Democracy indices

Last updated

Democracy indices are quantitative and comparative assessments of the state of democracy [1] for different countries according to various definitions of democracy. [2]

Contents

The democracies 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 differ in scope and weighting of different aspects of democracy, including the breadth of core democratic institutions, competitiveness and inclusiveness of polyarchy, freedom of expression, various aspects of governance, democratic norm transgressions, co-option of opposition, electoral system manipulation, electoral fraud, and popular support of anti-democratic alternatives. [6] [7] [8]

Prominent democracy indices

Operating

Indices measuring aspects of democracy

Other measured aspects of democracy include voter turnout, efficiency gap, wasted vote, and political efficacy. [18] [19]

Historical

Maps of indices

Difficulties in measuring democracy

Because democracy is an overarching concept that includes the functioning of diverse institutions which are not easy to measure, limitations exist in quantifying and econometrically measuring the potential effects of democracy or its relationship with other phenomena—whether inequality, poverty, education etc. [28] Given the constraints in acquiring reliable data with within-country variations on aspects of democracy, academics have largely studied cross-country variations, yet variations in democratic institutions can be large within countries. Another way of conceiving the difficulties in measuring democracy is through the debate between minimalist versus maximalist definitions of democracy. A minimalist conception of democracy defines democracy by primarily considering the essence of democracy; such as electoral procedures. [29] A maximalist definition of democracy can include outcomes, such as economic or administrative efficiency, into measures of democracy. [30] Some aspects of democracy, such as responsiveness [31] 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, notably Freedom House and Polity IV, deploy a maximalist understanding of democracy by analyzing indicators that go beyond electoral procedure. [32] These measures attempt to gauge contestation and inclusion; two features Robert Dahl argued are essential in democracies that successfully promote accountable governments. [33] [34] The democratic rating given by these mainstream measures can vary greatly depending on the indicators and evidence they deploy. [35] 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. [36]

Dieter Fuchs and Edeltraud Roller suggest that, in order to truly measure the quality of democracy, objective measurements need to be complemented by "subjective measurements based on the perspective of citizens". [37] 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. [38]

Critiques of measures of democracy

Data on democracy, and particularly global indices of democracy, have been scrutinized and criticized by various scholars. Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen questioned various aspects of the data produced by Freedom House and Polity, such as the concept of democracy they measured, the design of indicators, and the aggregation rule. [39] 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. [40] Knutsen et al. [41] didn't 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.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy</span> Form of government

Democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state. Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.

Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. It includes most forms of monarchy and dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and feudalism. Various definitions of autocracy exist. They may restrict autocracy to a single individual, or they may also apply autocracy to a group of rulers who wield absolute power. The autocrat has total control over the exercise of civil liberties within the autocracy, choosing under what circumstances they may be exercised, if at all. Governments may also blend elements of autocracy and democracy, forming an anocracy. The concept of autocracy has been recognized in political philosophy since ancient times.

In politics, a regime is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc., that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes that appear in most literature are democratic and autocratic. However, autocratic regimes can be broken down into a subset of many different types. The key similarity between all regimes are the presence of rulers, and either formal or informal institutions.

In political science, a political system means the type of political organization that can be recognized, observed or otherwise declared by a state.

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures". There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polity data series</span> Political science project ranking states by democraticity

The Polity data series is a data series in political science research. Along with the V-Dem Democracy indices project and Democracy Index, Polity is among prominent datasets that measure democracy and autocracy.

A free and fair election is defined by political scientist Robert Dahl as an election in which "coercion is comparatively uncommon". A free and fair election involves political freedoms and fair processes leading up to the vote, a fair count of eligible voters who cast a ballot, and acceptance of election results by all parties. An election may partially meet international standards for free and fair elections, or may meet some standards but not others.

<i>Freedom in the World</i> Annual survey by Freedom House

Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based non-governmental organization Freedom House that measures the degree of civil liberties and political rights in every nation and significant related and disputed territories around the world.

<i>The Economist Democracy Index</i> Measure of the state of democracy by The Economist

The Democracy Index published by the Economist Group is an index measuring the quality of democracy across the world. This quantitative and comparative assessment is centrally concerned with democratic rights and democratic institutions. The methodology for assessing democracy used in this democracy index is according to Economist Intelligence Unit which is part of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company, which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories, measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes each country into one of four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. The first Democracy Index report was published in 2006. Reports were published every two years until 2010 and annually thereafter. The index includes 167 countries and territories, of which 166 are sovereign states and 164 are UN member states. Other democracy indices with similar assessments of the state of democracy include V-Dem Democracy indices or Bertelsmann Transformation Index.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic transition</span> Specific phase in a political system

A democratic transition describes a phase in a countries political system as a result of an ongoing change from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. The process is known as democratisation, political changes moving in a democratic direction. Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms. Although transitional regimes experience more civil unrest, they may be considered stable in a transitional phase for decades at a time. Since the end of the Cold War transitional regimes have become the most common form of government. Scholarly analysis of the decorative nature of democratic institutions concludes that the opposite democratic backsliding (autocratization), a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of modern hybrid regimes.

A hybrid regime is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states. Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic backsliding</span> A country becoming less democratic

Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.

<i>Freedom in the World</i> by region

Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based non-governmental organization Freedom House that measures the degree of civil liberties and political rights in every nation and significant related and disputed territories around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy in Africa</span> Overview of the role and situation of democracy in Africa

Democracy in Africa is measured according to various definitions of democracy by a variety of indexes, such as V-Dem Democracy indices, and Democracy Index by The Economist.

The V-Dem Institute, founded by Staffan I. Lindberg in 2014, studies the qualities of government. The headquarters of the project is based at the department of political science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bertelsmann Transformation Index</span> Benchmark for democracy and market economy

The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) is a measure of the development status and governance of political and economic transformation processes in developing and transition countries around the world. The BTI has been published biennially by the Bertelsmann Stiftung since 2005, most recently in 2022 on 137 countries. The index measures and compares the quality of government action in a ranking list based on self-recorded data and analyzes successes and setbacks on the path to constitutional democracy and a market economy accompanied by sociopolitical support. For this purpose, the "Status Index" is calculated on the general level of development with regard to democratic and market-economy characteristics and the "Management Index" on the political management of decision-makers.

Electoral autocracy is a hybrid regime, in which democratic institutions are imitative and adhere to authoritarian methods. In these regimes, regular elections are held, but they are accused of failing to reach democratic standards of freedom and fairness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">V-Dem Democracy Indices</span> Measure of the state of democracy by V-Dem Institute

The Democracy Indices by V-Dem are democracy indices published by the V-Dem Institute that describe qualities of different democracies. This dataset is published on an annual basis and is publicly available and free. In particular, the V-Dem dataset is popular among political scientists and describes the characteristics of political regimes worldwide. In total, datasets released by the V-Dem Institute include information on hundreds of indicator variables describing all aspects of government, especially on the quality of democracy, inclusivity, and other economic indicators. An R package automatically bundles new data.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democracy in Asia</span> Overview of democracy in Asia

Democracy in Asia can be comparatively assessed according to various definitions of democracy. According to the V-Dem Democracy indices, the Asian countries with the highest democracy scores in 2023 are Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Israel, meanwhile the Asian countries with lowest democracy scores in 2023 are Saudi Arabia, China and Afghanistan. Democratic backsliding can be observed in parts of Asia.

References

  1. Geissel, Brigitte; Kneuer, Marianne; Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2016). "Measuring the quality of democracy: Introduction". International Political Science Review. Sage Publications. 37 (5): 571–579. doi:10.1177/0192512116669141. ISSN   0192-5121. JSTOR   26556872. S2CID   151808737 . Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  2. Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  3. Dobratz, B.A. (2015). Power, Politics, and Society: An Introduction to Political Sociology. Taylor & Francis. p. 47. ISBN   978-1-317-34529-9 . Retrieved Apr 30, 2023.
  4. Michie, J. (2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Taylor & Francis. pp. 95–97. ISBN   978-1-135-93226-8 . Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  5. "Democracy data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. Jun 17, 2022. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.
  6. "The 'Varieties of Democracy' data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. 2022-11-30. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  7. "Breaking Down Democracy". Freedom House. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  8. Democracy and Autocracy, Why do Democracies Develop and Decline, Vol. 21(1) June 2023, Democracy and Autocracy Section, American Political Science Association
  9. "Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge". Economist Intelligence Unit .
  10. "Democracy Report 2022: Autocratization Changing Nature?" (PDF), V-Dem Institute , University of Gothenburg
  11. "Governance Report". BTI 2022. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.
  12. "The Global State of Democracy Indices". International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved May 26, 2023.
  13. William Ide (11 January 2000). "Freedom House Report: Asia Sees Some Significant Progress". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  14. "Freedom in the World". Freedom House. 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
  15. Laakso, Markku; Taagepera, Rein (1979). ""Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe". Comparative Political Studies. 12 (1): 3–27. doi:10.1177/001041407901200101. ISSN   0010-4140. S2CID   143250203.
  16. "Failed States FAQ". the Fund for Peace. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  17. "The Gallagher Index – iscanadafair.ca". iscanadafair.ca. Retrieved Apr 3, 2023.
  18. Karp, Jeffrey A.; Banducci, Susan A. (2008). "Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour". British Journal of Political Science. Cambridge University Press. 38 (2): 311–334. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000161. hdl: 10036/64393 . ISSN   0007-1234. JSTOR   27568347. S2CID   55486399 . Retrieved 2023-06-16.
  19. "Internal and external political efficacy - Government at a Glance 2021". OECD iLibrary. Retrieved 2023-06-16.
  20. "Democracy-Dictatorship_Index". Kaggle. Jul 17, 2020. Retrieved Apr 3, 2023.
  21. "Home". Democracy Ranking (in German). Feb 12, 2017. Retrieved Apr 3, 2023.
  22. "Polity IV Project". Table footnote. Archived from the original on 4 May 2020. Retrieved 11 Jan 2020.
  23. "Boix-Miller-Rosato dichotomous coding of democracy, 1800-2020, version 4.0 - bmr". xmarquez.github.io. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.
  24. Skaaning, Svend-Erik; Gerring, John; Bartusevičius, Henrikas (Apr 26, 2015). "A Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy" (PDF). Comparative Political Studies. SAGE Publications. 48 (12): 1491–1525. doi:10.1177/0010414015581050. ISSN   0010-4140. S2CID   16062427.
  25. Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
  26. "Global Dashboard". BTI 2022. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.
  27. Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (April 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice . 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. JSTOR   40661005. S2CID   45234838.
  28. Krauss, Alexander (January 2, 2016). "The scientific limits of understanding the (potential) relationship between complex social phenomena: the case of democracy and inequality". Journal of Economic Methodology. 23 (1): 97–109. doi:10.1080/1350178X.2015.1069372. S2CID   51782149 via CrossRef.
  29. Dahl, Robert A., Ian Shapiro, José Antônio Cheibub, and Adam Przeworski. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” Essay. In The Democracy Sourcebook, 12–17. Cambridge, MA, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
  30. Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy is.. . and is Not." Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75-88
  31. Esaiasson, Peter, and Christopher Wlezien. "Advances in the study of democratic responsiveness: An introduction." Comparative political studies 50.6 (2017): 699-710.
  32. Coppedge, Michael, Angel Alvarez, and Claudia Maldonado. 2008. "Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness." The Journal of Politics70 (3): 632-647.
  33. Samuels, David. “Chapter 3: Democratic Political Regimes.” Essay. In Comparative Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2013.
  34. Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona Nadenichek Golder. “Chapter 5: Economic Determinates of Democracy.” Chapter. In Foundations of Comparative Politics, 351–92.
  35. Högström, John. “Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV.” Government and Opposition 48, no. 2 (2013): 201–21. doi:10.1017/gov.2012.10.
  36. Piironen, Ossi. 2005. "Minimalist Democracy without Substance? an Evaluation of the Mainstream Measures of Democracy." Politiikka 47 (3): 189-204.
  37. Fuchs, Dieter; Roller, Edeltraud (2018). "Conceptualizing and Measuring the Quality of Democracy: The Citizens' Perspective". Politics and Governance. 6 (1): 22. doi: 10.17645/pag.v6i1.1188 .
  38. Mayne, Quinton; Geißel, Brigitte (2018). "Don't Good Democracies Need "Good" Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality". Politics and Governance. 6 (1): 33. doi: 10.17645/pag.v6i1.1216 .
  39. Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,” Comparative Political Studies 35, 1 (2002): 5-34. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.3177&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  40. Little, Andrew T.; Meng, Anne (2024-01-11). "Measuring Democratic Backsliding". PS: Political Science & Politics: 1–13. doi: 10.1017/S104909652300063X . ISSN   1049-0965.
  41. Knutsen, Carl Henrik; Marquardt, Kyle L.; Seim, Brigitte; Coppedge, Michael; Edgell, Amanda B.; Medzihorsky, Juraj; Pemstein, Daniel; Teorell, Jan; Gerring, John; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2024-01-11). "Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding". PS: Political Science & Politics: 1–16. doi: 10.1017/S104909652300077X . ISSN   1049-0965.

Further reading