Democracy indices are quantitative and comparative assessments of the state of democracy[1] for different countries according to various definitions of democracy.[2]
The democracy indices differ in whether they are categorical, such as classifying countries into democracies, hybrid regimes, and autocracies,[3][4] or continuous values.[5] The qualitative nature of democracy indices enables data analytical approaches for studying causal mechanisms of regime transformation processes.
Democracy indices vary in their scope and the weight assigned to different aspects of democracy. These aspects include the breadth and strength of core democratic institutions, the competitiveness and inclusiveness of polyarchy, freedom of expression, governance quality, adherence to democratic norms, co-option of opposition, and other related factors, such as electoral system manipulation, electoral fraud, and popular support of anti-democratic alternatives.[6][7][8]
The Economist Democracy Index, by the UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit, is an assessment of countries' democracy. Countries are rated as full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, or authoritarian regimes. The index is based on five categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture.[11]
V-Dem Democracy indices by the V-Dem Institute distinguishes between five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, and quantifies these principles.[12] The V-Dem Democracy indices include the Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index, which indicates the strength of direct democracy and the presidentialism index, which indicates higher concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.
Bertelsmann Transformation Index by the Bertelsmann Stiftung evaluates the development status and governance of political and economic transformation processes on the path to constitutional democracy and a market economy for developing and transition countries around the world. Bertelsmann Transformation Index categorizes countries into: hard-line autocracy, moderate autocracy, very defective democracy, defective democracy, and consolidating democracy.[13]
The Global State of Democracy Indices by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance assesses democratic performance using different types of sources: expert surveys, standards-based coding by research groups and analysts, observational data and composite measures.[14]
Electoral Integrity Project surveys academics on the perceived electoral integrity of countries and subnational entities
Fragile States Index, formerly the Failed States Index, is an annual report that aims to assess states' vulnerability to conflict or collapse, ranking all sovereign states with membership in the United Nations where there is enough data available for analysis.[17]
Gallagher index measures an electoral system's relative disproportionality between votes received and seats in a legislature.[18]
The Pedersen index is a measure of political volatility in party systems.
Democracy Ranking was a democracy ranking by the Association for Development and Advancement of the Democracy Award.[22]
Polity data series contains annual information on regime authority characteristics and covers the years 1800–2018 based on competitiveness, openness, and level of participation, sponsored by the Political Instability Task Force (PITF).[23]
Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy (LIED) by Skaaning et al. democracy's characteristics assessed with easy-to-observe characteristics, few evaluations by own researchers based on academic research, and evaluating whether necessary characteristics are present.[25]
Democracy is a multifaceted concept encompassing the functioning of diverse institutions, many of which are challenging to measure. As a result, limitations arise in quantifying and econometrically analyzing democracy's potential effects or its relationships with other phenomena, such as inequality, poverty, and education. etc.[29] Given the challenges of obtaining reliable data on within-country variations in aspects of democracy, much of the academic focus has been on cross-country comparisons. However, significant variations in democratic institutions can exist within individual countries, highlighting the limitations of such an approach. Another dimension of the difficulty in measuring democracy lies in the ongoing debate between minimalist and maximalist definitions of democracy. A minimalist conception of democracy defines democracy by primarily considering the essence of democracy; such as electoral procedures.[30] A maximalist definition of democracy can include outcomes, such as economic or administrative efficiency, into measures of democracy.[31] Some aspects of democracy, such as responsiveness[32] or accountability, are generally not included in democracy indices due to the difficulty measuring these aspects. Other aspects, such as judicial independence or quality of the electoral system, are included in some democracy indices but not in others.
Some measures of democracy, such as Freedom House and Polity IV, adopt a maximalist understanding of democracy by analyzing indicators that extend beyond mere electoral procedures. These measures aim to capture broader dimensions of democratic governance, reflecting a more comprehensive view of political systems.[33] These measures attempt to gauge contestation and inclusion; two features Robert Dahl argued are essential in democracies that successfully promote accountable governments.[34][35] The democratic rating given by these mainstream measures can vary greatly depending on the indicators and evidence they deploy.[36] The definition of democracy utilized by these measures is important because of the discouraging and alienating power such ratings can have, particularly when determined by indicators which are biased toward Western democracies.[37]
Dieter Fuchs and Edeltraud Roller argue that accurately measuring the quality of democracy requires complementing objective metrics with subjective measurements that reflect the perspectives and experiences of citizens.[38] Similarly, Quinton Mayne and Brigitte Geißel also defend that the quality of democracy does not depend exclusively on the performance of institutions, but also on the citizens' own dispositions and commitment.[39]
Critiques of measures of democracy
Data on democracy, and particularly global indices of democracy, and the data they rely on, have been the subject of scrutiny and criticized by various scholars. Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen for instance, have raised concerns about the methodologies used by prominent democracy indices such as Freedom House and Polity, such as the concept of democracy they measured, the design of indicators, and the aggregation rule.[40] Political scientists Andrew T. Little and Anne Meng "highlight measurement concerns regarding time-varying bias in expert-coded data" such as Freedom House and V-Dem and encourage improving expert-coding practices.[41] Knutsen et al.[42] did not see evidence for time-varying bias in their expert-coded data and note the application of item response theory, factor analysis and estimates of uncertainties to limit expert biases while discussing concerns in operationalization of observer-invariant measures of democracy.
↑ Dahl, Robert A.; Ian Shapiro; José Antônio Cheibub; and Adam Przeworski. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” Essay. In The Democracy Sourcebook, pp. 12–17. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2003.
↑ Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy is.. . and is Not." Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88
↑ Samuels, David. “Chapter 3: Democratic Political Regimes.” Essay. In Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013.
↑ Clark, William Roberts; Matt Golder; and Sona Nadenichek Golder. “Chapter 5: Economic Determinates of Democracy.” Chapter. In Foundations of Comparative Politics, pp. 351–392.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Politicsportal 
