Number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on the Polity IV scale, a measure of democracy.
World map showing findings from the Polity IV data series report for 2017.

The Polity data series is a data series in political science research.[1][2][3] Along with the V-Dem Democracy indices project and Democracy Index (The Economist), Polity is among prominent datasets that measure democracy and autocracy.[4][5][6][7][8]

The Polity study was initiated in the late 1960s by Ted Robert Gurr and is now continued by Monty G. Marshall, one of Gurr's students. It was sponsored by the Political Instability Task Force (PITF) until February 2020.[9] The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency.[10]

The data series has been criticized for its methodology, Americentrism, and connections to the CIA. Seva Gunitsky, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, stated that the data series was appropriate "for research that examines constraints on governing elites, but not for studying the expansion of suffrage over the nineteenth century".

Scoring chart

Polity Score ranges from -10 to +10
Polity score range 106 to 91 to 5-5 to 0-10 to -6
Regime type Full DemocracyDemocracyOpen AnocracyClosed AnocracyAutocracy

Scores for 2018

CountryDemocracy scoreAutocracy score Polity IV score[11][12] Polity IV regime type
 Afghanistan12-1Closed Anocracy
 Albania909Democracy
 Algeria312Open Anocracy
 Angola24-2Closed Anocracy
 Argentina909Democracy
 Armenia707Democracy
 Australia10010Full Democracy
 Austria10010Full Democracy
 Azerbaijan07-7Autocracy
 Bahrain010-10Autocracy
 Bangladesh06-6Autocracy
 Belarus07-7Autocracy
 Belgium808Democracy
 Benin707Democracy
 Bhutan707Democracy
 Bolivia707Democracy
 Botswana808Democracy
 Brazil808Democracy
 Bulgaria909Democracy
 Burkina Faso716Democracy
 Burundi23-1Closed Anocracy
 Cambodia04-4Closed Anocracy
 Cameroon15-4Closed Anocracy
 Canada10010Full Democracy
 Cape Verde10010Full Democracy
 Central African Republic716Democracy
 Chad13-2Closed Anocracy
 Chile10010Full Democracy
 China07-7Autocracy
 Colombia707Democracy
 Comoros03-3Closed Anocracy
Republic of the Congo Congo Brazzaville04-4Closed Anocracy
Democratic Republic of the Congo Congo Kinshasa14-3Closed Anocracy
 Costa Rica10010Full Democracy
 Croatia909Democracy
 Cuba16-5Closed Anocracy
 Cyprus10010Full Democracy
 Czech Republic909Democracy
 Denmark10010Full Democracy
 Djibouti303Open Anocracy
 Dominican Republic817Democracy
 East Timor918Democracy
 Ecuador615Open Anocracy
 Egypt04-4Closed Anocracy
 El Salvador808Democracy
 Equatorial Guinea06-6Autocracy
 Eritrea07-7Autocracy
 Estonia909Democracy
 Ethiopia321Open Anocracy
 Fiji404Open Anocracy
 Finland10010Full Democracy
 France909Democracy
 Gabon413Open Anocracy
The Gambia Gambia404Open Anocracy
 Georgia817Democracy
 Germany10010Full Democracy
 Ghana808Democracy
 Greece10010Full Democracy
 Guatemala918Democracy
 Guinea404Open Anocracy
 Guinea-Bissau716Democracy
 Guyana817Democracy
 Haiti615Open Anocracy
 Honduras707Democracy
 Hungary10010Full Democracy
 India909Democracy
 Indonesia909Democracy
 Iran07-7Autocracy
 Iraq606Democracy
 Ireland10010Full Democracy
 Israel716Democracy
 Italy10010Full Democracy
 Ivory Coast514Open Anocracy
 Jamaica909Democracy
 Japan10010Full Democracy
 Jordan25-3Closed Anocracy
 Kazakhstan06-6Autocracy
 Kenya909Democracy
 Kosovo808Democracy
 Kuwait07-7Autocracy
 Kyrgyzstan808Democracy
 Laos07-7Autocracy
 Latvia808Democracy
 Lebanon606Democracy
 Lesotho918Democracy
 Liberia817Democracy
 Lithuania10010Full Democracy
 Luxembourg10010Full Democracy
North Macedonia Macedonia909Democracy
 Madagascar606Democracy
 Malawi606Democracy
 Malaysia707Democracy
 Mali615Open Anocracy
 Mauritania02-2Closed Anocracy
 Mauritius10010Full Democracy
 Mexico808Democracy
 Moldova909Democracy
 Mongolia10010Full Democracy
 Montenegro909Democracy
 Morocco15-4Closed Anocracy
 Mozambique615Open Anocracy
 Myanmar808Democracy
 Namibia606Democracy
   Nepal817Democracy
 Netherlands10010Full Democracy
 New Zealand10010Full Democracy
 Nicaragua716Democracy
 Niger615Open Anocracy
 Nigeria817Democracy
 North Korea010-10Autocracy
 Norway10010Full Democracy
 Oman08-8Autocracy
 Pakistan707Democracy
 Panama909Democracy
 Papua New Guinea505Open Anocracy
 Paraguay909Democracy
 Peru909Democracy
 Philippines808Democracy
 Poland10010Full Democracy
 Portugal10010Full Democracy
 Qatar010-10Autocracy
 Romania909Democracy
 Russia514Open Anocracy
 Rwanda03-3Closed Anocracy
 Saudi Arabia010-10Autocracy
 Senegal707Democracy
 Serbia918Democracy
 Sierra Leone817Democracy
 Singapore24-2Closed Anocracy
Slovakia Slovak Republic10010Full Democracy
 Slovenia10010Full Democracy
 Solomon Islands918Democracy
 Somalia505Open Anocracy
 South Africa909Democracy
 South Korea808Democracy
 Spain10010Full Democracy
 Sri Lanka716Democracy
 Sudan04-4Closed Anocracy
 Suriname615Open Anocracy
 Eswatini09-9Autocracy
 Sweden10010Full Democracy
  Switzerland10010Full Democracy
 Syria09-9Autocracy
 Taiwan10010Full Democracy
 Tajikistan14-3Closed Anocracy
 Tanzania413Open Anocracy
 Thailand03-3Closed Anocracy
 Togo13-2Closed Anocracy
 Trinidad and Tobago10010Full Democracy
 Tunisia707Democracy
 Turkey04-4Closed Anocracy
 Turkmenistan08-8Autocracy
 Uganda12-1Closed Anocracy
 Ukraine514Open Anocracy
 United Arab Emirates08-8Autocracy
 United Kingdom808Democracy
 United States808Democracy
 Uruguay10010Full Democracy
 Uzbekistan09-9Autocracy
 Venezuela14-3Closed Anocracy
 Vietnam07-7Autocracy
 Zambia606Democracy
 Zimbabwe514Open Anocracy

Criticism

The 2002 paper "Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy" claimed several problems with commonly used democracy rankings, including Polity, opining that the criteria used to determine "democracy" were misleadingly narrow.[13]

The Polity data series has been criticized by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting for its methodology and determination of what is and isn't a democracy. FAIR has criticized the data series for Americentrism with the United States being shown as the only democracy in the world in 1842, being given a nine out of ten during slavery, and a ten out of ten during the Jim Crow era. The organization has also been critical of the data series for ignoring European colonialism in Africa and Asia with those areas being labeled as no data before the 1960s. FAIR has also been critical of the data series' connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. Max Roser, the founder of Our World in Data, stated that Polity IV was far from perfect and was concerned at the data series' connections with the Central Intelligence Agency.[14]

Seva Gunitsky, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, wrote in The Washington Post where he stated that "Polity IV measures might be appropriate for research that examines constraints on governing elites, but not for studying the expansion of suffrage over the nineteenth century". Gunitsky was critical of the data series for ignoring suffrage.[15]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. "Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets." Political Analysis 11: 196-203.
  2. ↑ "Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
  3. ↑ Hensel, Paul R. (2010). "Review of Available Data Sets". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.418. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
  4. ↑ Högström, John (2013). "Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV". Government and Opposition. 48 (2): 201–221. doi:10.1017/gov.2012.10. ISSN 0017-257X. S2CID 19290786.
  5. ↑ Coppedge, Michael; Lindberg, Staffan; Skaaning, Svend-Erik; Teorell, Jan (2016). "Measuring high level democratic principles using the V-Dem data". International Political Science Review. 37 (5): 580–593. doi:10.1177/0192512115622046. hdl:2077/38971. ISSN 0192-5121. JSTOR 26556873. S2CID 142135251.
  6. ↑ Pelke, Lars; Croissant, Aurel (2021). "Conceptualizing and Measuring Autocratization Episodes". Swiss Political Science Review. 27 (2): 434–448. doi:10.1111/spsr.12437. ISSN 1662-6370.
  7. ↑ Vaccaro, Andrea (2021-03-16). "Comparing measures of democracy: statistical properties, convergence, and interchangeability". European Political Science. 20 (4): 666–684. doi:10.1057/s41304-021-00328-8. ISSN 1682-0983.
  8. ↑ Boese, Vanessa A (2019-06-01). "How (not) to measure democracy". International Area Studies Review. 22 (2): 95–127. doi:10.1177/2233865918815571. ISSN 2233-8659. S2CID 191935546.
  9. ↑ "Polity". Polity. 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-01-26. Retrieved 16 July 2021.
  10. ↑ Polity IV Country Report 2010: Canada http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/Canada2010.pdf
  11. ↑ "Polity IV Annual Time-Series, 1800-2018". Retrieved 31 August 2019.
  12. ↑ "INSCR Data Page". 2019-06-02.
  13. ↑ Gerardo L. Munck, Jay Verkuilen (February 2002), "Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices" (PDF), Comparative Political Studies, 35 (1): 5–34, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.469.3177, doi:10.1177/001041400203500101, S2CID 73722608
  14. ↑ "Vox's CIA-Backed 'Democracy' Standard Is OK With Slavery and Women Not Voting". Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. May 16, 2016. Archived from the original on July 15, 2021.
  15. ↑ "How do you measure 'democracy'?". The Washington Post. June 23, 2015. Archived from the original on July 16, 2021.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.