Download - Freedom house
![Page 1: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Freedom house
Matteo Demontis
Comparative Politics, Marco Giuliani
07/05/2012
![Page 2: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Conceptualization
Freedom
Political Rights Civil Liberties
![Page 3: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Rating Process
Political Rights (10 + 2 questions)
1. Electoral Process (3)2. Political Pluralism and Participation (4)3. Functioning of Government (3)4. Discretionary Questions (2)
![Page 4: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Rating Process
Civil Liberties (15 questions)
1. Freedom of Expression and Belief (4)2. Associational and Organizational Rights (3)3. Rule of Law (4)4. Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (4)
![Page 5: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ScoringDegree of Adherence to International Human Rights Standards:
0 No good practices
1 Few good practices OR
Some good practices, but no good laws
2 Some good practices OR
Many good practices, but few good laws
3 Many good practices OR
Most/all good practices, and some good laws
4 Most/all good practices and corresponding good laws
![Page 6: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Aggregation
Political Rights (PR) Civil Liberties (CL)
Total scores Rating Total scores Rating
36-40 1 53-60 1
30-35 2 44-52 2
24-29 3 35-43 3
18-23 4 26-34 4
12-17 5 17-25 5
6-11 6 8-16 6
0-5 * 7 0-7 7
![Page 7: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Aggregation
Combined Average of the PR and CL Ratings Country Status
1.0 to 2.5 Free
3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free
5.5 to 7.0 Not Free
![Page 8: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LinksResults 2012:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world
Checklist Questions:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2011/
checklist-questions-and-guidelines
Methodology:http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2012/
methodology
![Page 9: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Critiques
Maximalist definition
No clear coding rule
No disaggregate data
Internal coherence
![Page 10: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Aim:
coding the authority characteristics of states in the world system for purposes of comparative, quantitative analysis
Unit of analysis:
“polity”: political or governmental organization; a society or institution with an organized government; state; body politic
States with total population greater than 500.000
Annual coding for 164 states over the years 1800-2010
Main index:
examines concomitant qualities of democratic and autocratic authority:
Executive recruitment
Constraints on executive authority
Political competition
Francesca Casarico
![Page 11: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Operational indicators Democracy Autocracy
![Page 12: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The Polity score• Computed by subtracting the authocracy score from the democracy score
• 21 point scale ranging from -10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (consolidated democracy)
• Spectrum that spans from fully istitutionalized authocracies through mixed, or inchoerent, authority regimes to fully institutionalized democracies.
autocracies anocracies democracies +
standardized codes:- 66: interruption period- 77: interregnum period- 88: transition period
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
![Page 13: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Country-year formatState “continuity and change”
![Page 15: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Polity-case formatRegime “persistence and change”
![Page 16: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Critiques
• Too minimal definition • Inappropriate aggregation procedure• Conceptual logic: problem of redundancy
![Page 17: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
INDEX OF EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY(Welzel & Inglehart)
Gaia Lovisolo
![Page 18: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CREATION OF THE INDEX
They start from the Freedom House index but they create a new index that keeps into consideration not only the extent to which formal liberties are institutionalized, but also the extent to which they are
actually practiced.
![Page 19: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
● Effective (liberal) democracy vs Formal (electoral) democracy
To differentiate between the two we look at the elite behavior, because it determines weather democratic rules are genuinely applied, or weather democracy exists only in name
●Self-expression values Strongly correlated with:● Socioeconomic development●Democratic institutions
They work together to broaden autonomous human choice
ELEMENTS OF THE INDEX
![Page 20: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
PROCESS
Socioeconomicdevelopment
Self-expression values
Democratic institutions and liberal democracy
![Page 21: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Construction of the index
Freedom House measure of civil andpolitical rights
xWorld bank's anticorruption score (indicator of ”elite integrity”)
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS GENUINE MEASURE OF DEMOCRACY AND SELF-EXPRESSION VALUES, WE FIND A STRONG CORRELATION OF R=0.90 ACROSS 73 NATIONS.
![Page 22: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Figure 7-1 Self-expression values and formal democracy.
Zimbabwe
Yugoslavia
Vietnam
Venezuela
Uruguay G.B.
Ukraine
Uganda
Turkey
Tanzania
Taiwan
Switzerld.
South Africa
Slovakia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Philippines
Peru
Pakistan
Nigeria
MoldovaMexico
Macedonia
South Korea
Jordan
Italy
Israel
Ireland
Iran
Indonesia
India
Hungary Germany (W.)
Georgia
Germany (E.)France
El Salvad.
Egypt
Dominican R.
Denmark
Croatia
China
ChileBulgaria
Brazil
Bosnia
Belgium
Belarus
Bangladesh
Azerbaij.
Austria
Armenia
Argentina
Algeria
Albania
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Deg
ree
of F
orm
al D
emoc
racy
, 200
0-20
02FULL
NONE
Percentage high on Self-expression Values (mid 1990s) +
r = .73***
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia
Czech R.JapanSpain
Estonia
Iceland, Norway, U.S.A.Austral., CanadaFinland, Netherld.,New Zeald., Sweden
![Page 23: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Zimbabwe
Yugoslavia
Vietnam
Venezuela
Uruguay
U.S.A.G.B.
Uganda
Turkey
Tanzania
Taiwan
Switzerld.
Sweden
Spain
South Africa
Slovenia
Slovakia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Philippines
Peru
Pakistan
Norway
Nigeria
New Zeald.
Netherld.
Moldova
Mexico
Lithuania
Latvia
South Korea
Jordan
Japan
Italy
Israel
Ireland
IranIndonesia
India
Iceland
Hungary
Germany (W.)
Georgia
Germany (E.)
France
Finland
Estonia
El Salvad.
Egypt
Dominican R.
Denmark
Czech R.
Croatia
China
Chile
Canada
Bulgaria
Brazil
Belgium
Belarus
Bangladesh
Azerbaij.
AustriaAustralia
Argentina
Algeria
Albania
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
r = .90***
Leve
l of E
ffect
ive
Dem
ocra
cy ( 20
00-2
002)
FULL
NONE
Percentage high on Self-expression Values (mid 1990s) +
Figure 7-2. Self-expression values and Effective Democracy
![Page 24: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Possible critique?
Direction of causality
![Page 25: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index
Comparative Positive, Marco Giuliani
07/05/2012
Angelica Puricelli
![Page 26: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The overall index is based on five categories, each rating on a 0 to 10 score, so the overall index is the simple average of them :
1. Electoral process and pluralism2. Civil liberties3. Functioning of government4. Political participation5. Political culture
Each category indexes is based on the sum of the 60 indicators score with a combination of a dichotomous and a three-point scoring system, then they are converted to a scale of 0 to 10. Adjustments to the category scores are made if countries do not score a 1 in the following critical areas for democracy:
6. Whether national elections are free and fair;7. The security of voters;8. The influence of foreign powers on government;9. The capability of the civil service to implement policies.
![Page 27: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Each country can be classified as:• Full democracy (score: from 8 to 10)• Flawed democracy (score: from 6 to 7.9)• Hybrid regime (score: from 4 to 5.9)• Authoritarian regime (below 4)
Features of the index: • Use of public opinion surveys (in “political partecipation” and in “political
culture”)• Participation and voter turnout are seen as legitimacy of the current system
(positive relation with democracy) • The predominance of the legislative branches over the executive power has a
positive correlation with the measure of the overall democracy.
![Page 28: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Type of regime Countries % of countries % of world population
Full democracies 25 15.0 11.3Flawed democracies 53 31.7 37.1
Hybrid regimes 37 22.2 14.0Authoritarian regimes 52 31.1 37.6
Democracy index by regime type
![Page 29: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Rank Region 2006 2008 2010 2011
1 Northern America 8.64 8.64 8.63 8.59
2 Western Europe 8.60 8.61 8.45 8.40
3Latin america & the Caribbean
6.37 6.43 6.37 6.35
4 Asia & Australasia 5.44 5.58 5.53 5.51
5Central & Eastern Europe
5.76 5.67 5.55 5.50
6Sub-Saharan Africa
4.24 4.28 4.23 4.32
7Middle East & North Africa
3.53 3.54 3.43 3.62
Total 5.52 5.55 5.46 5.49
Democracy index average by region
![Page 30: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Critiques
• Bias• Turnout and the predominance of legislative
![Page 31: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“DEMOCRACY ANDDEVELOPMENT: POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND MATERIAL
WELL-BEING IN THE WORLD, 1950-1990 “
IMPACT OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Giulia Frenquellucci
ACPL database model(Alvarez, Cheibub, Przeworski, Limongi)
![Page 32: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
REG: Dummy variable coded 1 for dictatorships and 0 for democracies. Transition years are coded as the regime that emerges in that year. For instance, there was a transition from democracy to dictatorship in Argentina in 1955. In that year, REG=1 ; MOBILIZE: Classification of political regimes in which dictatorships are distinguished by the presence of political parties. Coded 0 if democracy; 1 if mobilizing dictatorship (with parties); 2 if exclusionary dictatorship (without parties). Transition years are coded as the regime that emerges in that year ; ETHNIC: Percentage of population of the largest ETHNIC group, measured in the year for which data were available (roughly 1976-1985). [The Economist 1988 and Vanhanen 1992]. ; LEGSELEC: Legislative selection. Coded 0 if no legislature exists (includes cases in which there is a constituent assembly without ordinary legislative powers); 1 non-elective legislature (examples include the selection of legislators by the effective executive, or on the basis of heredity or ascription); 2 if elective (legislators, or members of the lower house in a bicameral system, are selected by means of either direct or indirect popular election). [Banks 1996, but modified and completed where appropriate].
Variables Examples
135 countries; 4126 observations; 105 variables
Empirical features
![Page 33: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
DICHOTOMOUS MEASUREMENT[a measure that has only two discrete categories of values]
Democracy Dictatorship1. The chief executive is elected;2. The legislature is elected;3. There is more than one party
competing in the election; 4. An alternation in power under
identical electoral rules has taken place;
If these don’t hold
![Page 34: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The importance of contested elections
Two logically independent claims:
Underlying Principles
Minimalist definition ( Schumpeterian ) of democracy “examine empirically, rather than decide by definition, whether the repeated holding of contested elections is associated with other features at times attributed to democracies: social and economic equality, control by citizens over politicians, effective exercise of political rights, widespread participation, freedom from arbitrary violence.”
• A validity claim: democracy is first a question of kind before it is one of degree (as Sartori says “classify before quantify”) • A reliability claim: dichotomy contains less error in measurement than do graded measurements (like the ones that for example allow the presence of categories such as semi-democracy).
![Page 35: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Criticisms:
Reich et al.• Dichotomous measurement appears both methodologically regressive and lacking in face validity.
• Impossible to exclude from the analysis categories like semi-democracies when these have been a very frequent outcome of regime change.
![Page 36: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
VANHANEN’S INDEX OF DEMOCRACY
Marija Zalimaite
![Page 37: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Tatu Vanhanen – emeritus professor at University of Tampere and the University of Helsinki
The index covers 187 countries from 1810 to 2000
![Page 38: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
7 VARIABLES Vanhanen’s country number Year Competition Participation Index of democracy State name abbreviation from the
Correlates of War project (COW) COW country number
![Page 39: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
COMPETITION The smaller parties’ share of the votes
cast in parliamentary or presidential elections, or both – to indicate the degree of competition
Calculated by subtracting the % of votes won by the largest party from 100
![Page 40: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
PARTICIPATION The % of population which actually
voted in the same elections
Calculated from total population
![Page 41: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
INDEX OF DEMOCRACY (ID) Competition and Participation
combined into Index of Democratization
Minimum thresholds: 30% of Competition, 10% of Participation and 5.0 index points for ID
![Page 42: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Italy : Competition – 65.2; Participation – 65.56; ID – 42.75
USA : Comp – 51.3; Part – 37.19; ID – 19.08 UK : Comp – 56.8; Part – 53.7; ID – 30.15 China: Comp – 0; Part – 0; ID – 0 Egypt: Comp – 13.15; Part – 22.48; ID – 2.96 Belarus: Comp – 15; Part – 47.97; ID – 7.2
![Page 43: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Polyarchy and Contestation scalesby Coppedge & Reinicke
![Page 44: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
SPSS file
![Page 45: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Variables
• Polyarchy scale• Contestation scale
The Contestation scale is a less precise but more reliable version of the Polyarchy scale.
![Page 46: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Heads of the government are elected, no frauds
Heads of the government are elected, frauds occur and are unpunished
No meaningful elections
Free and Fair Elections
![Page 48: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Freedom of Organization
No restrictions on purely political organizations that have not previously committed mass murder.
Some political parties that have not committed mass murder are banned, but membership in some alternatives to official organizations is permitted.
The only relatively independent organizations that are allowed to exist are nonpolitical.
No independent organizations are allowed
![Page 49: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Freedom of Expression
Citizens express their views on all topics without fear of punishment
Dissent is discouraged, whether by informal pressure or by systematic censorship, but control is incomplete.
All open dissent is forbidden and effectively suppressed.
![Page 50: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Availability of Alternative Sources of Information
Alternative sources of information exist and are protected by law.
Alternative sources of information are widely available but government versions are presented in preferential fashion.
The government dominates the diffusion of information, alternative sources exist only for nonpolitical issues.
There is no public alternative to official information.
![Page 51: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information
Fair elections, full freedom for expression and media
Fair elections, full freedom for expression, preferential presentation of official views in the media
Fair elections, full freedom for political organization, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.
![Page 52: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Fair elections, some political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.
Elections are marred by fraud, some political organizations are banned, some public dissent is suppressed, preferential presentation of official views in the media.
No meaningful elections, only nonpolitical organizations are allowed or alternatives to the official media are very limited.
Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information
![Page 53: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Interpreting the Contestation Scale Scores Information
No meaningful elections, only nonpolitical organizations are allowed, some public dissent is suppressed and alternatives to the official media are very limited.
No meaningful elections, all organizations are banned, all public dissent is suppressed, there is no public alternative to official information.
No meaningful elections, all organizations are banned, all public dissent is suppressed, there is no public alternative to official information.
![Page 54: Freedom house](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816674550346895dda0dc5/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Evaluation
Strengths
• Identification of attributes: fairness
• Test of intercoder reliability
• Sophisticated aggregation procedure
Weaknesses
• Minimialist definition: omission of participation, offices and agenda setting
• Restricted empirical (temporal) scope
by Munck and Verkuilen