THE WORLD IN OO Democracy index The Economist Intellig - PDF document

THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index Table 1Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006 Category scores Overall I Electoral process II Functioning III Political IV Political V Civil Rank score and pluralism of government participation culture liberties Full democracies Sweden 1 9.88 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.38 10.00Iceland 2 9.71 10.00 9.64 8.89 10.00 10.00Netherlands 3 9.66 9.58 9.29 9.44 10.00 10.00Norway 4 9.55 10.00 9.64 10.00 8.13 10.00Denmark 5 9.52 10.00 9.64 8.89 9.38 9.71Finland 6 9.25 10.00 10.00 7.78 8.75 9.71Luxembourg 7 9.10 10.00 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71Australia 8 9.09 10.00 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00Canada 9 9.07 9.17 9.64 7.78 8.75 10.00Switzerland 10 9.02 9.58 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71Ireland 11= 9.01 9.58 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00New Zealand 11= 9.01 10.00 8.57 8.33 8.13 10.00Germany 13 8.82 9.58 8.57 7.78 8.75 9.41Austria 14 8.69 9.58 8.21 7.78 8.75 9.12Malta 15 8.39 9.17 8.21 6.11 8.75 9.71Spain 16 8.34 9.58 7.86 6.11 8.75 9.41US 17 8.22 8.75 7.86 7.22 8.75 8.53Czech Republic 18 8.17 9.58 6.79 7.22 8.13 9.12Portugal 19 8.16 9.58 8.21 6.11 7.50 9.41Belgium 20= 8.15 9.58 8.21 6.67 6.88 9.41Japan 20= 8.15 9.17 7.86 5.56 8.75 9.41Greece 22 8.13 9.58 7.50 6.67 7.50 9.41UK 23 8.08 9.58 8.57 5.00 8.13 9.12France 24 8.07 9.58 7.50 6.67 7.50 9.12Mauritius 25= 8.04 9.17 8.21 5.00 8.13 9.71Costa Rica 25= 8.04 9.58 8.21 6.11 6.88 9.41Slovenia 27= 7.96 9.58 7.86 6.67 6.88 8.82Uruguay 27= 7.96 10.00 8.21 5.00 6.88 9.71 Flawed democracies South Africa 29 7.91 8.75 7.86 7.22 6.88 8.82Chile 30 7.89 9.58 8.93 5.00 6.25 9.71South Korea 31 7.88 9.58 7.14 7.22 7.50 7.94Taiwan 32 7.82 9.58 7.50 6.67 5.63 9.71Estonia 33 7.74 9.58 7.50 5.00 7.50 9.12Italy 34 7.73 9.17 6.43 6.11 8.13 8.82India 35 7.68 9.58 8.21 5.56 5.63 9.41Botswana 36= 7.60 9.17 7.86 5.00 6.88 9.12Cyprus 36= 7.60 9.17 6.79 6.67 6.25 9.12Hungary 38 7.53 9.58 6.79 5.00 6.88 9.41Cape Verde 39= 7.43 9.17 7.86 5.00 6.88 8.24Lithuania 39= 7.43 9.58 6.43 6.67 5.63 8.82Slovakia 41 7.40 9.58 7.50 6.11 5.00 8.82Brazil 42 7.38 9.58 7.86 4.44 5.63 9.41Latvia 43 7.37 9.58 6.43 6.11 5.63 9.12Panama 44 7.35 9.58 7.14 5.56 5.63 8.82Jamaica 45 7.34 9.17 7.14 5.00 6.25 9.12Poland 46 7.30 9.58 6.07 6.11 5.63 9.12Israel 47 7.28 9.17 6.64 7.78 7.50 5.29Trinidad and Tobago 48 7.18 9.17 6.79 6.11 5.63 8.24Bulgaria 49 7.10 9.58 5.71 6.67 5.00 8.53Romania 50 7.06 9.58 6.07 6.11 5.00 8.53Croatia 51 7.04 9.17 6.07 6.11 5.63 8.24Ukraine 52 6.94 9.58 5.71 5.56 5.63 8.24Mexico 53 6.67 8.75 6.07 5.00 5.00 8.53Argentina 54 6.63 8.75 5.00 5.56 5.63 8.24Serbia 55 6.62 9.17 5.36 5.00 5.63 7.94 THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index Authoritarian regimes Pakistan 113= 3.92 4.33 5.36 0.56 4.38 5.00Jordan 113= 3.92 3.08 3.79 3.89 5.00 3.82Comoros 115= 3.90 3.00 3.21 4.44 5.63 3.24Morocco 115= 3.90 3.50 3.79 2.78 5.63 3.82Egypt 115= 3.90 2.67 3.64 2.78 6.88 3.53Rwanda 118 3.82 3.00 3.57 2.22 5.00 5.29Burkina Faso 119 3.72 4.00 1.79 2.78 5.63 4.41Kazakhstan 120 3.62 2.67 2.14 3.33 4.38 5.59Sierra Leone 121 3.57 5.25 2.21 2.22 3.75 4.41Niger 122 3.54 5.25 1.14 1.67 3.75 5.88Bahrain 123 3.53 3.50 2.57 2.78 5.00 3.82Cuba 124= 3.52 1.75 4.64 3.89 4.38 2.94Nigeria 124= 3.52 3.08 1.86 4.44 4.38 3.82Nepal 126 3.42 0.08 3.57 2.22 5.63 5.59Côte d’Ivoire 127 3.38 1.25 2.86 3.33 5.63 3.82Belarus 128 3.34 2.58 2.86 3.33 4.38 3.53Azerbaijan 129 3.31 3.08 0.79 3.33 3.75 5.59Cameroon 130 3.27 0.92 3.21 2.78 5.63 3.82Congo Brazzaville 131 3.19 1.42 2.86 2.22 5.63 3.82Algeria 132 3.17 2.25 2.21 2.22 5.63 3.53Mauritania 133 3.12 1.83 4.29 2.22 3.13 4.12Kuwait 134 3.09 1.33 4.14 1.11 5.63 3.24Afghanistan 135= 3.06 6.17 0.00 2.22 2.50 4.41Tunisia 135= 3.06 0.00 2.36 2.22 6.88 3.82Yemen 137 2.98 2.67 2.71 2.78 4.38 2.35China 138 2.97 0.00 4.64 2.78 6.25 1.18Swaziland 139= 2.93 1.75 2.86 2.22 3.13 4.71Iran 139= 2.93 0.08 3.57 3.89 5.63 1.47Sudan 141 2.90 2.25 2.36 1.67 5.00 3.24Qatar 142 2.78 0.00 3.43 1.67 5.00 3.82Oman 143 2.77 0.00 3.07 1.67 5.00 4.12Democratic Republic of Congo 144 2.76 4.58 0.36 2.78 3.75 2.35Vietnam 145 2.75 0.83 4.29 2.78 4.38 1.47Gabon 146 2.72 0.50 3.21 2.22 5.63 2.06Bhutan 147= 2.62 0.08 4.64 1.11 3.75 3.53Zimbabwe 147= 2.62 0.17 0.79 3.89 5.63 2.65Tajikistan 149 2.45 1.83 0.79 2.22 6.25 1.18UAE 150 2.42 0.00 3.07 1.11 5.00 2.94Angola 151 2.41 0.50 2.14 1.11 5.63 2.65Djibouti 152 2.37 2.50 1.43 0.56 5.00 2.35Syria 153 2.36 0.00 1.79 1.67 6.88 1.47Eritrea 154 2.31 0.00 2.14 1.11 6.25 2.06Laos 155 2.10 0.00 3.21 1.11 5.00 1.18Equatorial Guinea 156 2.09 0.00 2.86 1.11 5.00 1.47Guinea 157 2.02 1.00 0.79 2.22 3.75 2.35Guinea-Bissau 158 2.00 2.08 0.07 3.33 1.88 2.65Saudi Arabia 159 1.92 0.00 2.36 1.11 4.38 1.76Uzbekistan 160 1.85 0.08 0.79 2.78 5.00 0.59Libya 161 1.84 0.00 1.64 1.11 5.00 1.47Turkmenistan 162 1.83 0.00 0.79 2.78 5.00 0.59Myanmar 163 1.77 0.00 1.79 0.56 5.63 0.88Togo 164 1.75 0.00 0.79 0.56 5.63 1.76Chad 165 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.24Central Africa 166 1.61 0.42 1.43 1.67 1.88 2.65North Korea 167 1.03 0.83 2.50 0.56 1.25 0.00 Category scores Overall I Electoral process II Functioning III Political IV Political V Civil Rank score and pluralism of government participation culture liberties THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index oped EU, but lag signiÞ cantly in political participation and political cultureÑa reß ection of widespread anomie and weaknesses of democratic development. Only two countries from the regionÑthe Czech Republic and Slovenia (just)Ñare in the full democracy category. Hy-brid and authoritarian regimes dominate heavily in the countries of the former Soviet Union, as the momentum towards Òcolour revolutionsÓ has appeared to peter out.Most of the worldÕs authoritarian regimes are to be found in the Middle East and Africa, although there is also a fair number in Asia. The dearth of democratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa is a well-known phenomenon, with much debate about the causes. In the statistical relationship between democ-racy and income discussed above, a dummy variable for Middle East and North Africa is negative and highly signiÞ cant statistically even when oil wealth is control-led for in our 167-country sampleÑthat is, Middle East and North Africa has much lower levels of democratisa-tion than could be inferred on the basis of income levels. A similar variable for Asia is also negative, although at lower levels of statistical signiÞ cance. And there is some evidence that western EuropeÕs average democracy lev-els are higher than even its high income levels would suggest. For other regionsÑSub-Saharan Africa, eastern Europe and Latin AmericaÑaverage level of democratic development correspond to what would be expected on the basis of average income levels. Table 3 Democracy across the regions Democracy Number of Full Flawed Hybrid Authoritarian index average countries democracies democracies regimes regimesNorth America 8.64 2 2 0 0 0West Europe 8.60 21 18 2 1 0Eastern Europe 5.76 28 2 14 6 6Latin America & the Caribbean 6.37 24 2 17 4 1Asia & Australasia 5.44 28 3 12 4 9Middle East & North Africa 3.53 20 0 2 2 16Sub-Saharan Africa 4.24 44 1 7 13 23Total 5.52 167 28 54 30 55 THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index I Electoral process and pluralism1. Are elections for the national legislature and head of govern-ment free?Consider whether elections are competitive in that electors are free to vote and are offered a range of choices.1: Essentially unrestricted con-ditions for the presentation of candidates (for example, no bans on major parties) 0.5: There are some restrictions on the electoral process0: A single-party system or major impediments exist (for example, bans on a major party or candidate)2. Are elections for the national legislature and head of govern-1: No major irregularities in the voting process0.5: Significant irregularities occur (intimidation, fraud), but do not affect signifi-cantly the overall outcome0: Major irregularities occur and affect the outcomeScore 0 if score for question 1 is 3. Are municipal elections both free and fair?1: Are free and fair0.5: Are free but not fair0: Are neither free nor fair 4. Is there universal suffrage for Bar generally accepted exclusions (for example, non-nationals; criminals; members of armed forces in some countries).1: Yes0: No5. Can citizens cast their vote free of signiÞ cant threats to their security from state or non-state 1: Yes0: No6. Do laws provide for broadly equal campaigning opportuni-1: Yes0.5: Yes formally, but in practice opportunities are limited for some candidates0: No7. Is the process of financing political parties transparent and generally accepted?1: Yes0.5: Not fully transparent0: No8. Following elections, are the constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another clear, established and accepted?1: All three criteria are ful- lled0.5: Two of the three criteria are lled0: Only one or none of the cri-teria is satisÞ ed9. Are citizens free to form polit-ical parties that are independent of the government? 1. Yes0.5: There are some restrictions0: No10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?1: Yes0.5: There is a dominant two-party system in which other political forces never have any effective chance of tak-ing part in national govern-0: No11. Is potential access to public ce open to all citizens?1: Yes0.5: Formally unrestricted, but in practice restricted for some groups, or for citi-zens from some parts of the country0: No12. Are citizens free to form po-litical and civic organisations, free of state interference and surveillance?1: Yes0.5: OfÞ cially free, but subject to some restrictions or in-terference0: NoII Functioning of government13. Do freely elected representa-tives determine government 1: Yes0.5: Exercise some meaningful uence0: No14. Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear su-premacy over other branches of government?1: Yes0: No15. Is there an effective system of checks and balances on the exer-cise of government authority?1: Yes0.5: Yes, but there are some seri- aws0: No16. Government is free of undue uence by the military or the security services.1: Yes0.5: Inß uence is low, but the de-fence minister is not a civil-ian. If the current risk of a military coup is extremely low, but the country has a recent history of military rule or coups0: No17. Foreign powers do not de-termine important government functions or policies.1: Yes 0.5: Some features of a protec-torate0: No (signiÞ cant presence of foreign troops; important decisions taken by foreign power; country is a protec-torate)18. Special economic, religious or other powerful domestic groups do not exercise signiÞ cant politi-cal power, parallel to democratic 1: Yes0.5: Exercise some meaningful uence0: No19. Are sufficient mechanisms and institutions in place for as-suring government accountabil-ity to the electorate in between 1: Yes0.5. Yes, but serious ß aws exist0: No20. Does the governmentÕs au-thority extend over the full ter-ritory of the country?1: Yes0: No21. Is the functioning of govern-ment open and transparent, with cient public access to infor-1: Yes0.5: Yes, but serious ß aws exist0: No22. How pervasive is corrup-tion?1: Corruption is not a major problem0.5: Corruption is a signiÞ cant 0: Pervasive corruption exists23. Is the civil service willing and capable of implementing gov-ernment policy?1: Yes0.5. Yes, but serious ß aws exist0: No24. Popular perceptions of the extent to which they have free choice and control over their lives1: High0.5: Moderate0: LowIf available, from World Values Survey% of people who think that they have a great deal of choice/con-trol1 if more than 70%0.5 if 50-70%0 if less than 50%25. Public conÞ dence in govern-1: High0.5: Moderate0: LowIf available, from World Values Survey% of people who have a Ògreat dealÓ or Òquite a lotÓ of conÞdence in government1 if more than 40%0.5 if 25-40%0 if less than 25% THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index 40. Perception of democracy and public order; proportion of the population that believes that de-mocracies are not good at main-taining public order.1: Low0.5: Moderate0: HighIf available, from World Values Survey% of people who disagree with the view that democracies are not good at maintaining order1 if more than 70%0.5 if 50% to 70%0 if less than 50%41. Perception of democracy and the economic system; pro-portion of the population that believes that democracy beneÞ ts economic performance.If available, from World Values Survey% of people who disagree with the view that the economic sys-tem runs badly in democracies1 if more than 80%0.5 if 60% to 80%0 if less than 60%42. Degree of popular support for democracy.1: High0.5: Moderate0: LowIf available, from World Values Survey% of people who agree or strongly agree that democracy is better than any other form of government1 if more than 90%0.5 if 75% to 90%0 if less than 75%43. There is a strong tradition of the separation of church and state.1: Yes0.5: Some residual inß uence of church on state0: NoV Civil liberties44. Is there a free electronic 1: Yes0.5: Pluralistic, but state-con-trolled media are heavily favoured. One or two pri-vate owners dominate the 0: No45. Is there a free print media?1: Yes0.5: Pluralistic, but state-con-trolled media are heavily favoured. There is high degree of concentration of private ownership of na-0: No46. Is there freedom of expres-sion and protest (bar only gener-ally accepted restrictions such as banning advocacy of violence)?1: Yes0.5: Minority viewpoints are subject to some ofÞ cial har-assment. Libel laws restrict heavily scope for free ex-pression0: No47. Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reason-able diversity of opinions?1: Yes0.5: There is formal freedom, but high degree of con-formity of opinion, includ-ing through self-censorship, or discouragement of mi-nority or marginal views0: No48. Are there political restric-tions on access to the internet?1: No0.5: Some moderate restric-tions0: Yes49. Are citizens free to form pro-fessional organisations and trade 1: Yes0.5: OfÞ cially free, but subject to some restrictions0: No50. Do institutions provide citi-zens with the opportunity to successfully petition government to redress grievances? 1: Yes0.5: Some opportunities0: No51. The use of torture by the state1: Torture is not used0: Torture is used52. The degree to which the judi-ciary is independent of govern- uence.Consider the views of interna-tional legal and judicial watch-dogs. Have the courts ever issued an important judgment against the government, or a senior gov-ernment ofÞ cial?1: High0.5: Moderate0: Low53. The degree of religious tol-erance and freedom of religious expression.Are all religions permitted to operate freely, or are some re-stricted? Is the right to worship permitted both publicly and pri-vately? Do some religious groups feel intimidated by others, even if the law requires equality and protection?1: High0.5: Moderate0: Low54. The degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law.Consider whether favoured members of groups are spared prosecution under the law.1: High0.5: Moderate0: Low55. Do citizens enjoy basic secu-rity?1: Yes0.5: Crime is so pervasive as to endanger security for large segments0: No56. Extent to which private prop-erty rights protected and private business is free from undue gov-ernment inß uence.1: High0.5: Moderate0: Low57. Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms.Consider gender equality, right to travel, choice of work and study.1: High0.5: Moderate0: Low58. Popular perceptions on human rights protection; pro-portion of the population that think that basic human rights are well-protected.1: High0.5: Moderate0: LowIf available, from World Values Survey% of people who think that human rights are respected in their country1 if more than 70%0.5 if 50% to 70%0 if less than 50%59. There is no signiÞ cant dis-crimination on the basis of peo-pleÕs race, colour or creed.1: Yes0.5: Yes, but some signiÞ cant ex-ceptions0: No60. Extent to which the gov-ernment invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties.1: Low0.5: Moderate0: HighReferencesAcemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson, and Pierre Yared (2005), ÒIncome and democracyÓ, NBER Working Paper No. 11205, March.Coppedge, Michael (2005), ÒDeÞ n-ing and measuring democracyÓ, Working paper, International Politi-cal Science Association, April.Dahl, Robert A(1970), ÒPolyarchyÓ, New Haven, Yale University Press.Freedom House, various, www.freedomhouse.org.Horowitz, Irving Louis (2006) ÒThe struggle for democracyÓ, National Interest, spring.Rigobon, Roberto and Dani Rodrik (2005), ÒRule of law, democracy, openness, and income: estimating the interrelationshipsÓ, Economics of Transition, Volume 13 (3).