Freedom in the World
Template:Short description Template:Italic title Script error: No such module "For". Script error: No such module "Unsubst". Template:Use dmy dates Template:Multiple image
Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based non-governmental organization Freedom House that measures the degree of civil liberties and political rights in every nation and significant related and disputed territories around the world.[1]
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 widely reported in the media and used as sources by political researchers. Their construction and use has been evaluated by critics and supporters.[4]
Country rankings
Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
The rankings are from the Freedom in the World 2019,[6] 2020,[7] 2021,[8] and 2022 surveys, each report covering the previous year. The average of each pair of ratings on political rights and civil liberties determines the overall status of "Free" (1.0–2.5), "Partly Free" (3.0–5.0), or "Not Free" (5.5–7.0).[9]
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;
- Adult suffrage for all citizens without criminal convictions (some states may further punish and subjugate people with criminal convictions by disenfranchising them from the democratic process);
- 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.
An electoral democracy must have a score of 7 or more out of 12 in political rights subcategory A (Electoral Progress), an overall aggregate score of 20 in their political rights rating and an overall aggregate score of 30 in their civil liberties rating.[10]
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.[9]
World
* indicates "Civil liberties in country or territory" or "Human rights in country or territory" links.
PR = political rights, CL = civil liberties
2025
Before 2025
Template:Static row numbersTemplate:Sort under
Territories and countries with limited recognition
| Territory (2025) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | PR | CL | Overall status | |
| Abkhazia | 39 | 17 | 22 | Template:Sort |
| Gaza Strip | 2 | -2 | 4 | Template:Sort |
| Hong Kong | 40 | 9 | 31 | Template:Sort |
| Indian Kashmir | 38 | 17 | 21 | Template:Sort |
| Northern Cyprus | 76 | 27 | 49 | Template:Sort |
| Pakistani Kashmir | 30 | 9 | 21 | Template:Sort |
| Russian-occupied Ukraine | 2 | -1 | 3 | Template:Sort |
| Somaliland | 47 | 21 | 26 | Template:Sort |
| South Ossetia | 12 | 3 | 9 | Template:Sort |
| Taiwan | 94 | 38 | 56 | Template:Sort |
| Tibet | 0 | -2 | 2 | Template:Sort |
| Transnistria | 17 | 5 | 12 | Template:Sort |
| West Bank | 22 | 4 | 18 | Template:Sort |
| Western Sahara | 4 | -3 | 7 | Template:Sort |
Former entries
Former entries from Freedom in the World. Most are territories added in the 1978 report for 1977 and received their last coverage in the 2000 report of the same year. Other territories with differing dates are noted below. Their placements are based on their final rankings before ceasing coverage.
Free
- Template:Country data Åland (1992–2000)
- Template:Country data American Samoa
- Template:Country data Anguilla
- Template:Country data Aruba (1988–2000)
- Template:Country data Azores
- Template:Country data Bermuda
- Template:Country data British Virgin Islands
- Template:Country data Canary Islands
- Template:Country data Cayman Islands
- Template:Country data Ceuta
- Template:Country data Christmas Island
- Template:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands
- Template:Country data Cook Islands
- Template:Country data Czechoslovakia (1972–1993)
- Template:Country data Easter Island
- Template:Country data Falkland Islands
- Template:Country data Faroe Islands
- French Guiana
- Template:Country data French Polynesia
- Template:Country data West Germany (1972–1990)
- Template:Country data Gibraltar
- Template:Country data Greenland
- Guadeloupe
- Template:Country data Guam
- Template:Country data Guernsey
- Template:Country data Isle of Man
- Template:Country data Jersey
- Template:Country data Madeira
- Martinique
- Mayotte
- Template:Country data Melilla
- Template:Country data Montserrat
- Template:Country data Netherlands Antilles
- New Caledonia
- Template:Country data Niue
- Template:Country data Norfolk Island
- Northern Ireland (1991–2004)
- Template:Country data Northern Mariana Islands
- Template:Country data Pitcairn Islands
- Template:Country data Puerto Rico (1977–2016)
- Réunion
- Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
- Saint Martin
- Saint Pierre and Miquelon
- Template:Country data Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006)
- Svalbard (1992–2000)
- Template:Country data Tokelau
- Template:Country data Turks and Caicos Islands
- Template:Country data United States Virgin Islands
- Wallis and Futuna
Partly Free
- Template:Country data Republic of Artsakh (1991–2023)
- Template:Country data Kurdistan Region (1992–2004)
- Template:Country data Macau (1977–2004)
- Template:Country data Panama Canal Zone (1977–1979)
- Template:Country data Vatican City (1984–1988)
- West Papua (1990–2003)
- Template:Country data South Vietnam (1972–1976)
- Template:Country data North Yemen (1972–1990)
- Template:Flagdeco Yugoslavia (1972–1992)
Not Free
- Template:Country data Bophuthatswana (1977–1994)
- Template:Country data Chechnya (1998–2009)
- Template:Country data Ciskei (1981–1994)
- Template:Country data East Germany (1972–1990)
- Template:Country data Juan Fernández Islands (1977–1978)
- File:Flag of Israel.svg Occupied Territories (1977–2010)
- Template:Flagdeco Palestinian Territories (1997–2010)
- Template:Country data Transkei (1988–1994)
- Template:Country data Venda (1979–1994)
- Template:Country data Soviet Union (1972–1990)
- Template:Country data North Vietnam (1972–1976)
- File:Tradicionalna zastava Vojvodine sa grbom.svg Vojvodina (1992–1995)
- Template:Country data South Yemen (1972–1990)
Evaluation
Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". There is some debate over the neutrality of Freedom House and the methodology used for the Freedom in the World report, which has been written by Raymond Gastil and his colleagues.[2] The neutrality and biases of human-rights indices have been discussed in several publications by Kenneth A. Bollen.[15] Bollen wrote that "Considered together these criticisms suggest that some nations may have been incorrectly rated on Gastil's measures. However, none of the criticisms have demonstrated a systematic bias in all the ratings. Most of the evidence consists of anecdotal evidence of relatively few cases. Whether there is a systematic or sporadic slant in Gastil's ratings is an open question" (Bollen, 1986, p. 586).[2] The freedom index of Freedom in the World has a very strong and positive (at least an 80%) correlation with three other democracy-indices studied in Mainwaring (2001, p. 53).[16]
Ideological bias or neutrality
In his 1986 study, Bollen discussed reviews of measurements of human rights, including the index reported in Freedom in the World (Bollen, 1986, p. 585). Criticisms of Freedom in the World during the 1980s were discussed by Gastil (1990), who stated that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings", a conclusion disputed by Giannone.[17] The definition of Freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison", wrote Template:Harvtxt.[4]
More recent charges of ideological bias prompted Freedom House to issue this 2010 statement:
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.[9]
Mainwaring et alia (2001, p. 52)[16] wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions." Nonetheless, when evaluated in Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index was very strongly and positively correlated with the index of Adam Przeworski and with the index of the authors themselves: They evaluated Pearson's coefficient of linear correlation between their index and Freedom House's index, which was 0.82; among these indices and the two others studied, the correlations were all between 0.80 and 0.86 (Mainwaring et alia, 2001, p. 53).[16]
As previously quoted, Bollen criticized previous studies of Freedom in the World as anecdotal and inconclusive; they raised issues needing further study by scientific methods rather than anecdotes.[2] Bollen studied the question of ideological bias using multivariate statistics. Using their factor-analytic model for human-rights measurements, Bollen and Paxton estimate that Gastil's method produces a bias of -0.38 standard deviations (s.d.) against Marxist–Leninist countries and a larger bias, +0.5 s.d., favoring Christian countries; similar results held for the methodology of Sussman (Bollen and Paxton, 2000, p. 585).[18] In contrast, another method by a critic of Freedom in the World produced a bias for Leftist countries during the 1980s of at least +0.8 s.d., a bias that is "consistent with the general finding that political scientists are more favorable to leftist politics than is the general population" (Bollen and Paxton, p. 585).[18]
Coder bias
Political scientists Andrew T. Little and Anne Meng argued that the data produced by Freedom House and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project relies heavily on subjective, as opposed to objective, measures and thus are tainted by coder bias.[19]
Use and conceptual analysis
Criticisms of the reception and uses of the Freedom in the World report have been noted by Diego Giannone:[20]Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
- "Conceptual stretching", Giovanni Sartori's critical term for a methodological shortcoming common in social studies.[21] Giannone reports as an example that, according to Landman and Hausermann (2003), "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."[22]
- Issues with aggregation. Giannone quotes Scoble and Wiseberg's conclusion (1981) that "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."[23]
- "Lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction" and "inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales", the first referencing to Scoble et alie (1981) and the latter to Hadenius and Teorell (2005).[24] In support of the latter, he also quotes the conclusion of Munck and Verkuilen (2002) that "the aggregate data offered by Freedom House has to be accepted largely on faith",[25] due to the factors that "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".[24]
Time series
Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case" (2010) which reviewed changes to the methodology since 1990, Diego Giannone 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."[26]
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."[9]
See also
- Democracy in the Middle East
- Democracy Index
- Freedom in the World by region
- Index of Freedom in the World
- List of indices of freedom
- Polity data series
Notes
References
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".Template:Dead link
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". Individuals can download the complete report (pdf format) for private use.
External links
- Freedom in the World 2024 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2023 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2022 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2021 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2020 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2019 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2018 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2017 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2016 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2015 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2014 - online at Freedom House
- Freedom in the World 2013 - online at Freedom House
Template:Politics country lists
no:Freedom in the World tr:Freedom House Dünya Özgürlük Raporu vi:Tự do chính trị
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b c d 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, Template:ISBN.
- ↑ “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets" Template:Webarchive, Gretchen Casper and Claudiu Tufis, Political Analysis, 11:2 (2003), pp. 196–203, Society for Political Methodology
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ List of Electoral Democracies FIW23 (.XLSX), by Freedom House
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b c d "Freedom in the World 2010: Methodology" Template:Webarchive, Freedom in the World 2010, Freedom house
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ List of Electoral Democracies, FIW 2025 (Excel Download), Freedom In the World, List of Electoral Democracies, FIW 2025 (Excel Download), Freedom House.
- ↑ a b All Data, FIW 2013-2024 (Excel Download), Freedom In the World, All Data, 2013-2024 (Excel Download), Freedom House.
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Puerto Rico *. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/puerto-rico Template:Webarchive
- ↑ Bollen has held chairs as a Distinguished Professor of Sociology and the Director of the Howard W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH). Also serving as an Adjunct Professor of Statistics at UNC-CH, Bollen wrote the leading graduate textbook in structural equation models (SEM), often called LISREL models; SEM modeling allows the summary of a large number of measurements using a small number of meaningful factors. SEM was used by Bollen in the studies reported hereafter.
- ↑ a b c Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy", Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 1 (February 2000), pp. 58–86
- ↑ Andrew Little and Anne Meng,“Measuring Democratic Backsliding.“ PS: Political Science & Politics (forthcoming). https://osf.io/n32zk/
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics." The American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033–1053.
- ↑ Giannone (2010), p. 69. Quoting Landman, Tod, and Julia Hausermann, indicators/GovIndicatorsEssex2003.pdf Map-Making and Analysis of the Main International Initiatives on Developing Indicators on Democracy and Good Governance Template:Dead linkTemplate:Cbignore, Final Report, University of Essex – Human Rights Centre, July 2003, 98 pp.
- ↑ Scoble, Harry and Laurie Wiseberg, Ved Nanda, Ved, James Scarritt, and George Shepherd (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, Template:ISBN. Cited in Giannone (2010), p. 69.
- ↑ a b Giannone (2010), p. 69, citing Scoble, et al. (1981) and 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, CPS 2002.pdf "Conceptualising and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices" Template:Dead linkTemplate:Cbignore, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 35, no. 1 (February 2002), pp. 5–34. Cited in Giannone (2010), p. 69.
- ↑ Giannone (2010), p. 68.