The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy index

Freedom houseMatteo DemontisComparative Politics, Marco Giuliani07/05/2012

ConceptualizationFreedomPolitical RightsCivil Liberties

2

Rating Process

Political Rights (10 + 2 questions)

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

3

Rating Process

Civil Liberties (15 questions)

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

4

Scoring

Degree 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

5

AggregationPolitical Rights (PR)Civil Liberties (CL)Total scoresRatingTotal scoresRating36-40153-60130-35244-52224-29335-43318-23426-34412-17517-2556-1168-1660-5 *70-77

6

AggregationCombined Average of the PR and CL RatingsCountry Status1.0 to 2.5Free3.0 to 5.0Partly Free5.5 to 7.0Not Free

7

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

8

Critiques

Maximalist definition

No clear coding rule

No disaggregate data

Internal coherence

9

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 politicStates 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 recruitmentConstraints on executive authorityPolitical competition

Francesca Casarico

10

Operational indicators Democracy Autocracy

The Polity scoreComputed 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 format

State continuity and change

Polity-case format

Regime persistence and change

CritiquesToo minimal definition Inappropriate aggregation procedureConceptual logic: problem of redundancy

INDEX OF EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY(Welzel & Inglehart)Gaia Lovisolo

CREATION OF THE INDEXThey 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) democracyTo 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 developmentDemocratic institutions

They work together to broaden autonomous human choiceELEMENTS OF THE INDEX

PROCESSSocioeconomicdevelopment

Self-expression values

Democratic institutions and liberal democracy

Construction of the indexFreedom House measure of civil andpolitical rightsxWorld 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.

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

Possible critique?Direction of causality

The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy IndexComparative Positive, Marco Giuliani07/05/2012Angelica 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 : Electoral process and pluralismCivil libertiesFunctioning of governmentPolitical participationPolitical 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:Whether national elections are free and fair;The security of voters;The influence of foreign powers on government;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 regimeCountries% of countries% of world populationFull democracies2515.011.3Flawed democracies5331.737.1Hybrid regimes3722.214.0Authoritarian regimes5231.137.6

Democracy index by regime type

RankRegion20062008201020111Northern America8.648.648.638.592Western Europe8.608.618.458.403Latin america & the Caribbean6.376.436.376.354Asia & Australasia5.445.585.535.515Central & Eastern Europe5.765.675.555.506Sub-Saharan Africa4.244.284.234.327Middle East & North Africa3.533.543.433.62Total5.525.555.465.49

Democracy index average by region

CritiquesBiasTurnout 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 Examples135 countries; 4126 observations; 105 variablesEmpirical features

DICHOTOMOUS MEASUREMENT[a measure that has only two discrete categories of values] DemocracyDictatorshipThe chief executive is elected;The legislature is elected;There is more than one party competing in the election; An alternation in power under identical electoral rules has taken place;

If these dont hold

The importance of contested electionsTwo logically independent claims:Underlying PrinciplesMinimalist 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.

Vanhanens index of democracyMarija Zalimaite

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

The index covers 187 countries from 1810 to 2000

7 variablesVanhanens country numberYearCompetitionParticipationIndex of democracyState name abbreviation from the Correlates of War project (COW)COW country number

The Correlates of War project is an academic study of the history of warfare. It was started in 1963 at the University of Michigan by political scientist J. David Singer. Concerned with collecting data about the history of wars and conflict among states, the project has driven forward quantitative research into the causes of warfare. The Correlates of War project seeks to facilitate the collection, dissemination, and use of accurate and reliable quantitative data in international relations. Key principles of the project include a commitment to standard scientific principles of replication, data reliability, documentation, review, and the transparency of data collection procedures.The project has collected data on many attributes of international politics and national capabilities over time. Available data collected by the Correlates of War project start in 1816. The most widely used databases developed by the project include an identification of independent states since 1816, a list of interstate and civil wars since 1816, a list of "militarized disputes" (militarized crises that end short of war), and national capabilities measured annually for all countries since 1816 (including the size of countries' military, their energy consumption as a proxy for industrialization, population size, urbanized population, and raw material production of iron and steel). Other databases include an identification of all alliances since 1816, territorial relationships and changes over time, and membership in intergovernmental organizations. All Correlates of War databases are available free for public and academic use with proper citation.In addition to generating these several data sets and constructing quantitative indicators of key variables that might turn out to be correlates of war the project has completed and published an impressive variety of statistical analyses and interesting and promising hypotheses.[The data has also been used extensively by researchers examining such relationships and seeking to explain when countries go to war or avoid it, when they trade, when they form alliances (and the effect of such alliance), and so on.38

CompetitionThe 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

39

ParticipationThe % 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 42.75USA : Comp 51.3; Part 37.19; ID 19.08UK : Comp 56.8; Part 53.7; ID 30.15China: Comp 0; Part 0; ID 0Egypt: Comp 13.15; Part 22.48; ID 2.96Belarus: Comp 15; Part 47.97; ID 7.2

Polyarchy and Contestation scalesby Coppedge & Reinicke

437-05-2012

SPSS file

7-05-2012

44

VariablesPolyarchy scaleContestation scale

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

Because some different scale types were found, Coppedge decided to produce a more reliable scale, the Contestation scale. This scale ranges from 9 (greatest contestation) to 1 (least contestation).

457-05-2012

Guttman scale (hierarchical)467-05-2012

Heads of the government are elected, no frauds

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

No meaningful electionsFree and Fair Elections

The most important effective heads of the government are elected, and national elections take place without significant or routine fraud or coercion, or with incidents of fraud or coercion that are likely to be punished.

The most important effective heads of the government are elected, but national elections have significant fraud or coercion that goes unpunished, such as widespread voter intimidation or assassination of candidates, whether it changes the winner of the election or merely alters the margin of victory.

No meaningful elections: i.e., elections without choice of candidates or parties, or no elections at all.

477-05-2012

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

Some trade union or interest groups may be harassed or banned but there are no restrictions on purely political organization for parties that have not previously committed mass murder. Permits may be required but are not used to limit opposition activities.

Some political parties that have not committed mass murder are banned and trade unions or interest groups are harassed or banned, but membership in some alternatives to official organizations is permitted. Permits may be required and are used to limit opposition activities

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

No independent organizations are allowed. All organizations are banned or controlled by the government or the party.

487-05-2012

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.

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. The extent of control may range from selective punishment of dissidents on a limited number of issues to a situation in which only determined critics manage to make themselves heard, yet they sometimes can sway public opinion. There is some freedom of private discussion.

All open dissent is forbidden and effectively suppressed, though a few citizens may express dissent publicly in covert ways. Citizens are wary of criticizing the government even privately.

497-05-2012

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.

Alternative sources of information exist and are protected by law. If there is significant government ownership of the media, they are effectively controlled by truly independent or multi-party bodies.

Alternative sources of information are widely available but government versions are presented in preferential fashion. This may be the result of partiality in and greater availability of government-controlled media; selective closure, punishment, harassment, or censorship of dissident reporters, publishers, or broadcasters; or mild self-censorship resulting from any of these.

The government or ruling party dominates the diffusion of information to such a degree that alternative sources exist only for nonpolitical issues, for short periods of time, or for small segments of the population. The media are either mostly controlled directly by the government or party or restricted by routine prior censorship, near-certain punishment of dissident reporters, publishers, and broadcasters, or pervasive self-censorship. Foreign media or the Internet may be available to a small segment of the population without restrictions.

There is no public alternative to official information. All sources of information are official organs or completely subservient private sources. The media are considered instruments of indoctrination. Foreign publications and the Internet are usually unavailable or censored, and foreign broadcasts may be jammed.

507-05-2012

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.

9. Meaningful fair elections are held, there is full freedom for political organization and expression, and there is no preferential presentation of official views in the media.

8. Meaningful fair elections are held and there is full freedom for political organization and expression, but there is preferential presentation of official views in the media.

7. Meaningful fair elections are held and there is full freedom for political organization, but some public dissent is suppressed and there is preferential presentation of official views in the media.

517-05-2012

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

6. Meaningful fair elections are held, but some independent political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, and there is preferential presentation of official views in the media.

5. Elections are marred by fraud or coercion, some independent political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, and there is preferential presentation of official views in the media.

4. Like score 5 except that there is less contestation in one or two of the following respects: no meaningful elections are held, only nonpolitical organizations are allowed to be independent, or alternatives to the official media are very limited.

527-05-2012

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.

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

2. Like score 3 except that there is less contestation in one or two of the following respects: all organizations are banned or controlled by the government or official party, all public dissent is suppressed, or there is no public alternative to official information.

1. No meaningful elections are held, organizations are banned or controlled by the government, all public dissent is suppressed, or there is no public alternative to official information.537-05-2012

Evaluation StrengthsIdentification of attributes: fairness Test of intercoder reliabilitySophisticated aggregation procedureWeaknessesMinimialist definition: omission of participation, offices and agenda settingRestricted empirical (temporal) scopeby Munck and Verkuilen

7-05-2012

54