The Economist:Democracy Index
Democracy Index From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The Economist Democracy index map, with lighter colours representing more democratic countries. Countries with DI below 2 (clearly authoritarian) are black.The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and attempted to quantify this with an Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. According to Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2008 Sweden scored a total of 9.88 on a scale from zero to ten, which was the highest result, while North Korea scored the lowest with 0.86. [1] The countries are categorized into "Full Democracies", "Flawed Democracies", "Hybrid Regimes" (all considered democracies), and "Authoritarian Regimes" (considered dictatorial).
Contents [hide] 1 Methodology 2 Democracy index by regime type 3 November 2008 ranking 4 See also 5 References 6 External links
[edit] Methodology As described in the report, the democracy index is a kind of weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of The Economist or e.g. independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public opinion surveys from the respective countries. "In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps."
The questions are distributed into the five categories enumerated supra. Each answer is translated to a mark, either 0 or 1, or for the three answer alternative questions, 0.5. With the exceptions infra, seemingly, the sums are added within each category, multiplied by ten, and divided by the total number of questions within the category. There are a few modifying dependencies, which are explained much more precisely than the main rule procedures. In a few cases, an answer yielding zero for one question voids another question; e.g., if the elections for national legislation and head of government are not considered free (question 1), then the next question, "Are elections... fair?" is not considered, but automatically marked zero. Likewise, there are a few questions considered so important that a low score on them yields a penalty on the total score sum for their respective categories, namely
"Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies". The five category indices, which all are listed in the report, are then averaged to find the democracy index for a given country. Finally, the democracy index, rounded to one decimal, decides the classification of the country, as quoted:
Functioning democracies—scores of 8-10. Flawed democracies—scores of 6 to 7.9. Hybrid regimes—scores of 4 to 5.9. Authoritarian regimes—scores below 4. The report discusses other indices of democracy, as defined e.g. by Freedom House, and argues for some of the choices made by the team from The Economist. E.g., in this comparison, a higher emphasis has been put on the public opinion and attitudes, as measured by public surveys, but on the other hand, economic living standard has not been weighted as one criterion of democracy (as seemingly some other investigators have done).
There is no indication that this report has been presented or is planned to be presented in any academic context, or has been checked by or will be checked by a peer review.
[edit] Democracy index by regime type The following table constitutes the number of countries in each category according to 2008 survey.
Regime Type Countries % of countries % of world population Full democracies 30 18.0 14.4 Flawed democracies 50 29.9 35.5 Hybrid regimes 36 21.6 15.2 Authoritarian regimes 51 30.5 34.9
World population refers to the total population of the 167 countries that are covered. Since this survey excludes only the micro states, this is nearly equal to the entire actual estimated world population in 2008.
[edit] November 2008 ranking No. Location Index Category 1 Sweden 9.88 Functioning democracy 2 Norway 9.68 Functioning democracy 3 Iceland 9.65 Functioning democracy 4 Netherlands 9.53 Functioning democracy 5 Denmark 9.52 Functioning democracy 6 Finland 9.25 Functioning democracy 7 New Zealand 9.19 Functioning democracy 8 Switzerland 9.15 Functioning democracy 9 Luxembourg 9.10 Functioning democracy 10 Australia 9.09 Functioning democracy 11 Canada 9.07 Functioning democracy 12 Ireland 9.01 Functioning democracy 13 Germany 8.82 Functioning democracy 14 Austria 8.49 Functioning democracy 15 Spain 8.45 Functioning democracy 16 Malta 8.39 Functioning democracy 17 Japan 8.25 Functioning democracy 18 United States 8.22 Functioning democracy 19 Czech Republic 8.19 Functioning democracy 20 Belgium 8.16 Functioning democracy 21 United Kingdom 8.15 Functioning democracy 22 Greece 8.13 Functioning democracy 23 Uruguay 8.08 Functioning democracy 24 France 8.07 Functioning democracy 25 Portugal 8.05 Functioning democracy 26 Mauritius 8.04 Functioning democracy 27 Costa Rica 8.04 Functioning democracy 28 South Korea 8.01 Functioning democracy 29 Italy 7.98 Functioning democracy 30 Slovenia 7.96 Functioning democracy 31 South Africa 7.91 Flawed democracy 32 Chile 7.89 Flawed democracy 33 Republic of China (Taiwan) 7.82 Flawed democracy 34 Cape Verde 7.81 Flawed democracy 35 India 7.80 Flawed democracy 36 Cyprus 7.70 Flawed democracy 37 Estonia 7.68 Flawed democracy 38 Israel 7.48 Flawed democracy 39 Botswana 7.47 Flawed democracy 40 Hungary 7.44 Flawed democracy 41 Brazil 7.38 Flawed democracy 42 Lithuania 7.36 Flawed democracy 43 Panama 7.35 Flawed democracy 44 Slovakia 7.33 Flawed democracy 45 Poland 7.30 Flawed democracy 46 Latvia 7.23 Flawed democracy 47 Timor-Leste 7.22 Flawed democracy 48 Trinidad and Tobago 7.21 Flawed democracy 49 Jamaica 7.21 Flawed democracy 50 Romania 7.06 Flawed democracy 51 Croatia 7.04 Flawed democracy 52 Bulgaria 7.02 Flawed democracy 53 Ukraine 6.94 Flawed democracy 54 Thailand 6.81 Flawed democracy 55 Mexico 6.78 Flawed democracy 56 Argentina 6.63 Flawed democracy 57 Sri Lanka 6.61 Flawed democracy 58 Mongolia 6.60 Flawed democracy 59 Suriname 6.58 Flawed democracy 60 Colombia 6.54 Flawed democracy 61 Papua New Guinea 6.54 Flawed democracy 62 Moldova 6.50 Flawed democracy 63 Serbia 6.49 Flawed democracy 64 Namibia 6.48 Flawed democracy 65 Montenegro 6.43 Flawed democracy 66 Paraguay 6.40 Flawed democracy 67 El Salvador 6.40 Flawed democracy 68 Malaysia 6.36 Flawed democracy 69 Indonesia 6.34 Flawed democracy 70 Peru 6.31 Flawed democracy 71 Lesotho 6.29 Flawed democracy 72 Republic of Macedonia 6.21 Flawed democracy 73 Dominican Republic 6.20 Flawed democracy 74 Honduras 6.18 Flawed democracy 75 Bolivia 6.15 Flawed democracy 76 Guyana 6.12 Flawed democracy 77 Philippines 6.12 Flawed democracy 78 Nicaragua 6.07 Flawed democracy 79 Guatemala 6.07 Flawed democracy 80 Benin 6.06 Flawed democracy 81 Albania 5.91 Hybrid regime 82 Singapore 5.89 Hybrid regime 83 Mali 5.87 Hybrid regime 84 Hong Kong 5.85 Hybrid regime 85 Palestinian Authority 5.83 Hybrid regime 86 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.70 Hybrid regime 87 Turkey 5.69 Hybrid regime 88 Ecuador 5.64 Hybrid regime 89 Lebanon 5.62 Hybrid regime 90 Madagascar 5.57 Hybrid regime 91 Bangladesh 5.52 Hybrid regime 92 Mozambique 5.49 Hybrid regime 93 Senegal 5.37 Hybrid regime 94 Ghana 5.35 Hybrid regime 95 Venezuela 5.34 Hybrid regime 96 Tanzania 5.28 Hybrid regime 97 Zambia 5.25 Hybrid regime 98 Liberia 5.25 Hybrid regime 99 Malawi 5.13 Hybrid regime 100 Fiji 5.11 Hybrid regime 101 Uganda 5.03 Hybrid regime 102 Cambodia 4.87 Hybrid regime 103 Kenya 4.79 Hybrid regime 104 Georgia 4.62 Hybrid regime 105 Ethiopia 4.52 Hybrid regime 106 Burundi 4.51 Hybrid regime 107 Russia 4.48 Hybrid regime 108 Pakistan 4.46 Hybrid regime 109 Bhutan 4.30 Hybrid regime 110 Haiti 4.19 Hybrid regime 111 Gambia 4.19 Hybrid regime 112 Sierra Leone 4.11 Hybrid regime 113 Armenia 4.09 Hybrid regime 114 Kyrgyzstan 4.05 Hybrid regime 115 Nepal 4.05 Hybrid regime 116 Iraq 4.00 Hybrid regime 117 Jordan 3.93 Authoritarian regimes 118 Mauritania 3.91 Authoritarian regimes 119 Egypt 3.89 Authoritarian regimes 120 Morocco 3.88 Authoritarian regimes 121 Rwanda 3.71 Authoritarian regimes 122 Burkina Faso 3.60 Authoritarian regimes 123 Comoros 3.58 Authoritarian regimes 124 Nigeria 3.53 Authoritarian regimes 125 Cuba 3.52 Authoritarian regimes 126 Cameroon 3.46 Authoritarian regimes 127 Kazakhstan 3.45 Authoritarian regimes 128 Niger 3.41 Authoritarian regimes 129 Kuwait 3.39 Authoritarian regimes 130 Bahrain 3.38 Authoritarian regimes 131 Angola 3.35 Authoritarian regimes 132 Belarus 3.34 Authoritarian regimes 133 Algeria 3.32 Authoritarian regimes 134 Côte d'Ivoire 3.27 Authoritarian regimes 135 Azerbaijan 3.19 Authoritarian regimes 136 China 3.04 Authoritarian regimes 137 Swaziland 3.04 Authoritarian regimes 138 Afghanistan 3.02 Authoritarian regimes 139 Gabon 3.00 Authoritarian regimes 140 Oman 2.98 Authoritarian regimes 141 Tunisia 2.96 Authoritarian regimes 142 Yemen 2.95 Authoritarian regimes 143 Congo 2.94 Authoritarian regimes 144 Qatar 2.92 Authoritarian regimes 145 Iran 2.83 Authoritarian regimes 146 Sudan 2.81 Authoritarian regimes 147 United Arab Emirates 2.60 Authoritarian regimes 148 Zimbabwe 2.53 Authoritarian regimes 149 Vietnam 2.53 Authoritarian regimes 150 Tajikistan 2.45 Authoritarian regimes 151 Togo 2.43 Authoritarian regimes 152 Djibouti 2.37 Authoritarian regimes 153 Eritrea 2.31 Authoritarian regimes 154 Republic of the Congo 2.28 Authoritarian regimes 155 Equatorial Guinea 2.19 Authoritarian regimes 156 Syria 2.18 Authoritarian regimes 157 Laos 2.10 Authoritarian regimes 158 Guinea 2.09 Authoritarian regimes 159 Libya 2.00 Authoritarian regimes 160 Guinea-Bissau 1.99 Authoritarian regimes 161 Saudi Arabia 1.90 Authoritarian regimes 162 Central African Republic 1.86 Authoritarian regimes 163 Myanmar 1.77 Authoritarian regimes 164 Uzbekistan 1.74 Authoritarian regimes 165 Turkmenistan 1.72 Authoritarian regimes 166 Chad 1.52 Authoritarian regimes 167 North Korea 0.86 Authoritarian regimes
[edit] See also Freedom House Gini coefficient Gender-related Development Index Gender Empowerment Measure Living Planet Index Gross national happiness Happy Planet Index Physical quality-of-life index Human development (humanity) Human Development Index
References ^ http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf
External links The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy 2006 The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy 2008