2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index Map – Brilliant Maps

Methodology

The
Economist
Intelligence
Unit’s
index
of
democracy,
on
a
0
to
10
scale,
is
based
on
the
ratings
for
60
indicators,
grouped
into
five
categories:

1. electoral
   process
   and
   pluralism;
2. civil
   liberties;
3. the
   functioning
   of
   government;
4. political
   participation;
   and
5. political
   culture.

Each
category
has
a
rating
on
a
0
to
10
scale,
and
the
overall
Index
is
the
simple
average
of
the
five
category
indexes.

The
category
indexes
are
based
on
the
sum
of
the
indicator
scores
in
the
category,
converted
to
a
0
to
10
scale.
Adjustments
to
the
category
scores
are
made
if
countries
do
not
score
a
1
in
the
following
critical
areas
for
democracy:

1. Whether
   national
   elections
   are
   free
   and
   fair.
2. The
   security
   of
   voters.
3. The
   influence
   of
   foreign
   powers
   on
   government.
4. The
   capability
   of
   the
   civil
   service
   to
   implement
   policies.

If
the
scores
for
the
first
three
questions
are
0
(or
0.5),
one
point
(0.5
point)
is
deducted
from
the
index
in
the
relevant
category
(either
the
electoral
process
and
pluralism
or
the
functioning
of
government).
If
the
score
for
4
is
0,
one
point
is
deducted
from
the
functioning
of
government
category
index.

The
index
values
are
used
to
place
countries
within
one
of
four
types
of
regime:

1. Full
   democracies:
   scores
   greater
   than
   8
2.  Flawed
   democracies:
   scores
   greater
   than
   6,
   and
   less
   than
   8
3. Hybrid
   regimes:
   scores
   greater
   than
   4,
   and
   less
   than
   6
4. Authoritarian
   regimes:
   scores
   less
   than
   4

Full
democracies:
Countries
in
which
not
only
basic
political
freedoms
and
civil
liberties
are
respected,
but
which
also
tend
to
be
underpinned
by
a
political
culture
conducive
to
the
flourishing
of
democracy.

The
functioning
of
government
is
satisfactory.
Media
are
independent
and
diverse.
There
is
an
effective
system
of
checks
and
balances.
The
judiciary
is
independent
and
judicial
decisions
are
enforced.
There
are
only
limited
problems
in
the
functioning
of
democracies.

Flawed
democracies:
These
countries
also
have
free
and
fair
elections
and,
even
if
there
are
problems
(such
as
infringements
on
media
freedom),
basic
civil
liberties
are
respected.

However,
there
are
significant
weaknesses
in
other
aspects
of
democracy,
including
problems
in
governance,
an
underdeveloped
political
culture
and
low
levels
of
political
participation.

Hybrid
regimes:
Elections
have
substantial
irregularities
that
often
prevent
them
from
being
both
free
and
fair.
Government
pressure
on
opposition
parties
and
candidates
may
be
common.

Serious
weaknesses
are
more
prevalent
than
in
flawed
democracies—in
political
culture,
functioning
of
government
and
political
participation.
Corruption
tends
to
be
widespread
and
the
rule
of
law
is
weak.
Civil
society
is
weak.

Typically,
there
is
harassment
of
and
pressure
on
journalists,
and
the
judiciary
is
not
independent.

Authoritarian
regimes:
In
these
states,
state
political
pluralism
is
absent
or
heavily
circumscribed.
Many
countries
in
this
category
are
outright
dictatorships.
Some
formal
institutions
of
democracy
may
exist,
but
these
have
little
substance.

Elections,
if
they
do
occur,
are
not
free
and
fair.
There
is
disregard
for
abuses
and
infringements
of
civil
liberties.
Media
are
typically
state-owned
or
controlled
by
groups
connected
to
the
ruling
regime.
There
is
repression
of
criticism
of
the
government
and
pervasive
censorship.
There
is
no
independent
judiciary.

The
scoring
system

We
use
a
combination
of
a
dichotomous
and
a
three-point
scoring
system
for
the
60
indicators.
A
dichotomous
1-0
scoring
system
(1
for
a
yes
and
0
for
a
no
answer)
is
not
without
problems,
but
it
has
several
distinct
advantages
over
more
refined
scoring
scales
(such
as
the
often-used
1-5
or
1-7).

For
many
indicators,
the
possibility
of
a
0.5
score
is
introduced,
to
capture
“grey
areas”,
where
a
simple
yes
(1)
or
no
(0)
is
problematic,
with
guidelines
as
to
when
that
should
be
used.

Consequently,
for
many
indicators
there
is
a
three-point
scoring
system,
which
represents
a
compromise
between
simple
dichotomous
scoring
and
the
use
of
finer
scales.

The
problems
of
1-5
or
1-7
scoring
scales
are
numerous.
For
most
indicators
under
such
systems,
it
is
extremely
difficult
to
define
meaningful
and
comparable
criteria
or
guidelines
for
each
score.
This
can
lead
to
arbitrary,
spurious
and
non-comparable
scorings.

For
example,
a
score
of
2
for
one
country
may
be
scored
a
3
in
another,
and
so
on.
Alternatively,
one
expert
might
score
an
indicator
for
a
particular
country
in
a
different
way
to
another
expert.

This
contravenes
a
basic
principle
of
measurement,
that
of
so-called
reliability—the
degree
to
which
a
measurement
procedure
produces
the
same
measurements
every
time,
regardless
of
who
is
performing
it.

Two-
and
three-point
systems
do
not
guarantee
reliability,
but
make
it
more
likely.
Second,
comparability
between
indicator
scores
and
aggregation
into
a
multi-dimensional
index
appears
more
valid
with
a
two-
or
three-point
scale
for
each
indicator
(the
dimensions
being
aggregated
are
similar
across
indicators).

By
contrast,
with
a
1-5
system,
the
scores
are
more
likely
to
mean
different
things
across
the
indicators
(for
example,
a
2
for
one
indicator
may
be
more
comparable
to
a
3
or
4
for
another
indicator).
The
problems
of
a
1-5
or
1-7
system
are
magnified
when
attempting
to
extend
the
index
to
many
regions
and
countries.