Freedom in the World: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
rv: switch templates (former is pending deletion) |
m fix |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
[[Image:Civil liberties world.PNG|thumb|330px|Map reflecting the findings of Freedom House's 2007 survey, concerning the state of international civil liberties in 2006. {{legend|#70F263|Most Freedom}} {{legend|#EC6537|Least Freedom}}]] |
[[Image:Civil liberties world.PNG|thumb|330px|Map reflecting the findings of Freedom House's 2007 survey, concerning the state of international civil liberties in 2006. {{legend|#70F263|Most Freedom}} {{legend|#EC6537|Least Freedom}}]] |
||
'''''Freedom in the World''''' is a yearly report by US-based [[Freedom House]] that attempts to measure the degree of [[democracy]] and [[Freedom (political)|political freedom]] in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world, and which 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". It is often used by researchers in order to measure democracy and correlates highly with several other measures of democracy like the [[Polity data series]].<ref>Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203</ref> It was launched in 1973. There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the FITW report.<ref name=Bollen /> |
'''''Freedom in the World''''' is a yearly report by US-based [[Freedom House]] that attempts to measure the degree of [[democracy]] and [[Freedom (political)|political freedom]] in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world, and which 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". It is often used by researchers in order to measure democracy and correlates highly with several other measures of democracy like the [[Polity data series]].<ref>Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203</ref> It was launched in 1973 by [[Raymond Gastil]].<ref name=Giannonea/> There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the FITW report.<ref name=Bollen /><ref name=Giannonea>Giannonea, Diego (2010), "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case", ''Democratization'', Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 68 - 97</ref> 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."<ref name=Giannonea/> |
||
Criticisms of the Freedom House indices include |
|||
*conceptual stretching: Landman and Hausermann<ref name=Landman>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, 2003</ref> "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':<ref name=Landman/> in short, an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything."<ref name=Giannonea/> |
|||
*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<ref name=Scoble/> cited in Giannonea 2010) |
|||
*lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell,<ref>Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. 'Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy'. Working Paper for the Political Concepts. A Working Paper Series of the Committee on Concepts and Methods, 2005. http://www.concepts-methods.org</ref> cited in Giannonea 2010)<ref name=Giannonea/> |
|||
*inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen<ref name=Munck>Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay (2002) Conceptualising and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35:1 , pp. 5-34</ref>, cited in Giannonea 2010)<ref name=Giannonea/> "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=Giannonea/> |
|||
*ideological biases of FH methodology. "For instance, Scoble and Wiseberg<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 , Boulder, CO</ref> stated that the scales are influenced by the conservative ideology of FH. Bollen<ref>Bollen, Kenneth A. (1986) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: an Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. Human Rights Quarterly 8:4 , pp. 567-591.</ref> underlined their Cold War and pro-market biases, while Bollen and Paxton<ref>Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela (2000) Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy. ''Comparative Political Studies'' 33:1 , pp. 58-86</ref> emphasized that the index of FH systematically favours Christian and Western countries, and tends to adversely codify Muslim and Marxist-Leninist countries. 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), Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999. ''Studies in Comparative International Development'' 36:1 , pp. 37-65.</ref> Gastil responds that 'generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings'.<ref>Gastil, Raymond D. (1990) The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. ''Studies in International Comparative Development'' 25:1 , pp. 25-50</ref>."<ref name=Giannonea/> However, Giannonea (2010) finds "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=Giannonea/> |
|||
* "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=Giannonea/> |
|||
* "In the checklists there is a tendency to consider and evaluate only the existence of formal rights and not substantive rights."<ref name=Giannonea/> |
|||
Despite these issues, the Freedom House rankings are widely used and often treated as authoritative.<ref name=Giannonea/> The indices are widely used in academic studies, and employed by the [[United Nations]] and [[World Bank]].<ref name=Giannonea/> The indices are used by [[USAID]] to evaluate US recipients of aid.<ref name=Giannonea/> They often appear in the media as objective indices, and "are now used indiscriminately as a yardstick for the measurement of democracy."<ref name=Giannonea/> |
|||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
Revision as of 14:49, 30 August 2010
Free (89)
Partly Free (62)
Not Free (42)
Most Freedom
Least Freedom
Freedom in the World is a yearly report by US-based Freedom House that attempts to measure the degree of democracy and political freedom in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world, and which 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". It is often used by researchers in order to measure democracy and correlates highly with several other measures of democracy like the Polity data series.[3] It was launched in 1973 by Raymond Gastil.[4] There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the FITW report.[2][4] 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."[4]
Criticisms of the Freedom House indices include
- conceptual stretching: Landman and Hausermann[5] "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':[5] in short, an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything."[4]
- 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[6] cited in Giannonea 2010)
- lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell,[7] cited in Giannonea 2010)[4]
- inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen[8], cited in Giannonea 2010)[4] "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'[8]."[4]
- ideological biases of FH methodology. "For instance, Scoble and Wiseberg[6] stated that the scales are influenced by the conservative ideology of FH. Bollen[9] underlined their Cold War and pro-market biases, while Bollen and Paxton[10] emphasized that the index of FH systematically favours Christian and Western countries, and tends to adversely codify Muslim and Marxist-Leninist countries. 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'.[11] Gastil responds that 'generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings'.[12]."[4] However, Giannonea (2010) finds "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."[4]
- "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".[4]
- "In the checklists there is a tendency to consider and evaluate only the existence of formal rights and not substantive rights."[4]
Despite these issues, the Freedom House rankings are widely used and often treated as authoritative.[4] The indices are widely used in academic studies, and employed by the United Nations and World Bank.[4] The indices are used by USAID to evaluate US recipients of aid.[4] They often appear in the media as objective indices, and "are now used indiscriminately as a yardstick for the measurement of democracy."[4]
Freedom in the World 2010
The rankings below are from the current year's edition of Freedom in the World (2010). Each pair of political rights and civil liberties ratings is averaged to determine an overall status of "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Those whose ratings average 1.0 to 2.5 are considered Free, 3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free, and 5.5 to 7.0 Not Free. The methodology is explained here: Methodology, Freedom house
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;
- 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.[13]
PR - Political Rights
CL - Civil Liberties
* - Electoral democracies per definition stated above
Sub-Saharan Africa
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Angola
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Benin*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Botswana*
|
3 | 2 | Free |
 Burkina Faso
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Burundi*
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Cameroon
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Cape Verde*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Central African Republic
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Chad
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Comoros*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Republic of the Congo
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Democratic Republic of the Congo
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Ivory Coast
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Djibouti
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Equatorial Guinea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Eritrea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Ethiopia
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Gabon
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Gambia
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Ghana*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Guinea
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Guinea-Bissau*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Kenya
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Lesotho*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Liberia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Madagascar*
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Malawi*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Mali*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Mauritania
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Mauritius*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Mozambique*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Namibia*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Niger*
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Nigeria
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Rwanda
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 São Tomé and Príncipe*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Senegal*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Seychelles*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Sierra Leone*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Somalia
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 South Africa*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Sudan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Eswatini
|
7 | 5 | Not Free |
 Tanzania
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Togo
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Uganda
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Zambia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Zimbabwe
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
Americas
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Antigua and Barbuda*
|
3 | 2 | Free |
 Argentina*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Bahamas*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Barbados*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Belize*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Bolivia*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Brazil*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Canada*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Chile*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Colombia*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Costa Rica*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Cuba
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Dominica*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Dominican Republic*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Ecuador*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 El Salvador*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Grenada*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Guatemala*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Guyana*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Haiti*
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Honduras*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Jamaica*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Mexico*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Nicaragua*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Panama*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Paraguay*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Peru*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Saint Kitts and Nevis*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Saint Lucia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*
|
2 | 1 | Free |
 Suriname*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Trinidad and Tobago*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 United States*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Uruguay*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Venezuela
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
Asia-Pacific
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Afghanistan
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Australia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Bangladesh*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Bhutan
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Brunei
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Burma
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Cambodia
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 China (mainland)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 East Timor*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Fiji
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 India*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Indonesia*
|
2 | 3 | Free |
 Japan*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Kiribati*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Laos
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Malaysia
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Maldives
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Marshall Islands*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Federated States of Micronesia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Mongolia*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Nauru*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Nepal
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 New Zealand*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 North Korea
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Pakistan
|
4 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Palau*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Papua New Guinea*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Philippines
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Samoa*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Singapore
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Solomon Islands
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 South Korea*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Sri Lanka*
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Taiwan (Republic of China)*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Thailand
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Tonga
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Tuvalu*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Vanuatu*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Vietnam
|
7 | 5 | Not Free |
Central & Eastern Europe & the former Soviet Union
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Albania*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Armenia
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Azerbaijan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Belarus
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Bosnia and Herzegovina*
|
4 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Bulgaria*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Croatia*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Czech Republic*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Estonia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Georgia
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Hungary*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Kazakhstan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Kyrgyzstan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Latvia*
|
2 | 1 | Free |
 Lithuania*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Republic of Macedonia*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Moldova*
|
3 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Montenegro*
|
3 | 2 | Free |
 Poland*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Romania*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Russia
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Serbia*
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Slovakia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Slovenia*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Tajikistan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Turkmenistan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Ukraine*
|
3 | 2 | Free |
 Uzbekistan
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
Western & Southern Europe
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Andorra*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Austria*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Belgium*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Cyprus*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Denmark*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Finland*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 France*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Germany*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Greece*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Iceland*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Ireland*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Italy*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Liechtenstein*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Luxembourg*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Malta*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Monaco*
|
2 | 1 | Free |
 Netherlands*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Norway*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Portugal*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 San Marino*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Spain*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Sweden*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Switzerland*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Turkey*
|
3 | 3 | Partly Free |
 United Kingdom*
|
1 | 1 | Free |
Middle East & North Africa
| Country | PR | CL | Status |
 Algeria
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Bahrain
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Egypt
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Iran
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Iraq
|
5 | 6 | Not Free |
 Israel*
|
1 | 2 | Free |
 Jordan
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Kuwait
|
4 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Lebanon
|
5 | 3 | Partly Free |
 Libya
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Morocco
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Oman
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Qatar
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Saudi Arabia
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Syria
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
 Tunisia
|
7 | 5 | Not Free |
 United Arab Emirates
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Yemen
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
Related/Disputed Territories
| Country / Territory | PR | CL | Status |
 Abkhazia (Georgia)
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Chechnya (Russia)
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)
|
5 | 2 | Partly Free |
| Kashmir (Indian Administered)
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
| Kashmir (Pakistani Administered)
|
6 | 5 | Not Free |
 Kosovo (Serbia)
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Macau (People's Republic of China) [14]
|
6 | 4 | Partly Free |
 Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)
|
5 | 5 | Partly Free |
 Northern Cyprus (Cyprus)
|
2 | 2 | Free |
 Palestinian Authority-Administered Territories
|
5 | 6 | Not Free |
 Puerto Rico (United States)
|
1 | 1 | Free |
 Somaliland (Somalia)
|
5 | 4 | Partly Free |
 South Ossetia (Georgia)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
| Tibet (People's Republic of China)
|
7 | 7 | Not Free |
 Transnistria (Moldova)
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
| Israeli-occupied territories
|
6 | 6 | Not Free |
 Western Sahara (Morocco)
|
7 | 6 | Not Free |
Global trends in freedom
| Year Under Review | Free | Partly Free | Not Free |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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%) |
| 1995 | 76 (40%) | 61 (32%) | 54 (28%) |
| 2000 | 85 (44%) | 60 (31%) | 47 (25%) |
| 2005 | 89 (46%) | 54 (28%) | 49 (26%) |
| 2010 | 89 (46%) | 58 (30%) | 47 (24%) |
- Note: Does not include Related/Disputed Territories.
- Sources: Freedom in the World Country Ratings (1973–2009), Freedom in the World Report 2010 (2010)
See also
- List of indices of freedom
- Freedom in the World 2010
- Freedom in the World 2009
- Freedom in the World 2008
- Freedom in the World 2007
- Freedom in the World 2006
Notes
- ^ http://polisci.la.psu.edu/faculty/Casper/caspertufisPAweb.pdf
- ^ a b Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812231082
- ^ Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Giannonea, Diego (2010), "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case", Democratization, Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 68 - 97
- ^ a b 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, 2003
- ^ a b 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 , Boulder, CO
- ^ Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. 'Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy'. Working Paper for the Political Concepts. A Working Paper Series of the Committee on Concepts and Methods, 2005. http://www.concepts-methods.org
- ^ a b Munck, Gerardo L. and Verkuilen, Jay (2002) Conceptualising and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35:1 , pp. 5-34
- ^ Bollen, Kenneth A. (1986) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: an Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. Human Rights Quarterly 8:4 , pp. 567-591.
- ^ Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela (2000) Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33:1 , pp. 58-86
- ^ Mainwaring, Scott, Brinks, Daniel and Perez-Linan, Anibal (2001), Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999. Studies in Comparative International Development 36:1 , pp. 37-65.
- ^ Gastil, Raymond D. (1990) The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. Studies in International Comparative Development 25:1 , pp. 25-50
- ^ http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005 Methodology, Freedom house
- ^ Last available data for Macau are from 2002
References
- Freedom House (2007). Freedom in the World 2006. Freedom House//Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-5802-9.
External links
- Freedom in the World - online at Freedom House