The Polity data series is a data series in political science research. [1] [2] [3] Along with the V-Dem Democracy indices project and Democracy Index (The Economist), Polity is among prominent datasets that measure democracy and autocracy. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
The Polity study was initiated in the late 1960s by Ted Robert Gurr and is now continued by Monty G. Marshall, one of Gurr's students. It was sponsored by the Political Instability Task Force (PITF) until February 2020. [9] The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. [10]
The data series has been criticized for its methodology, Americentrism, and connections to the CIA. Seva Gunitsky, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, stated that the data series was appropriate "for research that examines constraints on governing elites, but not for studying the expansion of suffrage over the nineteenth century".
Polity score range | 10 | 6 to 9 | 1 to 5 | -5 to 0 | -10 to -6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regime type | Full Democracy | Democracy | Open Anocracy | Closed Anocracy | Autocracy |
Country | Democracy score | Autocracy score | Polity IV score [11] [12] | Polity IV regime type |
---|---|---|---|---|
Afghanistan | 1 | 2 | -1 | Closed Anocracy |
Albania | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Algeria | 3 | 1 | 2 | Open Anocracy |
Angola | 2 | 4 | -2 | Closed Anocracy |
Argentina | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Armenia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Australia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Austria | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Azerbaijan | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Bahrain | 0 | 10 | -10 | Autocracy |
Bangladesh | 0 | 6 | -6 | Autocracy |
Belarus | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Belgium | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Benin | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Bhutan | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Bolivia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Botswana | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Brazil | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Bulgaria | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Burkina Faso | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Burundi | 2 | 3 | -1 | Closed Anocracy |
Cambodia | 0 | 4 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Cameroon | 1 | 5 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Canada | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Cape Verde | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Central African Republic | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Chad | 1 | 3 | -2 | Closed Anocracy |
Chile | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
China | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Colombia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Comoros | 0 | 3 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Congo Brazzaville | 0 | 4 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Congo Kinshasa | 1 | 4 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Costa Rica | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Croatia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Cuba | 1 | 6 | -5 | Closed Anocracy |
Cyprus | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Czech Republic | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Denmark | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Djibouti | 3 | 0 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
Dominican Republic | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
East Timor | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
Ecuador | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Egypt | 0 | 4 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
El Salvador | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Equatorial Guinea | 0 | 6 | -6 | Autocracy |
Eritrea | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Estonia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Ethiopia | 3 | 2 | 1 | Open Anocracy |
Fiji | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Finland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
France | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Gabon | 4 | 1 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
Gambia | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Georgia | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
Germany | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Ghana | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Greece | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Guatemala | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
Guinea | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Guinea-Bissau | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Guyana | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
Haiti | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Honduras | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Hungary | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
India | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Indonesia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Iran | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Iraq | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Ireland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Israel | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Italy | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Ivory Coast | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Jamaica | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Japan | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Jordan | 2 | 5 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Kazakhstan | 0 | 6 | -6 | Autocracy |
Kenya | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Kosovo | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Kuwait | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Kyrgyzstan | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Laos | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Latvia | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Lebanon | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Lesotho | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
Liberia | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
Lithuania | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Luxembourg | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Republic of Macedonia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Madagascar | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Malawi | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Malaysia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Mali | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Mauritania | 0 | 2 | -2 | Closed Anocracy |
Mauritius | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Mexico | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Moldova | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Mongolia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Montenegro | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Morocco | 1 | 5 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Mozambique | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Myanmar | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Namibia | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Nepal | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
Netherlands | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
New Zealand | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Nicaragua | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Niger | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Nigeria | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
North Korea | 0 | 10 | -10 | Autocracy |
Norway | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Oman | 0 | 8 | -8 | Autocracy |
Pakistan | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Panama | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Papua New Guinea | 5 | 0 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Paraguay | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Peru | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Philippines | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Poland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Portugal | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Qatar | 0 | 10 | -10 | Autocracy |
Romania | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
Russia | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Rwanda | 0 | 3 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Saudi Arabia | 0 | 10 | -10 | Autocracy |
Senegal | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Serbia | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
Sierra Leone | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
Singapore | 2 | 4 | -2 | Closed Anocracy |
Slovak Republic | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Slovenia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Solomon Islands | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
Somalia | 5 | 0 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
South Africa | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
South Korea | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Spain | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Sri Lanka | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
Sudan | 0 | 4 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Suriname | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
Swaziland | 0 | 9 | -9 | Autocracy |
Sweden | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Switzerland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Syria | 0 | 9 | -9 | Autocracy |
Taiwan | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Tajikistan | 1 | 4 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Tanzania | 4 | 1 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
Thailand | 0 | 3 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Togo | 1 | 3 | -2 | Closed Anocracy |
Trinidad and Tobago | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Tunisia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
Turkey | 0 | 4 | -4 | Closed Anocracy |
Turkmenistan | 0 | 8 | -8 | Autocracy |
Uganda | 1 | 2 | -1 | Closed Anocracy |
Ukraine | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
United Arab Emirates | 0 | 8 | -8 | Autocracy |
United Kingdom | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
United States | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
Uruguay | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
Uzbekistan | 0 | 9 | -9 | Autocracy |
Venezuela | 1 | 4 | -3 | Closed Anocracy |
Vietnam | 0 | 7 | -7 | Autocracy |
Zambia | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
Zimbabwe | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
The 2002 paper "Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy" claimed several problems with commonly used democracy rankings, including Polity, opining that the criteria used to determine "democracy" were misleadingly narrow. [13]
The Polity data series has been criticized by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting for its methodology and determination of what is and isn't a democracy. FAIR has criticized the data series for Americentrism with the United States being shown as the only democracy in the world in 1842, being given a nine out of ten during slavery, and a ten out of ten during the Jim Crow era. The organization has also been critical of the data series for ignoring European colonialism in Africa and Asia with those areas being labeled as no data before the 1960s. FAIR has also been critical of the data series' connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. Max Roser, the founder of Our World in Data, stated that Polity IV was far from perfect and was concerned at the data series' connections with the Central Intelligence Agency. [14]
Seva Gunitsky, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, wrote in The Washington Post where he stated that "Polity IV measures might be appropriate for research that examines constraints on governing elites, but not for studying the expansion of suffrage over the nineteenth century". Gunitsky was critical of the data series for ignoring suffrage. [15]
In political science, a revolution is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's class, state, ethnic or religious structures. According to sociologist Jack Goldstone, all revolutions contain "a common set of elements at their core: (a) efforts to change the political regime that draw on a competing vision of a just order, (b) a notable degree of informal or formal mass mobilization, and (c) efforts to force change through noninstitutionalized actions such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence."
Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. It includes some forms of monarchy and all forms of dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and feudalism. Various definitions of autocracy exist. They may restrict autocracy to cases where power is held by a single individual, or they may define autocracy in a way that includes 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, that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. Autocratic regimes can be further divided into types such as dictatorial, totalitarian, absolutist, monarchic, and oligarchic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers and formal or informal institutions.
Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.
A free and fair election is defined as an election in which "coercion is comparatively uncommon". This definition was popularized by political scientist Robert Dahl. 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, a lack of electoral fraud or voter suppression, 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.
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.
A democratic transition describes a phase in a country's 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.
Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas. Anocratic regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition. Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.
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.
Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change toward autocracy in which the exercise of political power becomes more arbitrary and repressive. The process typically restricts the space for public contest 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.
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.
Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy is a 2017 non-fiction book by Daniel Ziblatt, published by Cambridge University Press, discussing the growth of democratic countries in 19th and 20th century Europe. Ziblatt's thesis is that in those democracies the conservative parties were often crucial on whether a democracy survives: he analysed both Germany and the United Kingdom. Ziblatt argued that if conservative parties were robust they would assist democracy but if they had weaknesses they would impede democracy.
Andranik Semovich Tangian (Melik-Tangyan) ; born March 29, 1952) is a Soviet Armenian-German mathematician, political economist and music theorist. He is professor of the Institute for Economics (ECON) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
David Stasavage is an American political scientist known for his work on democracy and political economy. He is the Dean for the Social Sciences and the Julius Silver Professor at New York University's Department of Politics and an affiliated professor in NYU's School of Law. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2015.
The Democracy Indices by V-Dem are democracy indices published by the V-Dem Institute that describe qualities of different democracies. It is published annually. In particular, the V-Dem dataset is popular among political scientists and describes the characteristics of political regimes. 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.
Democracy indices are quantitative and comparative assessments of the state of democracy for different countries according to various definitions of democracy.
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. The V-Dem Democracy Report identified for the year 2023 East Timor as a case of stand-alone democratization and Thailand and Maldives as cases of U-Turn Democratization.
The Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean can be compared according to the different definitions of democracy. The V-Dem Democracy indices considers the Latin American and Caribbean countries with the highest democracy scores in 2023 as Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Jamaica and countries with lowest democracy scores as Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Democratic backsliding can be observed in parts of Latin America and the Caribbean. Democratization is reported by V-Dem Democracy Report 2024 in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Honduras and Bolivia.