Democracy Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9.88 on a scale from zero to ten, which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. ^[1][2] "Full Democracies", "Flawed Democracies", and "Hybrid Regimes" are considered to be democracies and "Authoritarian Regimes" are considered to be dictatorial.

[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

1. "Whether national elections are free and fair";
2. "The security of voters";
3. "The influence of foreign powers on government";
4. "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:

1. Functioning democracies—scores of 8-10.
2. Flawed democracies—scores of 6 to 7.9.
3. Hybrid regimes—scores of 4 to 5.9.
4. 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] November 2006 ranking

№	Country	Index	Category
1	Sweden	9.88	Functioning democracy
2	Iceland	9.71	Functioning democracy
3	Netherlands	9.66	Functioning democracy
4	Norway	9.55	Functioning democracy
5	Denmark	9.52	Functioning democracy
6	Finland	9.25	Functioning democracy
7	Luxembourg	9.10	Functioning democracy
8	Australia	9.09	Functioning democracy
9	Canada	9.07	Functioning democracy
10	Switzerland	9.02	Functioning democracy
11	Ireland	9.01	Functioning democracy
11	New Zealand	9.01	Functioning democracy
13	Germany	8.82	Functioning democracy
14	Austria	8.69	Functioning democracy
15	Malta	8.39	Functioning democracy
16	Spain	8.34	Functioning democracy
17	United States	8.22	Functioning democracy
18	Czech Republic	8.17	Functioning democracy
19	Portugal	8.16	Functioning democracy
20	Belgium	8.15	Functioning democracy
20	Japan	8.15	Functioning democracy
22	Greece	8.13	Functioning democracy
23	United Kingdom	8.08	Functioning democracy
24	France	8.07	Functioning democracy
25	Mauritius	8.04	Functioning democracy
25	Costa Rica	8.04	Functioning democracy
27	Slovenia	7.96	Flawed democracy
28	Uruguay	7.96	Flawed democracy
29	Republic of China (Taiwan)	7.92	Flawed democracy
30	South Africa	7.91	Flawed democracy
31	Chile	7.89	Flawed democracy
32	South Korea	7.88	Flawed democracy
33	Estonia	7.74	Flawed democracy
34	Italy	7.73	Flawed democracy
35	India	7.68	Flawed democracy
36	Botswana	7.60	Flawed democracy
36	Cyprus	7.60	Flawed democracy
38	Hungary	7.53	Flawed democracy
39	Cape Verde	7.43	Flawed democracy
39	Lithuania	7.43	Flawed democracy
41	Slovakia	7.40	Flawed democracy
42	Brazil	7.38	Flawed democracy
43	Latvia	7.37	Flawed democracy
44	Panama	7.35	Flawed democracy
45	Jamaica	7.34	Flawed democracy
46	Poland	7.30	Flawed democracy
47	Israel	7.28	Flawed democracy
48	Trinidad and Tobago	7.18	Flawed democracy
49	Bulgaria	7.10	Flawed democracy
50	Romania	7.06	Flawed democracy
51	Croatia	7.04	Flawed democracy
52	Ukraine	6.94	Flawed democracy
53	Mexico	6.67	Flawed democracy
54	Argentina	6.63	Flawed democracy
55	Serbia	6.62	Flawed democracy
56	Mongolia	6.60	Flawed democracy
57	Sri Lanka	6.58	Flawed democracy
58	Montenegro	6.57	Flawed democracy
59	Namibia	6.54	Flawed democracy
59	Papua New Guinea	6.54	Flawed democracy
61	Suriname	6.52	Flawed democracy
62	Moldova	6.50	Flawed democracy
63	Lesotho	6.48	Flawed democracy
63	Philippines	6.48	Flawed democracy
65	Indonesia	6.41	Flawed democracy
65	Timor-Leste	6.41	Flawed democracy
67	Colombia	6.40	Flawed democracy
68	Republic of Macedonia	6.33	Flawed democracy
69	Honduras	6.25	Flawed democracy
70	El Salvador	6.22	Flawed democracy
71	Paraguay	6.16	Flawed democracy
71	Benin	6.16	Flawed democracy
73	Guyana	6.15	Flawed democracy
74	Dominican Republic	6.13	Flawed democracy
75	Bangladesh	6.11	Flawed democracy
76	Peru	6.11	Flawed democracy
77	Guatemala	6.07	Flawed democracy
78	Hong Kong	6.03	Flawed democracy
79	Palestinian Authority	6.01	Flawed democracy
80	Mali	5.99	Flawed democracy
81	Malaysia	5.98	Flawed democracy
81	Bolivia	5.98	Flawed democracy
83	Albania	5.91	Hybrid regime
84	Singapore	5.89	Hybrid regime
85	Madagascar	5.82	Hybrid regime
85	Lebanon	5.82	Hybrid regime
87	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5.78	Hybrid regime
88	Turkey	5.70	Hybrid regime
89	Nicaragua	5.68	Hybrid regime
90	Thailand	5.67	Hybrid regime
91	Fiji	5.66	Hybrid regime
92	Ecuador	5.64	Hybrid regime
93	Venezuela	5.42	Hybrid regime
94	Senegal	5.37	Hybrid regime
95	Ghana	5.35	Hybrid regime
96	Mozambique	5.28	Hybrid regime
97	Zambia	5.25	Hybrid regime
98	Liberia	5.22	Hybrid regime
99	Tanzania	5.18	Hybrid regime
100	Uganda	5.14	Hybrid regime
101	Kenya	5.08	Hybrid regime
102	Russia	5.02	Hybrid regime
103	Malawi	4.97	Hybrid regime
104	Georgia	4.90	Hybrid regime
105	Cambodia	4.77	Hybrid regime
106	Ethiopia	4.72	Hybrid regime
107	Burundi	4.51	Hybrid regime
108	Gambia	4.39	Hybrid regime
109	Haiti	4.19	Hybrid regime
110	Armenia	4.15	Hybrid regime
111	Kyrgyzstan	4.08	Hybrid regime
112	Iraq	4.01	Hybrid regime
113	Pakistan	3.92	Authoritarian regime
113	Jordan	3.92	Authoritarian regime
115	Comoros	3.90	Authoritarian regime
115	Morocco	3.90	Authoritarian regime
115	Egypt	3.90	Authoritarian regime
118	Rwanda	3.82	Authoritarian regime
119	Burkina Faso	3.72	Authoritarian regime
120	Kazakhstan	3.62	Authoritarian regime
121	Sierra Leone	3.57	Authoritarian regime
122	Niger	3.54	Authoritarian regime
123	Bahrain	3.53	Authoritarian regime
124	Cuba	3.52	Authoritarian regime
124	Nigeria	3.52	Authoritarian regime
126	Nepal	3.42	Authoritarian regime
127	Côte d'Ivoire	3.38	Authoritarian regime
128	Belarus	3.34	Authoritarian regime
129	Azerbaijan	3.31	Authoritarian regime
130	Cameroon	3.27	Authoritarian regime
131	Congo	3.19	Authoritarian regime
132	Algeria	3.17	Authoritarian regime
133	Mauritania	3.12	Authoritarian regime
134	Kuwait	3.09	Authoritarian regime
135	Afghanistan	3.06	Authoritarian regime
135	Tunisia	3.06	Authoritarian regime
137	Yemen	2.98	Authoritarian regime
138	People's Republic of China	2.97	Authoritarian regime
139	Swaziland	2.93	Authoritarian regime
139	Iran	2.93	Authoritarian regime
141	Sudan	2.90	Authoritarian regime
142	Qatar	2.78	Authoritarian regime
143	Oman	2.77	Authoritarian regime
144	Democratic Republic of the Congo	2.76	Authoritarian regime
145	Vietnam	2.75	Authoritarian regime
146	Gabon	2.72	Authoritarian regime
147	Bhutan	2.62	Authoritarian regime
147	Zimbabwe	2.62	Authoritarian regime
149	Tajikistan	2.45	Authoritarian regime
150	United Arab Emirates	2.42	Authoritarian regime
151	Angola	2.41	Authoritarian regime
152	Djibouti	2.37	Authoritarian regime
153	Syria	2.36	Authoritarian regime
154	Eritrea	2.31	Authoritarian regime
155	Laos	2.10	Authoritarian regime
156	Equatorial Guinea	2.09	Authoritarian regime
157	Guinea	2.02	Authoritarian regime
158	Guinea-Bissau	2.00	Authoritarian regime
159	Saudi Arabia	1.92	Authoritarian regime
160	Uzbekistan	1.85	Authoritarian regime
161	Libya	1.84	Authoritarian regime
162	Turkmenistan	1.83	Authoritarian regime
163	Myanmar	1.77	Authoritarian regime
164	Togo	1.75	Authoritarian regime
165	Chad	1.65	Authoritarian regime
166	Central African Republic	1.61	Authoritarian regime
167	North Korea	1.03	Authoritarian regime

[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

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• "The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy"