The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2011, with greener colours representing more democratic countries. Countries with DI below 2 (clearly authoritarian) are in dark red.

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are UN member states. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. The Index was first produced in 2006, with updated lists produced in 2008, 2010 and 2011.

According to the latest issue of the Index, for 2011 Norway scored a total of 9.80 on a scale from zero to ten, keeping its position from 2010, when it replaced Sweden as the highest ranked country in the index. North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, the same as in 2010. The Democracy Index for 2011 highlights the impact of the Arab Spring and the greater effects it might have, as well as the impact of the global financial crisis in 2008–09 on politics throughout most of Europe. The Democracy Index score was lower in 2011 than in 2010 in 48 countries out of the 167 that are covered. It was higher in 41 ranked countries, and it stayed the same in 78.^[1]

The countries are categorized into full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. In nine countries there was a change in regime type between 2010 and 2011; in four of these there was regression. Russia was downgraded from a hybrid regime to an authoritarian regime, which the report attributes to concerns over the December 4 legislative election and Vladimir Putin's decision to run again in the 2012 presidential election.^[1] Portugal was also downgraded to the flawed democracy category, attributed to the effects of the global financial crisis. Tunisia, Mauritania, Egypt, and Niger were all upgraded to hybrid regimes, and Zambia moved up to the flawed democracy category.^[1]

Methodology[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

As described in the report, the democracy index is a kind of weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.

The questions are distributed into the five categories enumerated above. Each answer is translated to a mark, either 0 or 1, or for the three-answer alternative questions, 0.5. With the exceptions mentioned below, seemingly, the sums are added within each category, multiplied by ten, and divided by the total number of questions within the category. There are a few modifying dependencies, which are explained much more precisely than the main rule procedures. In a few cases, an answer yielding zero for one question voids another question; e.g., if the elections for the national legislature and head of government are not considered free (question 1), then the next question, "Are elections... fair?" is not considered, but automatically marked zero. Likewise, there are a few questions considered so important that a low score on them yields a penalty on the total score sum for their respective categories, namely:

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 servants to implement policies".

The five category indices, which all are listed in the report, are then averaged to find the democracy index for a given country. Finally, the democracy index, rounded to one decimal, decides the classification of the country, as quoted:

1. Full democracies—scores of 8 to 10.
2. Flawed democracies—scores of 6 to 7.9.
3. Hybrid regimes—scores of 4 to 5.9.
4. Authoritarian regimes—scores of 0 to 3.9.

The report discusses other indices of democracy, as defined e.g. by Freedom House, and argues for some of the choices made by the team from the Economist Intelligence Unit. In this comparison, a higher emphasis has been put on the public opinion and attitudes, as measured by public surveys, but on the other hand, economic living standard has not been weighted as one criterion of democracy (as seemingly some other investigators have done). ^[2][3]

There is no indication that this report has been presented or is planned to be presented in any academic context, or has been checked by or will be checked by a peer review.^{[citation needed]}

Democracy index by regime type[link]

The following table constitutes the number of countries in each category according to 2010 survey.^[4]

World population refers to the total population of the 167 countries that are covered. Since this survey excludes only a few countries, this is nearly equal to the entire actual estimated world population in 2010.

Democracy index average by region[link]

The following table constitutes the index average in each region.^[4][5][6]

2011 rankings[link]

No.	Location	Index	Category	Nominal type of government
1	Norway	9.80	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
2	Iceland	9.65	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
3	Denmark	9.52	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
4	Sweden	9.50	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
5	New Zealand	9.26	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
6	Australia	9.22	Full democracy	Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
7	Switzerland	9.09	Full democracy	Federalism, directorial system, bicameralism
8	Canada	9.08	Full democracy	Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism,
9	Finland	9.06	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
10	Netherlands	8.99	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
11	Luxembourg	8.88	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
12	Ireland	8.56	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
13	Austria	8.49	Full democracy	Federalism, parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
14	Germany	8.34	Full democracy	Federalism, parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
15	Malta	8.28	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
16	Czech Republic	8.19	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
17	Uruguay	8.17	Full democracy	Presidential system, bicameralism
18	United Kingdom	8.16	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
19	United States	8.11	Full democracy	Federalism, constitutional republic, presidential system, bicameralism
20	Costa Rica	8.10	Full democracy	Presidential system
21	Japan	8.08	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
22	Korea, South !  South Korea	8.06	Full democracy	Semi-presidential system, unicameralism
23	Belgium	8.05	Full democracy	Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
24	Mauritius	8.04	Full democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy
25	Spain	8.02	Full democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
26	Cape Verde	7.92	Flawed democracy	Unitary parliamentary republic
27	Portugal	7.81	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy
28	South Africa	7.79	Flawed democracy	Constitutional democracy, bicameralism
29	France	7.77	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, bicameralism
30	Slovenia	7.76	Flawed democracy	Constitutional democracy, incomplete bicameralism
31	Italy	7.74	Flawed democracy	Bicameralism, parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy
32	Greece	7.65	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy
33	Botswana	7.63	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
34	Estonia	7.61	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
35	Chile	7.54	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, bicameralism
36	Israel	7.53	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
37	Taiwan (Republic of China) !  Republic of China (Taiwan)	7.46	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, unicameralism
38	Slovakia	7.35	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
39	India	7.30	Flawed democracy	Federalism, parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
40	Cyprus	7.29	Flawed democracy	Presidential republic, unicameralism
41	Lithuania	7.24	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential republic, unicameralism
42	Timor-Leste	7.22	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
43	Trinidad and Tobago	7.16	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
44	Jamaica	7.13	Flawed democracy	Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
45	Poland	7.12	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, bicameralism
45	Brazil	7.12	Flawed democracy	Federalism, presidential system, bicameralism
47	Panama	7.08	Flawed democracy	Constitutional democracy
48	Latvia	7.05	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
49	Hungary	7.04	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
50	Mexico	6.93	Flawed democracy	Federalism, presidential system, republic
51	Argentina	6.84	Flawed democracy	Federalism, presidential system, bicameralism
52	Bulgaria	6.78	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary democracy
53	Croatia	6.73	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic, unicameralism
54	Suriname	6.65	Flawed democracy	Constitutional democracy
55	Colombia	6.63	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, republic
56	Peru	6.59	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, republic, unicameralism
57	Sri Lanka	6.58	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, democratic socialist republic
58	Thailand	6.55	Flawed democracy	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
59	Romania	6.54	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, bicameralism
60	Indonesia	6.53	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, republic, regional state, bicameralism
61	El Salvador	6.47	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, republic
62	Paraguay	6.40	Flawed democracy	Constitutional republic, presidential system
63	Mali	6.36	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system
64	Serbia	6.33	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
64	Lesotho	6.33	Flawed democracy	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system
64	Moldova	6.33	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
67	Papua New Guinea	6.32	Flawed democracy	Federalism, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy
68	Namibia	6.24	Flawed democracy	Republic
69	Mongolia	6.23	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, republic
70	Dominican Republic	6.20	Flawed democracy	Democratic republic, representative democracy
71	Malaysia	6.19	Flawed democracy	Constitutional monarchy, Parliamentary democracy, Federalism, bicameralism
71	Zambia	6.19	Flawed democracy	Republic
73	Macedonia	6.16	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
74	Montenegro	6.15	Flawed democracy	Parliamentary republic
75	Philippines	6.12	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, constitutional republic, bicameralism
76	Benin	6.06	Flawed democracy	Republic
77	Guyana	6.05	Flawed democracy	Semi-presidential system, republic
78	Ghana	6.02	Flawed democracy	Presidential system, constitutional republic
79	Ukraine	5.94	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
80	Hong Kong	5.92	Hybrid regime	Quasi-presidential Autonomous region with limited suffrage, unicameralism
81	Singapore	5.89	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
82	Guatemala	5.88	Hybrid regime	Presidential republic
83	Bangladesh	5.86	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic, unitary state
84	Bolivia	5.84	Hybrid regime	Presidential republic, unitary state
84	Honduras	5.84	Hybrid regime	Constitutional republic
86	Malawi	5.82	Hybrid regime	Republic
87	Albania	5.81	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
88	Turkey	5.73	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
89	Ecuador	5.72	Hybrid regime	Presidential system
90	Tanzania	5.64	Hybrid regime	Republic
91	Nicaragua	5.56	Hybrid regime	Presidential republic
92	Tunisia	5.53	Hybrid regime	Republic
93	Senegal	5.44	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system
94	Lebanon	5.32	Hybrid regime	Confessionalist parliamentary republic
95	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5.24	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system
96	Uganda	5.13	Hybrid regime	Presidential system, republic
97	Venezuela	5.08	Hybrid regime	Federalism, presidential system
98	Liberia	5.07	Hybrid regime	Presidential republic
99	Palestine	4.97	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system, parliamentary democracy
100	Mozambique	4.90	Hybrid regime	Presidential system
101	Cambodia	4.87	Hybrid regime	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy
102	Georgia	4.74	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
103	Kenya	4.71	Hybrid regime	Presidential system
104	Bhutan	4.57	Hybrid regime	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy
105	Pakistan	4.55	Hybrid regime	Islamic republic, federalism, parliamentary republic
106	Sierra Leone	4.51	Hybrid regime	Constitutional republic
107	Kyrgyzstan	4.34	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
108	Nepal	4.24	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
109	Mauritania	4.17	Hybrid regime	Islamic republic
110	Niger	4.16	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential republic
111	Armenia	4.09	Hybrid regime	Presidential republic
112	Iraq	4.03	Hybrid regime	Parliamentary republic
113	Burundi	4.01	Hybrid regime	Republic
114	Haiti	4.00	Hybrid regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
115	Egypt	3.95	Hybrid regime	Transitional military junta
116	Madagascar	3.93	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
117	Russia	3.92	Authoritarian regime	Federalism, semi-presidential system, bicameralism
118	Jordan	3.89	Authoritarian regime	Constitutional monarchy
119	Nigeria	3.83	Authoritarian regime	Federalism, presidential system
119	Morocco	3.83	Authoritarian regime	Constitutional monarchy, bicameralism
121	Ethiopia	3.79	Authoritarian regime	Federalism, parliamentary republic
122	Kuwait	3.74	Authoritarian regime	Constitutional monarchy
123	Fiji	3.67	Authoritarian regime	Parliamentary republic
124	Burkina Faso	3.59	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
125	Libya	3.55	Authoritarian regime	Transitional government
126	Cuba	3.52	Authoritarian regime	Socialist republic, single-party communist state
126	Comoros	3.52	Authoritarian regime	Federal republic
128	Gabon	3.48	Authoritarian regime	Republic
129	Togo	3.45	Authoritarian regime	Republic
130	Algeria	3.44	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
131	Cameroon	3.41	Authoritarian regime	Republic
132	Gambia, The !  The Gambia	3.38	Authoritarian regime	Republic
133	Angola	3.32	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
134	Oman	3.26	Authoritarian regime	Islamic absolute monarchy
134	Swaziland	3.26	Authoritarian regime	Absolute monarchy
136	Rwanda	3.25	Authoritarian regime	Republic
137	Kazakhstan	3.24	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
138	Qatar	3.18	Authoritarian regime	Constitutional monarchy
139	Belarus	3.16	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
140	Azerbaijan	3.15	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
141	China, People's Republic of !  People's Republic of China	3.14	Authoritarian regime	People's democratic dictatorship, single-party communist state
142	Côte d’Ivoire	3.08	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
143	Vietnam	2.96	Authoritarian regime	Socialist republic, single-party communist state
144	Bahrain	2.92	Authoritarian regime	Absolute monarchy
145	Congo, Republic of the !  Republic of the Congo	2.89	Authoritarian regime	Republic
146	Guinea	2.79	Authoritarian regime	Presidential republic
147	Zimbabwe	2.68	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential, parliamentary, consociationalist republic
147	Djibouti	2.68	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential republic
149	United Arab Emirates	2.58	Authoritarian regime	Federalism, constitutional monarchy
150	Yemen	2.57	Authoritarian regime	Republic
151	Tajikistan	2.51	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system
152	Afghanistan	2.48	Authoritarian regime	Islamic republic
153	Sudan	2.38	Authoritarian regime	Federalism, presidential system, republic
154	Eritrea	2.34	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential republic
155	Congo, Democratic Republic of the !  Democratic Republic of the Congo	2.15	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential republic
156	Laos	2.10	Authoritarian regime	Socialist republic, single-party communist state
157	Guinea-Bissau	1.99	Authoritarian regime	Semi-presidential system, republic
157	Syria	1.99	Authoritarian regime	Presidential system, single party, republic
159	Iran	1.98	Authoritarian regime	Islamic republic
160	Central African Republic	1.82	Authoritarian regime	Republic
161	Saudi Arabia	1.77	Authoritarian regime	Islamic absolute monarchy
161	Equatorial Guinea	1.77	Authoritarian regime	Presidential republic
161	Burma	1.77	Authoritarian regime	Unitary presidential republic
164	Uzbekistan	1.74	Authoritarian regime	Presidential republic
165	Turkmenistan	1.72	Authoritarian regime	Presidential republic, single-party state
166	Chad	1.52	Authoritarian regime	Republic
167	Korea, North !  North Korea	1.08	Authoritarian regime	Socialist republic, single-party communist state, Juche regime, police state

Countries and territories not included in this list[link]

United Nations member states[link]

•  Andorra
•  Antigua and Barbuda
•  Bahamas
•  Barbados
•  Belize
•  Brunei
•  Dominica
•  Grenada
•  Liechtenstein
•  Maldives
•  Marshall Islands
•  Federated States of Micronesia
•  Monaco
•  Nauru
•  Palau
•  Saint Kitts and Nevis
•  Saint Lucia
•  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
•  Samoa
•  São Tomé and Príncipe
•  San Marino
• 22x20px Seychelles
•  Solomon Islands
•  Somalia
•  South Sudan
•  Tonga
•  Tuvalu
•  Vanuatu

Dependencies[link]

•  Akrotiri and Dhekelia
•  American Samoa
•  Anguilla
•  Argentine Antarctica
•  Aruba
•  Ashmore and Cartier Islands
• Australian Antarctic Territory
• Bajo Nuevo Bank
•  Baker Island
•  Bermuda
•  Bonaire
•  Bouvet Island
• Brazilian Antarctica
•  British Antarctic Territory
•  British Indian Ocean Territory
•  British Virgin Islands
•  Cayman Islands
• Chilean Antarctic Territory
•  Christmas Island
•  Clipperton Island
•  Cocos (Keeling) Islands
•  Cook Islands
• Coral Sea Islands Territory
•  Curaçao
•  Falkland Islands
•  Faroe Islands
•  French Guiana
•  French Polynesia
•  French Southern and Antarctic Lands
•  Gibraltar
•  Greenland
•  Guadeloupe
•  Guam
•  Guernsey
•  Heard Island and McDonald Islands
•  Howland Island
•  Isle of Man
•  Jarvis Island
•  Jersey
•  Johnston Atoll
•  Kingman Reef
•  Kiribati
•  Macau
•  Martinique
•  Mayotte
•  Midway Islands
•  Montserrat
•  Navassa Island
•  New Caledonia
•  Niue
•  Norfolk Island
•  Northern Mariana Islands
•  Saba
•  Saint Barthélemy
• Peter I Island
•  Pitcairn Islands
•  Puerto Rico
• Queen Maud Land
•  Réunion
• Ross Dependency
•  Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
•  Collectivity of Saint Martin
•  Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Serranilla Bank
•  Sint Eustatius
•  Sint Maarten
•  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
•  Tokelau
•  Turks and Caicos Islands
•  United States Virgin Islands
•  Wake Island
•  Western Sahara

States with limited recognition[link]

•  Abkhazia
•  Kosovo
•  Nagorno-Karabakh
•  Northern Cyprus
•  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
•  Somaliland
•  South Ossetia
•  Transnistria

Others[link]

• Marie Byrd Land
• Spratly Islands
•  Vatican City

See also[link]

• Democracy promotion
• Freedom House
• Gini coefficient
• Gender-related Development Index
• Gender Empowerment Measure
• Global Peace Index
• Living Planet Index
• Gross national happiness
• Happy Planet Index
• Physical quality-of-life index
• Human development (humanity)
• Human Development Index
• List of freedom indices

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2011

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Democracy Index

Sheila Jasanoff is an American academic and significant contributor to the field of Science and Technology Studies.

Biography[link]

She is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where she directs the Program on Science, Technology, & Society. ^[1] Her research focuses on science and the state in contemporary democratic societies. Her work is relevant to science & technology studies, comparative politics, law and society, political and legal anthropology, and policy analysis. Jasanoff’s research has considerable empirical breadth, spanning the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union, and India, as well as emerging global regimes in areas such as climate and biotechnology.

One line of Jasanoff’s work demonstrates how the political culture of different democratic societies influences how they assess evidence and expertise in policymaking. Her first book (with Brickman and Ilgen), Controlling Chemicals (1985), examines the regulation of toxic substances in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.^[2] The book showed how the routines of decision making in these countries reflected different conceptions of what counts as evidence and of how expertise should operate in a policy context. In Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (2005), she has shown how different societies employ different modes of public reasoning when making decisions involving science and technology. ^[3] These differences, which in part reflect distinct "civic epistemologies," are deeply embedded in institutions and shape how policy issues are framed and processed by the bureaucratic machinery of modern states.

Jasanoff has also contributed to scholarship on the interaction of science and law. Science at the Bar (1995), for example, reached beyond the prevailing diagnoses of structural incompatibilities between science and law to explore how these socially embedded institutions interact and, to a certain extent, mutually constitute each other. ^[4] The concept of regulatory science, conducted for the purposes of meeting legally mandated standards, and the "boundary" drawing activities of science advisory committees are analyzed in The Fifth Branch (1990).^[5] More recently, she has explored the "rise of the statistical victim" in toxic torts, as the law with its individualistic orientation has increasingly encountered, and sought ways to accommodate, the statistical vision of such fields as epidemiology.^[6] In her work on science and law, as well as her research on science in the state, she takes an approach that links ideas from constitutional law, political theory, and science studies to consider the "constitutional" role of science in modern democratic states.^[7]

Jasanoff has considered the politics of science not only in a comparative but also in a global context. Examples include her work on the transnational aspects of the Bhopal disaster (Learning from Disaster 1994); her research on the formation and politics of global scientific advisory bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and her research on national and global environmental movements (e.g., Earthy Politics, 2004).

Jasanoff also has contributed to building Science and Technology Studies as a field. Prior to moving to Harvard, she was the founding chair of the Department of Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University. She is also the founder of the Science & Democracy Network, a group of scholars interested in the study of science and the state in democratic societies that has met annually since 2002. Her research has been recognized with many awards, including the Bernal Prize from the Society for Social Studies of Science.

Personal[link]

She is married to Jay Jasanoff, and has two children, Maya Jasanoff, who is a professor in the Department of History at Harvard, and Alan Jasanoff, who is a professor of neuroscientist at MIT.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Harvard Bio
• Society for Social Studies of Science
• Science & Democracy Network
• Sheila Jasanoff, Director, Program on Science, Technology and Society at Harvard Kennedy School
• Podcast of a lecture, December 2008 Natural or Naturalizing? The Law's Way with Truth and Justice