Freedom in the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.28.59.173 (talk) at 11:32, 30 July 2011 (→‎Western and Southern Europe: Northern, too). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Country ratings from Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2011 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2010.[1]
  Free (87)   Partly Free (60)   Not Free (47)
   Countries designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2011 survey.[1]

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".[2]

The report is often used by researchers in order to measure democracy and correlates highly with several other measures of democracy such as the Polity data series.[3]

The Freedom House rankings are often treated as authoritative, although not without criticism (see below). They are widely used in academic studies, by the United Nations, the World Bank, USAID, and others. They often appear in the media as objective indices, and "are now used indiscriminately as a yardstick for the measurement of democracy."[2]

Country rankings

The rankings below are from the Freedom in the World 2010[4] and Freedom in the World 2011[1] 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).[5]

An asterisk (*) indicates countries which are "electoral democracies". To qualify as an "electoral democracy", a state must have satisfied the following criteria:

  1. A competitive, multiparty political system;
  2. Universal adult suffrage for all citizens (with exceptions for restrictions that states may legitimately place on citizens as sanctions for criminal offenses);
  3. 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
  4. 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.[5]

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
Republic of the Congo Congo, Republic of 6 5 Not Free 6 5 Not Free
Democratic Republic of the Congo 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
 East Timor* 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
Federated States of Micronesia 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
North Macedonia 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
India Kashmir‡ (India) 4 4 Partly Free 4 5 Partly Free
Pakistan 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
China 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[1]

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.[6][2] 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."[2]

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."[5]

Criticisms of the Freedom House indices include:

  • conceptual stretching: Landman and Hausermann[7] "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':[7] in short, an instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not able to discriminate against anything."[2]
  • 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[8] cited in Giannone 2010)
  • lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction (Hadenius and Teorell,[9] cited in Giannone 2010)[2]
  • inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales (Munck and Verkuilen,[10] cited in Giannone 2010)[2] "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'.[10][2]
  • ideological biases of FH methodology. "For instance, Scoble and Wiseberg[8] stated that the scales are influenced by the conservative ideology of FH. Bollen[11] underlined their Cold War and pro-market biases, while Bollen and Paxton[12] emphasized that the index of FH systematically favors 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'.[13] Gastil responds that 'generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings'.[14][2] However, Giannone (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."[2]
  • "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".[2]
  • "In the checklists there is a tendency to consider and evaluate only the existence of formal rights and not substantive rights."[2]

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.[5]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Tables, Graphs, and Other Supporting Documents", Freedom in the World 2011, Freedom House, 13 January 2011
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l 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
  3. ^ “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
  4. ^ Freedom in the World 2010: Tables and Graphs, Freedom House, 8 January 2010, 12 pp.
  5. ^ a b c d "Freedom in the World 2010: Methodology", Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom house
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ 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, July 2003, 98 pp.
  8. ^ 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 Press, Boulder, CO, ISBN 9780891588580
  9. ^ Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell. "Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy", Political Concepts, Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper Series, August 2005, 47 pp.
  10. ^ a b 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
  11. ^ Bollen, Kenneth 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.
  12. ^ Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy", Comparative Political Studies, vol.33, no.1 (February 2000), pp.58-86
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_in_the_World&oldid=442187787"