| Revision as of 00:43, 4 August 2011 editKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Origin and use: copy edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:54, 4 August 2011 edit undoKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Criticism: removed undue weight on Giannone. Also removed bad-faith and gross misuse of Bollen, attributing to Bollen assessments by others that he reviews, and ignoring findings of no bias also reported by Bollen. POV pushingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,823: | Line 1,823: | ||
| *lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell,<ref>Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell. , Political Concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series, August 2005, 47 pp.</ref> cited in Giannone 2010)<ref name=Giannone/> | *lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell,<ref>Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell. , Political Concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series, August 2005, 47 pp.</ref> cited in Giannone 2010)<ref name=Giannone/> | ||
| *inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen,<ref name=Munck>Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay, , ''Comparative Political Studies'', vol.35, no.1 (February 2002), pp.5-34</ref> cited in Giannone 2010)<ref name=Giannone/> "Because no set of coding rules is provided, and the sources of information are not identified with enough precision, and because disaggregated data have not been made available to independent scholars, 'the aggregate data offered by Freedom House has to be accepted largely on faith'.<ref name=Munck/><ref name=Giannone/> | *inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen,<ref name=Munck>Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay, , ''Comparative Political Studies'', vol.35, no.1 (February 2002), pp.5-34</ref> cited in Giannone 2010)<ref name=Giannone/> "Because no set of coding rules is provided, and the sources of information are not identified with enough precision, and because disaggregated data have not been made available to independent scholars, 'the aggregate data offered by Freedom House has to be accepted largely on faith'.<ref name=Munck/><ref name=Giannone/> | ||
| *ideological biases |
*ideological biases. Scoble and Wiseberg stated that the scales are influenced by the conservative ideology of FH.<ref name=Scoble>Scoble, Harry and Wiseberg, Laurie Nanda, Ved, Scarritt, James and Shepherd, George (eds) (1981), "Problems of Comparative Research in Human Rights", ''Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures and NGO Strategies'', pp.147-171, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, ISBN 9780891588580</ref> Mainwaring et al. pointed out that FH measurements 'contain two systematic biases: scores for leftist governments were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions'.<ref>Mainwaring, Scott, Brinks, Daniel and Perez-Linan, Anibal (2001), , ''Studies in Comparative International Development'', vol.36, no.1, pp.37-65.</ref> Gastil responded that 'generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings'.<ref>Gastil, Raymond D. (1990), , ''Studies in International Comparative Development'', vol.25, no.1, pp.25-50</ref><ref name=Giannone/> However, Giannone (2010) stated that there was "a perfect coincidence between FH changes and the strategies of US foreign policy implemented in 1990s, and above all after 11 September 2001 by the Bush administration, to spread freedom and export democracy."<ref name=Giannone/> | ||
| * "Freedom is defined almost always in a negative way, with particular reference to the role of the state, accused of undue intervention, indoctrination, and even equated with criminal organizations as obstacle to private economic activity".<ref name=Giannone/> | |||
| * "In the checklists there is a tendency to consider and evaluate only the existence of formal rights and not substantive rights."<ref name=Giannone/> | |||
| Freedom House's reply to these criticisms may be found at their website: | Freedom House's reply to these criticisms may be found at their website: | ||
Revision as of 00:54, 4 August 2011
Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by U.S.-based Freedom House that attempts to measure the degree of democracy and political freedom in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world.
Origin and use
Freedom in the World was launched in 1973 by Raymond Gastil. It produces annual scores representing the levels of political rights and civil liberties in each state and territory, on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). Depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free".
The report is often used by researchers to measure democracy. Its rankings are highly and positively correlated with several other measures of democracy, such as the Polity data series. They are widely used in academic studies, by the United Nations, the World Bank, USAID, and others. Despite their wide use and positive association with other freedom-rankings of countries, their methodology has been criticized criticism); moreover, their use "indiscriminately as a yardstick for the measurement of democracy" has been criticized by Giannone.
Country rankings
The rankings below are from the Freedom in the World 2010 and Freedom in the World 2011 surveys and reflect events in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Each pair of political rights and civil liberties ratings is averaged to determine an overall status of "Free" (1.0-2.5), "Partly Free" (3.0-5.0), or "Not Free" (5.5-7.0).
An asterisk (*) indicates countries which are "electoral democracies". To qualify as an "electoral democracy", a state must have satisfied the following criteria:
- A competitive, multiparty political system;
- Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses);
- Regularly contested elections conducted in conditions of ballot secrecy, reasonable ballot security, and the absence of massive voter fraud that yields results that are unrepresentative of the public will; and
- Significant public access of major political parties to the electorate through the media and through generally open political campaigning.
Freedom House's term "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies.
Sub-Saharan Africa
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Angola
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Benin*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Botswana*
|
3 | 2 | Free | 3 | 2 | Free |
 Burkina Faso
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free | 5 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Burundi
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Cameroon
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Cape Verde*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Central African Republic
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Chad
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Comoros*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Congo, Republic of
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Congo, Democratic Republic of
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Ivory Coast
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Djibouti
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Equatorial Guinea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Eritrea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Ethiopia
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Gabon
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Gambia
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Ghana*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Guinea
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Guinea-Bissau
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Kenya
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Lesotho*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Liberia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Madagascar
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free | 6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Malawi*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Mali*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Mauritania
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Mauritius*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Mozambique
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Namibia*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Niger
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Nigeria
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Rwanda
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 São Tomé and Príncipe*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Senegal*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Seychelles*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Sierra Leone*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Somalia
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 South Africa*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Sudan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Eswatini
|
7 | 5 | Not Free | 7 | 5 | Not Free |
 Tanzania*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Togo
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Uganda
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Zambia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Zimbabwe
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
Americas
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Antigua and Barbuda*
|
3 | 2 | Free | 3 | 2 | Free |
 Argentina*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Bahamas*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Barbados*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Belize*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Bolivia*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Brazil*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Canada*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Chile*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Colombia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Costa Rica*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Cuba
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Dominica*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Dominican Republic*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Ecuador*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 El Salvador*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Grenada*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Guatemala*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Guyana*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Haiti
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Honduras
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Jamaica*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Mexico*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Nicaragua*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Panama*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Paraguay*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Peru*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Saint Kitts and Nevis*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Saint Lucia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*
|
2 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Suriname*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Trinidad and Tobago*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 United States*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Uruguay*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Venezuela
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
Asia-Pacific
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Afghanistan
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Australia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Bangladesh*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Bhutan
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Brunei
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Burma (Myanmar)
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Cambodia
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 China (PRC)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Timor-Leste*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Fiji
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free | 6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 India*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Indonesia*
|
2 | 3 | Free | 2 | 3 | Free |
 Japan*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Kiribati*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Laos
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Malaysia
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Maldives*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Marshall Islands*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Micronesia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Mongolia*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Nauru*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Nepal
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 New Zealand*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 North Korea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Pakistan
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Palau*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Papua New Guinea*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Philippines*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Samoa*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Singapore
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Solomon Islands
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 South Korea*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Sri Lanka
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Taiwan* (ROC)
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Thailand
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Tonga*
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Tuvalu*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Vanuatu*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Vietnam
|
7 | 5 | Not Free | 7 | 5 | Not Free |
Central and Eastern Europe, including countries of the former Soviet Union
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Albania*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Armenia
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free | 6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Azerbaijan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Belarus
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Bosnia and Herzegovina*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Bulgaria*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Croatia*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Czech Republic*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Estonia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Georgia
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Hungary*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Kazakhstan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Kosovo
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Kyrgyzstan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Latvia*
|
2 | 1 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Lithuania*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Macedonia*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Moldova*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Montenegro*
|
3 | 2 | Free | 3 | 2 | Free |
 Poland*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Romania*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Russia
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Serbia*
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Slovakia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Slovenia*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Tajikistan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Turkmenistan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Ukraine*
|
3 | 2 | Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Uzbekistan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
Western, Northern and Southern Europe
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Andorra*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Austria*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Belgium*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Cyprus*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Denmark*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Finland*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 France*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Germany*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Greece*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Iceland*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Ireland*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Italy*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Liechtenstein*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Luxembourg*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Malta*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Monaco*
|
2 | 1 | Free | 2 | 1 | Free |
 Netherlands*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Norway*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Portugal*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 San Marino*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Spain*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Sweden*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Switzerland*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Turkey*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free | 3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 United Kingdom*
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
Middle East and North Africa
- Key: * - Electoral democracies (as described above)
Country |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Algeria
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Bahrain
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Egypt
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Iran
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Iraq
|
5 | 6 | Not Free | 5 | 6 | Not Free |
 Israel*
|
1 | 2 | Free | 1 | 2 | Free |
 Jordan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Kuwait
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Lebanon
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free | 5 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Libya
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Morocco
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free | 5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Oman
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Qatar
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Saudi Arabia
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Syria
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Tunisia
|
7 | 5 | Not Free | 7 | 5 | Not Free |
 United Arab Emirates
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Yemen
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
Related and disputed territories
- Key: † - Related territory, ‡ - Disputed territory
Territory |
Political Rights 2010 |
Civil Liberties 2010 |
Status 2010 |
Political Rights 2011 |
Civil Liberties 2011 |
Status 2011 |
 Abkhazia‡ (Georgia)
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Gaza Strip‡ (PNA)
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Hong Kong† (PRC)
|
5 | 2 | Partly Free | 5 | 2 | Partly Free |
| Kashmir‡ (India)
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
| Kashmir‡ (Pakistan)
|
6 | 5 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Nagorno-Karabakh‡ (Azerbaijan)
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Northern Cyprus‡ (Cyprus)
|
2 | 2 | Free | 2 | 2 | Free |
 Puerto Rico† (USA)
|
1 | 1 | Free | 1 | 1 | Free |
 Somaliland‡ (Somalia)
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free | 4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 South Ossetia‡ (Georgia)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
| Tibet‡ (PRC)
|
7 | 7 | Not Free | 7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Transnistria‡ (Moldova)
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 6 | Not Free |
| West Bank‡ (PNA)
|
6 | 6 | Not Free | 6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Western Sahara‡ (Morocco)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free | 7 | 6 | Not Free |
Trends
| Year |
Free |
Partly Free |
Not Free |
Electoral Democracies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1975 | 41 (27%) | 48 (32%) | 63 (41%) | -- |
| 1980 | 51 (32%) | 54 (33%) | 56 (35%) | -- |
| 1985 | 53 (32%) | 59 (35%) | 55 (33%) | -- |
| 1990 | 61 (37%) | 44 (26%) | 62 (37%) | 069 (41%) |
| 1995 | 76 (40%) | 61 (32%) | 54 (28%) | 113 (59%) |
| 2000 | 85 (44%) | 60 (31%) | 47 (25%) | 120 (63%) |
| 2005 | 89 (46%) | 54 (28%) | 49 (26%) | 119 (62%) |
| 2010 | 89 (46%) | 58 (30%) | 47 (24%) | 116 (60%) |
| 2011 | 87 (45%) | 60 (31%) | 47 (24%) | 115 (59%) |
Sources: "Historical Status Breakdown, 1972-2010" and "Electoral Democracies, 1989-2010", Freedom in the World 2011
Notes:
- The years shown in the map and table above are the year the survey was released, the data shown covers the prior calendar year.
- The map and table above do not include data for related/disputed territories.
Criticism
There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the FITW report. One study reviewing changes to the methodology since 1990 concluded that "because of the changes in methodology over time and the strict interconnection between methodological and political aspects, the FH data do not offer an unbroken and politically neutral time series, such that they should not be used for cross-time analyses even for the development of first hypotheses. The internal consistency of the data series is open to question."
On this topic, the Freedom House website replies that they have "made a number of modest methodological changes to adapt to evolving ideas about political rights and civil liberties. At the same time, the time series data are not revised retroactively, and any changes to the methodology are introduced incrementally in order to ensure the comparability of the ratings from year to year."
Criticisms of the Freedom House indices include:
- conceptual stretching: Landman and Hausermann "have pointed out that the index by FH has been used as a tool for measuring democracy, good governance, and human rights, thus producing a conceptual stretching which is a major cause of 'losses in connotative precision': in short, an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything."
- issues with aggregation: "the sum of a civil liberty score of 4 and a political liberty score of 2 is the same as the sum of a civil liberty score of 2 and a political liberty score of 4 even though the substantive interpretation of these different combinations is different." (Scoble and Wiseberg cited in Giannone 2010)
- lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell, cited in Giannone 2010)
- inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen, cited in Giannone 2010) "Because no set of coding rules is provided, and the sources of information are not identified with enough precision, and because disaggregated data have not been made available to independent scholars, 'the aggregate data offered by Freedom House has to be accepted largely on faith'.
- ideological biases. Scoble and Wiseberg stated that the scales are influenced by the conservative ideology of FH. Mainwaring et al. pointed out that FH measurements 'contain two systematic biases: scores for leftist governments were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions'. Gastil responded that 'generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings'. However, Giannone (2010) stated that there was "a perfect coincidence between FH changes and the strategies of US foreign policy implemented in 1990s, and above all after 11 September 2001 by the Bush administration, to spread freedom and export democracy."
Freedom House's reply to these criticisms may be found at their website:
Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.
See also
References
- ^ "Tables, Graphs, and Other Supporting Documents", Freedom in the World 2011, Freedom House, 13 January 2011
- ^ Giannone, Diego, "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case", Democratization, vol.17, no.1 (February 2010), pp.68-97
- “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets", Gretchen Casper and Claudiu Tufis, Political Analysis, 11:2 (2003), pp.196-203, Society for Political Methodology
- Freedom in the World 2010: Tables and Graphs, Freedom House, 8 January 2010, 12 pp.
- ^ "Freedom in the World 2010: Methodology", Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom house
- Bollen, K.A., "Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984", Human Rights Quarterly, vol.8, no.4 (November 1986), pp.567-591. Also in: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. (Eds.), Human Rights and Statistics, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, pp.188-215, ISBN 0812231082.
- ^ Landman, Tod, and Julia Hausermann, Map-Making and Analysis of the Main International Initiatives on Developing Indicators on Democracy and Good Governance, Final Report, University of Essex - Human Rights Centre, July 2003, 98 pp.
- ^ Scoble, Harry and Wiseberg, Laurie Nanda, Ved, Scarritt, James and Shepherd, George (eds) (1981), "Problems of Comparative Research in Human Rights", Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures and NGO Strategies, pp.147-171, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, ISBN 9780891588580
- Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell. "Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy", Political Concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series, August 2005, 47 pp.
- ^ Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay, "Conceptualising and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices", Comparative Political Studies, vol.35, no.1 (February 2002), pp.5-34
- Mainwaring, Scott, Brinks, Daniel and Perez-Linan, Anibal (2001), "Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999", Studies in Comparative International Development, vol.36, no.1, pp.37-65.
- Gastil, Raymond D. (1990), "The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions", Studies in International Comparative Development, vol.25, no.1, pp.25-50
External links
- Freedom in the World - online at Freedom House
Categories: