0 to 2.5 Free

3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free

5.5 to 7.0 Not Free

LinksResults 2012:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world

Checklist Questions:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2011/

checklist-questions-and-guidelines

Methodology:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2012/

methodology

Critiques

Maximalist definition

No clear coding rule

No disaggregate data

Internal coherence

Aim:

coding the authority characteristics of states in the world system for purposes of comparative, quantitative analysis

Unit of analysis:

“polity”: political or governmental organization; a society or institution with an organized government; state; body politic

States with total population greater than 500.000

Annual coding for 164 states over the years 1800-2010

Main index:

examines concomitant qualities of democratic and autocratic authority:

Executive recruitment

Constraints on executive authority

Political competition

Francesca Casarico

Operational indicators Democracy Autocracy

The Polity score• Computed by subtracting the authocracy score from the democracy score

• 21 point scale ranging from -10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (consolidated democracy)

• Spectrum that spans from fully istitutionalized authocracies through mixed, or inchoerent, authority regimes to fully institutionalized democracies.

autocracies anocracies democracies +

standardized codes:- 66: interruption period- 77: interregnum period- 88: transition period

-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Country-year formatState “continuity and change”

Polity-case formatRegime “persistence and change”

Critiques

• Too minimal definition • Inappropriate aggregation procedure• Conceptual logic: problem of redundancy

INDEX OF EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY(Welzel & Inglehart)

Gaia Lovisolo

CREATION OF THE INDEX

They start from the Freedom House index but they create a new index that keeps into consideration not only the extent to which formal liberties are institutionalized, but also the extent to which they are

actually practiced.

● Effective (liberal) democracy vs Formal (electoral) democracy

To differentiate between the two we look at the elite behavior, because it determines weather democratic rules are genuinely applied, or weather democracy exists only in name

●Self-expression values Strongly correlated with:● Socioeconomic development●Democratic institutions

They work together to broaden autonomous human choice

ELEMENTS OF THE INDEX

PROCESS

Socioeconomicdevelopment

Self-expression values

Democratic institutions and liberal democracy

Construction of the index

Freedom House measure of civil andpolitical rights

xWorld bank's anticorruption score (indicator of ”elite integrity”)

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS GENUINE MEASURE OF DEMOCRACY AND SELF-EXPRESSION VALUES, WE FIND A STRONG CORRELATION OF R=0.90 ACROSS 73 NATIONS.

Figure 7-1 Self-expression values and formal democracy.

Zimbabwe

Yugoslavia

Vietnam

Venezuela

Uruguay G.B.

Ukraine

Uganda

Turkey

Tanzania

Taiwan

Switzerld.

South Africa

Slovakia

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Philippines

Peru

Pakistan

Nigeria

MoldovaMexico

Macedonia

South Korea

Jordan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

Iran

Indonesia

India

Hungary Germany (W.)

Georgia

Germany (E.)France

El Salvad.

Egypt

Dominican R.

Denmark

Croatia

China

ChileBulgaria

Brazil

Bosnia

Belgium

Belarus

Bangladesh

Azerbaij.

Austria

Armenia

Argentina

Algeria

Albania

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Deg

ree

of F

orm

al D

emoc

racy

, 200

0-20

02FULL

NONE

Percentage high on Self-expression Values (mid 1990s) +

r = .73***

Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia

Czech R.JapanSpain

Estonia

Iceland, Norway, U.S.A.Austral., CanadaFinland, Netherld.,New Zeald., Sweden

Zimbabwe

Yugoslavia

Vietnam

Venezuela

Uruguay

U.S.A.G.B.

Uganda

Turkey

Tanzania

Taiwan

Switzerld.

Sweden

Spain

South Africa

Slovenia

Slovakia

Russia

Romania

Portugal

Poland

Philippines

Peru

Pakistan

Norway

Nigeria

New Zeald.

Netherld.

Moldova

Mexico

Lithuania

Latvia

South Korea

Jordan

Japan

Italy

Israel

Ireland

IranIndonesia

India

Iceland

Hungary

Germany (W.)

Georgia

Germany (E.)

France

Finland

Estonia

El Salvad.

Egypt

Dominican R.

Denmark

Czech R.

Croatia

China

Chile

Canada

Bulgaria

Brazil

Belgium

Belarus

Bangladesh

Azerbaij.

AustriaAustralia

Argentina

Algeria

Albania

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

r = .90***

Leve

l of E

ffect

ive

Dem

ocra

cy ( 20

00-2

002)

FULL

NONE

Percentage high on Self-expression Values (mid 1990s) +

Figure 7-2. Self-expression values and Effective Democracy

Possible critique?

Direction of causality

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index

Comparative Positive, Marco Giuliani

07/05/2012

Angelica Puricelli

The overall index is based on five categories, each rating on a 0 to 10 score, so the overall index is the simple average of them :

1. Electoral process and pluralism2. Civil liberties3. Functioning of government4. Political participation5. Political culture

Each category indexes is based on the sum of the 60 indicators score with a combination of a dichotomous and a three-point scoring system, then they are converted to a scale of 0 to 10. Adjustments to the category scores are made if countries do not score a 1 in the following critical areas for democracy:

6. Whether national elections are free and fair;7. The security of voters;8. The influence of foreign powers on government;9. The capability of the civil service to implement policies.

Each country can be classified as:• Full democracy (score: from 8 to 10)• Flawed democracy (score: from 6 to 7.9)• Hybrid regime (score: from 4 to 5.9)• Authoritarian regime (below 4)

Features of the index: • Use of public opinion surveys (in “political partecipation” and in “political

culture”)• Participation and voter turnout are seen as legitimacy of the current system

(positive relation with democracy) • The predominance of the legislative branches over the executive power has a

positive correlation with the measure of the overall democracy.

Type of regime Countries % of countries % of world population

Full democracies 25 15.0 11.3Flawed democracies 53 31.7 37.1

Hybrid regimes 37 22.2 14.0Authoritarian regimes 52 31.1 37.6

Democracy index by regime type

Rank Region 2006 2008 2010 2011

1 Northern America 8.64 8.64 8.63 8.59

2 Western Europe 8.60 8.61 8.45 8.40

3Latin america & the Caribbean

6.37 6.43 6.37 6.35

4 Asia & Australasia 5.44 5.58 5.53 5.51

5Central & Eastern Europe

5.76 5.67 5.55 5.50

6Sub-Saharan Africa

4.24 4.28 4.23 4.32

7Middle East & North Africa

3.53 3.54 3.43 3.62

Total 5.52 5.55 5.46 5.49

Democracy index average by region

Critiques

• Bias• Turnout and the predominance of legislative

“DEMOCRACY ANDDEVELOPMENT: POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND MATERIAL

WELL-BEING IN THE WORLD, 1950-1990 “

IMPACT OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Giulia Frenquellucci

ACPL database model(Alvarez, Cheibub, Przeworski, Limongi)

REG: Dummy variable coded 1 for dictatorships and 0 for democracies. Transition years are coded as the regime that emerges in that year. For instance, there was a transition from democracy to dictatorship in Argentina in 1955. In that year, REG=1 ; MOBILIZE: Classification of political regimes in which dictatorships are distinguished by the presence of political parties. Coded 0 if democracy; 1 if mobilizing dictatorship (with parties); 2 if exclusionary dictatorship (without parties). Transition years are coded as the regime that emerges in that year ; ETHNIC: Percentage of population of the largest ETHNIC group, measured in the year for which data were available (roughly 1976-1985). [The Economist 1988 and Vanhanen 1992]. ; LEGSELEC: Legislative selection. Coded 0 if no legislature exists (includes cases in which there is a constituent assembly without ordinary legislative powers); 1 non-elective legislature (examples include the selection of legislators by the effective executive, or on the basis of heredity or ascription); 2 if elective (legislators, or members of the lower house in a bicameral system, are selected by means of either direct or indirect popular election). [Banks 1996, but modified and completed where appropriate].

Variables Examples

135 countries; 4126 observations; 105 variables

Empirical features

DICHOTOMOUS MEASUREMENT[a measure that has only two discrete categories of values]

Democracy Dictatorship1. The chief executive is elected;2. The legislature is elected;3. There is more than one party

competing in the election; 4. An alternation in power under

identical electoral rules has taken place;

If these don’t hold

The importance of contested elections

Two logically independent claims:

Underlying Principles

Minimalist definition ( Schumpeterian ) of democracy “examine empirically, rather than decide by definition, whether the repeated holding of contested elections is associated with other features at times attributed to democracies: social and economic equality, control by citizens over politicians, effective exercise of political rights, widespread participation, freedom from arbitrary violence.”

• A validity claim: democracy is first a question of kind before it is one of degree (as Sartori says “classify before quantify”) • A reliability claim: dichotomy contains less error in measurement than do graded measurements (like the ones that for example allow the presence of categories such as semi-democracy).

Criticisms:

Reich et al.• Dichotomous measurement appears both methodologically regressive and lacking in face validity.

• Impossible to exclude from the analysis categories like semi-democracies when these have been a very frequent outcome of regime change.

VANHANEN’S INDEX OF DEMOCRACY

Marija Zalimaite

Tatu Vanhanen – emeritus professor at University of Tampere and the University of Helsinki

The index covers 187 countries from 1810 to 2000

7 VARIABLES Vanhanen’s country number Year Competition Participation Index of democracy State name abbreviation from the

Correlates of War project (COW) COW country number

COMPETITION The smaller parties’ share of the votes

cast in parliamentary or presidential elections, or both – to indicate the degree of competition

Calculated by subtracting the % of votes won by the largest party from 100

PARTICIPATION The % of population which actually

voted in the same elections

Calculated from total population

INDEX OF DEMOCRACY (ID) Competition and Participation

combined into Index of Democratization

Minimum thresholds: 30% of Competition, 10% of Participation and 5.0 index points for ID

Italy : Competition – 65.2; Participation – 65.56; ID – 42.75

USA : Comp – 51.3; Part – 37.19; ID – 19.08 UK : Comp – 56.8; Part – 53.7; ID – 30.15 China: Comp – 0; Part – 0; ID – 0 Egypt: Comp – 13.15; Part – 22.48; ID – 2.96 Belarus: Comp – 15; Part – 47.97; ID – 7.2

Polyarchy and Contestation scalesby Coppedge & Reinicke

SPSS file

Variables

• Polyarchy scale• Contestation scale

The Contestation scale is a less precise but more reliable version of the Polyarchy scale.

Heads of the government are elected, no frauds

Heads of the government are elected, frauds occur and are unpunished

No meaningful elections

Free and Fair Elections

Freedom of Organization

No restrictions on purely political organizations that have not previously committed mass murder.

Some political parties that have not committed mass murder are banned, but membership in some alternatives to official organizations is permitted.

The only relatively independent organizations that are allowed to exist are nonpolitical.

No independent organizations are allowed

Freedom of Expression

Citizens express their views on all topics without fear of punishment

Dissent is discouraged, whether by informal pressure or by systematic censorship, but control is incomplete.

All open dissent is forbidden and effectively suppressed.

Availability of Alternative Sources of Information

Alternative sources of information exist and are protected by law.

Alternative sources of information are widely available but government versions are presented in preferential fashion.

The government dominates the diffusion of information, alternative sources exist only for nonpolitical issues.

There is no public alternative to official information.

Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information

Fair elections, full freedom for expression and media

Fair elections, full freedom for expression, preferential presentation of official views in the media

Fair elections, full freedom for political organization, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.

Fair elections, some political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.

Elections are marred by fraud, some political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.

No meaningful elections, only nonpolitical organizations are allowed or alternatives to the official media are very limited.

Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information

Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information

No meaningful elections, only nonpolitical organizations are allowed, some public dissent is suppressed and alternatives to the official media are very limited.

No meaningful elections, all organizations are banned, all public dissent is suppressed, there is no public alternative to official information.

No meaningful elections, all organizations are banned, all public dissent is suppressed, there is no public alternative to official information.

Evaluation

Strengths

• Identification of attributes: fairness

• Test of intercoder reliability

• Sophisticated aggregation procedure

Weaknesses

• Minimialist definition: omission of participation, offices and agenda setting

• Restricted empirical (temporal) scope

by Munck and Verkuilen