CORRELATES OF DEMOCRACY
SÖREN HOLMBERG
BO ROTHSTEIN
WORKING PAPER SERIES 2011:10 QOG THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE
Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg
Economic Equality (gini index) 5
Economic Freedom 6
GDP / Capita Growth 7
Population below $2 a Day (%) 8
Foreign Credit Rating 9
Welfare
Human Development Index 10
Government Revenue (% of GDP) 11
Tax Revenue (% of GDP) 12
Social Security Laws 13
Average Schooling Years 14
Health
Life Expectancy 15
Healthy Life Years 16
Infant Mortality Rate 17
Maternal Mortality Rate 18
Government Expenditure on Health (% of total health) 19
Private Expenditure on Health (% of total health) 20
Environment
CO2 Emissions / Capita 21
Access to Improved Drinking Water 22
Access to Adequate Sanitation 23
Gender
Gender Equality 24
Secondary Education Enrollment (female) 25
Crime
Homicide Rate 26
Confidence in Parliament (democracies only) 31
Confidence in Government (all countries) 32
Confidence in Government (democracies only) 33
Happiness
Feeling of Happiness 34
Life Satisfaction 35
Democracy
Level of Democracy 2002 and 2009 36
Quality of Government
Government Effectiveness 37
Control of Corruption 38
4
Andorra Antigua and Barbuda
Bahrain Bangladesh Armenia Bosnia Brunei Belarus Cambodia Cameroon Taiwan Den Fin Gabon Gambia Israel Japan Kazakhstan North Korea Kuwait Luxembourg Malaysia Mali Monaco Mongolia Oman Norway Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Seychelles Singapore Vietnam Swe Trinidad United Arab Emirates
Turkmenistan Tuvalu USA Uruguay Venezuela
0
25
00
0
50
00
0
GD
P
/ C
a
p
ita
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.16
Sources: Gleditsch (2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
GDP / Capita
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
5 Albania Angola Azerbaijan Armenia Bolivia Bosnia Belize Belarus Cambodia Can
Central African Republic China
Colombia Comoros Dem. Rep. Congo
Denmark Ecuador Ethiopia Haiti Honduras Hungary Indonesia Israel Montenegro Netherlands Niger Paraguay Peru Philippines Russia Sao Tome Zimbabwe Swaziland Swe Thailand Togo Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Tanzania USA Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela
30
40
50
60
70
80
E
co
n
o
m
ic
E
q
u
a
lit
y
(R
e
ve
rse
d
G
in
i-i
n
d
e
x)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.01
Sources: World Development Indicators (1995-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Economic Equality
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
6 Bahrain Armenia Bosnia Belarus Cambodia China Congo Cuba El Salvador Ethiopia Estonia Haiti Iran IsraelJapan Jordan North Korea Madagascar Malaysia Oman New Zealand Pakistan Peru Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Slovenia Zimbabwe Suriname Swe United Arab Emirates
Turkmenistan USA Serbia
0
20
40
60
80
E
co
n
o
m
ic
F
re
e
d
o
m
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.37
Sources: Heritage Foundation (2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Economic Freedom
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
7 Argentina Bahrain Armenia Belarus China
Dem. Rep. Congo
Dominica Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Eritrea Gambia Iraq Israel Japan Madagascar Moldova Vanuatu Nigeria Palau Guinea-Bissau Russia Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Zimbabwe Swe
Tajikistan Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan Ukraine Tanzania USA Uruguay Venezuela
-2
0
-1
0
0
10
20
GD
P
/ C
a
p
ita
Gr
o
w
th
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.01
Sources: World Development Indicators (2002-2005), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
GDP / Capita Growth
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
8 Albania Algeria Argentina Bangladesh Armenia Brazil Belarus Cambodia China Colombia Comoros Djibouti Georgia Gambia India Iran Liberia Malaysia Mali Mauritania Mongolia Mozambique Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea
Philippines Russia Rwanda Sao Tome Serbia Sierra Leone Slovenia South Africa Tunisia Turkmenistan Egypt Tanzania Burkina Faso Uruguay Uzbekistan
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
P
o
p
u
la
tio
n
B
e
lo
w
$
2
a
D
a
y
(%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.19
Sources: World Bank (1995-2007), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Population Below $2 a Day
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
9 Albania Argentina
Brazil
Belarus Cambodia
Cameroon Cape Verde
China Colombia Fiji Georgia Greece India Israel Jamaica Japan Kenya Kuwait Malaysia Oman Nor Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Vietnam Swe Thailand Tunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine Egypt USA Uruguay Venezuela Zambia
2
4
6
8
10
Fo
re
ig
n
C
re
d
it
R
a
tin
g
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.13
Sources: Standard & Poor's (2011), Freedom House/Polity (2009)
Foreign Credit Rating
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
10 Albania Argentina Bahrain Bangladesh Bolivia Solomon Islands Myanmar Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde
Dem. Rep. Congo Eritrea Estonia Gabon Gambia Ghana Iran Israel Japan Kazakhstan Lebanon Lesotho Malaysia Maldives Mali Morocco Mozambique Vanuatu Nigeria Norway Qatar Russia Rwanda Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Vietnam Swaziland Swe Egypt USA Burkina Faso
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
H
u
m
a
n
D
e
ve
lo
p
m
e
n
t
In
d
e
x
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.22
Sources: UNDP (2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Human Development Index
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
11 Afghanistan Algeria Bahamas Bangladesh Belgium Bosnia Botswana Brazil Myanmar Cambodia Dem. Rep. Congo
Estonia Honduras Iceland India Israel Cote d'Ivoire Kazakhstan Jordan Kuwait Laos Lebanon Malaysia Mauritius Namibia Norway Qatar Romania Russia Seychelles Swaziland Swe Syria Thailand Ukraine Macedonia Egypt USA Venezuela Yemen
0
10
20
30
40
50
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
R
e
ve
n
u
e
(%
o
f
G
D
P
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.14
Sources: World Development Indicators (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Government Revenue
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
12 Albania Algeria Argentina Bahrain Armenia Barbados Brazil Myanmar Belarus Cambodia
Central African Republic China Denmark Fiji Georgia Iran Israel Jamaica Jordan Kenya Kuwait Lesotho Madagascar Malaysia Morocco Namibia Panama Poland Qatar Russia Seychelles Zimbabwe Swaziland Swe Syria
United Arab Emirates Tunisia Macedonia USA Burkina Faso Zambia
0
10
20
30
40
T
a
x
R
e
ve
n
u
e
(%
o
f
G
D
P
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.19
Sources: World Development Indicators (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Tax Revenue
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
13 Argentina Armenia Bolivia Brazil China Colombia Denmark Ecuador Georgia Ghana Indonesia Israel Jamaica Japan Kazakhstan Jordan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Malawi Malaysia Mexico Morocco Nigeria Pakistan Russia Singapore Vietnam South Africa Zimbabwe Swe Tunisia Turkey Uganda Egypt Tanzania USA Venezuela
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
S
o
ci
a
l S
e
cu
rit
y
L
a
w
s
In
d
e
x
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.19
Sources: Botero et al (1997-2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Social Security Laws Index
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
14 Afghanistan Argentina Australia Bahrain Myanmar Canada
Central African Republic China
Taiwan
Dem. Rep. Congo
Ecuador El Salvador Fiji Gambia Guyana Haiti Iran Iraq Israel Italy Japan Jordan South Korea Kuwait Malawi Malaysia Mali Mauritius Mexico Niger
Papua New Guinea
Portugal Senegal Singapore Zimbabwe Swe Syria USA Zambia
0
5
10
15
A
ve
ra
g
e
S
ch
o
o
lin
g
Y
e
a
rs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.38
Sources: Barro & Lee (2000), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Average Schooling Years
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
15
Afghanistan Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Azerbaijan Bahrain
Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana Brazil Myanmar Burundi Cambodia Cameroon China Comoros Cuba Benin Ethiopia Eritrea Estonia Djibouti Gabon Ger Kiribati Haiti India Iran IsraelJapan Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Madagascar Malawi Mali Mongolia Mozambique Nigeria Pakistan Russia Rwanda San Marino Saudi A. Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore South Africa Zimbabwe Swaziland Swe Tajikistan Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine USA Uzbekistan Zambia
40
50
60
70
80
L
ife
E
xp
e
ct
a
n
cy
a
t
B
ir
th
(
Y
e
a
rs)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.19
Sources: World Bank (2000-2006), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Life Expectancy at Birth
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
16
Syria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Papua New Guinea Argentina S. Arabia Nor Croatia Japan Swe South Korea Egypt Bahrain Armenia Macedonia Zimbabwe Swaziland Malaysia Azerbaijan Turkmenistan Mongolia Israel Georgia Singapore South Africa Belarus USA Russia Nigeria Burundi Equatorial Guinea Kuwait Ethiopia Kenya Djibouti Rwanda Cameroon Afghanistan Senegal Lesotho Mozambique Laos Botswana Liberia Iraq Gambia Honduras Angola Maldives Tanzania Cambodia Tuvalu Bangladesh Brunei Sierra Leone Mali Tajikistan Cuba Haiti Chad Pakistan Iran Lebanon China
30
40
50
60
70
80
H
e
a
lth
y
L
ife
Y
e
a
rs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.21
Sources: WHO (-), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Healthy Life Years
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
17 Afghanistan Angola Bangladesh Solomon Islands Brunei Cameroon
Central African Republic
China
Comoros Dem. Rep. Congo
Cuba Equatorial Guinea Djibouti Georgia Gambia Kiribati India Iran Iraq S. Korea Lesotho Liberia Malawi Malaysia Mali Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Namibia Marshall Isl. Timor-Leste Rwanda Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore South Africa Swaziland Sweden Tunisia Turkmenistan USA Uzbekistan
0
50
10
0
15
0
20
0
In
fa
n
t
M
o
rt
a
lit
y
(p
e
r
1
0
0
0
li
ve
b
ir
th
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.22
Sources: World Bank (2000-2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Infant Mortality
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
18 Afghanistan Albania Bangladesh Armenia Botswana Myanmar Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad China Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Eritrea Gambia Guyana India Iran Iraq Lesotho Liberia Malawi Malaysia Mali Mozambique Namibia Nepal Vanuatu Guinea-Bissau Timor-Leste Rwanda Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Sweden Tajikistan Tunisia USA Burkina Faso
0
50
0
10
00
15
00
20
00
M
a
te
rn
a
l M
o
rt
a
lit
y
R
a
tio
(p
e
r
1
0
0
,0
0
0
li
ve
b
ir
th
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.12
Sources: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation - University of Washington (2002),
Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Maternal Mortality Ratio
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
19 Afghanistan Angola Bangladesh Solomon Islands Myanmar Burundi Colombia
Dem. Rep. Congo
Cuba Czech Republic
Dominican Republic Ethiopia Gabon Georgia Guyana India Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Kazakhstan North Korea Lebanon Lesotho Mexico Marshall Islands Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia Swaziland Swe Syria Tonga USA Uruguay Zambia
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
E
xp
e
n
d
itu
re
o
n
H
e
a
lth
(%
o
f
to
ta
l h
e
a
lth
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.15
Sources: WHO (2001-2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Government Expenditure on Health
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
20 Afghanistan Angola Azerbaijan Aus Bahrain Bangladesh Solomon Islands Bulgaria Myanmar Burundi Belarus
Cent. Afr. Rep. China
Colombia Dem. Rep. Congo
Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Ethiopia Djibouti Gabon Georgia Guyana India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Kazakhstan North Korea Lebanon Lesotho Latvia Libya Malawi Mexico Namibia Neth Nigeria Marshall Islands Pakistan
Papua New Guinea Russia
Saudi Arabia
Slovakia
Somalia South Africa
Swaziland
Swe Tonga
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine USA Uruguay Zambia
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
P
ri
va
te
E
xp
e
n
d
itu
re
o
n
H
e
a
lth
(%
o
f
to
ta
l h
e
a
lth
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.15
Sources: WHO (2001-2002), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Private Expenditure on Health
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
21 Argentina Australia Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Belize Solomon Islands Brunei Belarus Comoros
Dem. Rep. Congo
Costa Rica Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Fiji Djibouti Gambia Guyana Iceland Iraq Israel Japan Kazakhstan Malaysia Mauritania Mauritius Guinea-Bissau Timor-Leste Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Swaziland Swe Trinidad and Tobago Turkmenistan Ukraine Egypt Tanzania USA Serbia
0
20
40
60
C
a
rb
o
n
D
io
xi
d
e
E
m
issi
o
n
s
(T
o
n
s
p
e
r
C
a
p
ita
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.00
Sources: Environmental Performance Index (2000-2005), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
22 Afghanistan Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Cambodia Cameroon Chad China Comoros
Dem. Rep. Congo Cuba Ethiopia Eritrea Djibouti Georgia Gambia Kiribati Guinea India Iran Iraq Kazakhstan N. Korea Laos Liberia Malaysia Mali Morocco Mozambique Niger Guinea-Bissau Timor-Leste Romania Russia Sao Tome Senegal Singapore Somalia Sweden Thailand Tunisia Turkey USA
20
40
60
80
10
0
A
cce
ss
to
I
m
p
ro
ve
d
D
rin
ki
n
g
W
a
te
r
(%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.18
Sources: Esty et al / WHO (2004), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Access to Improved Drinking Water (%)
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
23 Bosnia Solomon Islands Brunei Myanmar Burundi Belarus Cambodia Cameroon
Central African Republic
Sri Lanka Chad Chile Dominican Republic El Salvador Eritrea Georgia Ghana Kiribati Indonesia Iran Israel North Korea Laos Malawi Mauritania Mozambique Vanuatu Nicaragua Niger Pakistan Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Singapore
Vietnam South Africa
Swaziland
Sweden
Tajikistan
Thailand Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates
Tunisia Tuvalu Egypt Tanzania USA Burkina Faso Serbia
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
A
cce
ss
to
A
d
e
q
u
at
e
S
a
n
ita
tio
n
(
%
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.16
Sources: Environmental Performance Index (2004-), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Access to Adequate Sanitation
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
24 Angola Bangladesh Belarus Sri Lanka China Cuba Benin Iceland India Israel Japan Kazakhstan S. Korea Kuwait Latvia Lux Malaysia Moldova Morocco Nepal Nicaragua Pakistan Philippines Russia Saudi Arabia Sweden
Syria United Arab Emirates
Turkey Uganda Ukraine Tanzania USA Burkina Faso Uzbekistan Yemen
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
Ge
n
d
e
r E
q
u
a
lity
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.31
Sources: World Economic Forum (2005), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Gender Equality
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
25 Afghanistan Andorra Argentina Australia Bahrain Bangladesh Belgium Brazil Burundi Belarus China Den Eritrea Finland Gabon Gambia Guyana India Iran Iraq Libya Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Monaco Mozambique Nauru Vanuatu Russia Saudi Arabia Seychelles Zimbabwe Swe Thailand Tonga Tunisia Tanzania USA
0
50
10
0
15
0
20
0
S
e
co
n
d
a
ry
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
E
n
ro
llm
e
n
t
(F
e
m
a
le
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.27
Sources: UNESCO (1999-2009), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Secondary Education Enrollment (Female)
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
26 Angola Argentina Bahamas Armenia Botswana Brazil Belize Myanmar
Central African Republic
China
Colombia
Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo
El Salvador Ethiopia Gambia Grenada Guatemala Haiti Indonesia Cote d'Ivoire Jamaica Mali Malta Russia Rwanda
Saudi Arabia Singapore
South Africa Sudan Swe Tonga Egypt USA Russia Zambia
0
20
40
60
H
o
m
ici
d
e
R
a
te
(p
e
r
1
0
0
,0
0
0
p
o
p
ul
a
tio
n
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.01
Sources: UN Data (2010), Freedom House/Polity (2009)
Homicide Rate
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
27 Myanmar Nepal Syria Turkey Venezuela Albania Nor Qatar Cyprus Finland Swe Bahrain Zambia Mexico Zimbabwe Mauritius Chile Czech Republic Malaysia Azerbaijan Latvia Singapore Kazakhstan Ukraine USA Kuwait Nicaragua Malta Jordan Maldives India Bangladesh Brunei Lebanon
0
50
0
10
00
15
00
20
00
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
o
lice
O
ff
ice
rs
(p
e
r
1
0
0
,0
0
0
p
o
p
ul
a
tio
n
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.02
Sources: UNODC (2000-2006), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Number of Police Officers
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
28
Nepal
Bolivia
Bosnia and HerzegovinaVenezuela
Saudi Arabia
Qatar Egypt Bahrain Zambia ArmeniaMacedonia Swe
Mexico Romania
Czech Republic Malaysia
Azerbaijan
Turkmenistan Georgia Moldova
Kyrgyzstan Singapore Estonia
South Africa Kazakhstan Ukraine Belarus USA Russia
0
20
0
40
0
60
0
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
ri
so
n
er
s
(p
e
r
1
0
0
,0
0
0
p
o
p
ul
a
tio
n
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.01
Sources: UNODC (2000-2006), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Number of Prisoners
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
29 Albania Andorra Azerbaijan Australia Austria Bangladesh Bosnia Brazil Belarus China Colombia Ethiopia Finland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Japan Jordan Kyrgyzstan Norway Portugal Russia Rwanda Saudi Arabia Vietnam Slovenia Sweden
Trinidad and Tobago Uganda Ukraine Egypt Tanzania USA Serbia
0
20
40
60
80
M
o
st
P
e
o
p
le
C
a
n
B
e
T
ru
st
e
d
(
%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.01
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Interpersonal Trust
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
30 Algeria Bangladesh Bosnia Belarus China Taiwan Ethiopia Ghana Guatemala Iceland India Indonesia Iran Japan Malaysia Morocco Nigeria Russia Rwanda Vietnam Zimbabwe Swe Thailand Uganda Macedonia Egypt Tanzania USA Venezuela Serbia
.5
1
1.
5
2
2.
5
3
C
o
n
fid
e
n
ce
in
P
a
rli
a
m
e
n
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.15
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Confidence in Parliament
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
31 Albania Argentina Armenia Taiwan Colombia El Salvador Georgia Ghana Guatemala Hungary Iceland India Latvia
Mali Philippines Norway
Poland South Africa Swe Turkey Macedonia USA Venezuela Zambia
.5
1
1.
5
2
C
o
n
fid
e
n
ce
in
P
a
rli
a
m
e
n
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.11
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Confidence in Parliament
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
32 Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Argentina Bangladesh Bosnia Belarus China Cyp El Salvador Ethiopia Estonia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Japan Jordan Kyrgyzstan Malaysia Mali Morocco Nigeria Nor Pakistan Poland Romania Russia Vietnam Swe Switzerland Uganda Ukraine Macedonia Tanzania USA Serbia
.5
1
1.
5
2
2.
5
3
C
o
n
fid
e
n
ce
in
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.22
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Confidence in Government
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
33 Albania Argentina Armenia Cyp Dominican Republic El Salvador Estonia Georgia Ghana India Indonesia Japan Mali Nor Poland Romania Swe Switzerland Ukraine Macedonia USA Serbia Zambia
.5
1
1.
5
2
C
o
n
fid
e
n
ce
in
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.00
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Confidence in Government
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
34 And Argentina Bangladesh Armenia Bosnia Bulgaria Belarus China Colombia El Salvador Ethiopia Estonia Georgia Ghana Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Italy Jordan Malaysia Mexico Moldova Nigeria Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Serbia Singapore Vietnam Slovenia Zimbabwe Spain Sweden Thailand Turkey Uganda Ukraine Egypt Tanzania USA Venezuela Serbia
2.
5
3
3.
5
F
e
e
lin
g
o
f
H
a
p
p
in
e
ss
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.05
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Feeling of Happiness
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
35 Argentina Bangladesh Armenia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Belarus China Colombia Denmark
Ethiopia Georgia India
Iran Iraq Italy Japan Kyrgyzstan Malaysia Mexico Moldova Morocco Nigeria Pakistan Peru Romania Russia
Saudi Arabia Singapore
Slovakia Zimbabwe Sweden Thailand Egypt Tanzania USA Serbia Zambia
4
5
6
7
8
L
ife
S
a
tisf
a
ct
io
n
0
2
4
6
8
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.28
Sources: World Values Survey (1996-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Life Satisfaction
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
High
36 Angola Belarus Bhutan Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Chad China
Congo, Democratic Republic
Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Greece India Indonesia Iraq Kenya Kuwait Liberia Madagascar Maldives Nepal Niger Nigeria Pakistan Philippines
Qatar Rwanda Russia
Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Somalia Sweden Thailand Uganda Ukraine USA Venezuela
0
2
4
6
8
10
L
e
ve
l o
f
D
e
m
o
cr
a
cy
2
0
0
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy 2002
R²=0.88
Sources: Freedom House/Polity (2002), Freedom House/Polity (2009)
Level of Democracy 2009
vs. Level of Democracy 2002
Low
High
37
Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda Armenia
Bhutan Botswana
Solomon Islands Burundi
Belarus
Central African Republic
Chile
China
Taiwan
Congo, Democratic Republic Cuba Ethiopia Fiji France Gabon Gambia Kiribati Guatemala Haiti Iran Jordan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Latvia Malawi Malaysia Maldives Monaco Oman Namibia Nauru Nicaragua Norway Pakistan Paraguay Peru Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Vietnam Slovenia Somalia Swe Tonga United Arab Emirates
Tunisia Turkmenistan Tuvalu Tanzania USA
-2
-1
0
1
2
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
E
ff
e
ct
ive
n
e
ss
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.34
Sources: World Bank (2002-2006), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Government Effectiveness
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
38
Afghanistan
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda Bahrain Armenia Belgium Bhutan Bolivia Botswana Myanmar Sri Lanka Chile Colombia
Congo, Democratic Republic Cuba Cyp Ecuador Ethiopia Fiji Finland Djibouti Georgia Kiribati Haiti Iran Iraq Israel Jordan Korea, South Kuwait Libya Malaysia Mauritania Mexico Morocco Oman Namibia Nepal Vanuatu
Nigeria Marshall Isl
Panama Paraguay
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia Seychelles
Singapore
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
Swe
Syria
United Arab Emirates
Tunisia Turkmenistan Tuvalu Egypt USA Burkina Faso
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Co
n
tr
o
l o
f
Co
rr
u
p
tio
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Level of Democracy
R²=0.27
Sources: World Bank (2002-2008), Freedom House/Polity (2002-2006)
Control of Corruption
vs. Level of Democracy
Low
High
Level of Democracy – Freedom House / Polity
Scale ranges from 0-10 where 0 is least democratic and 10 most democratic. Average of Freedom House (fh_pr and fh_cl) is transformed to a scale 0-10 and Polity (p_polity2) is transformed to a scale 0-10. These variables are averaged into fh_polity2. The imputed version has imputed values for countries where data on Polity is missing by regressing Polity on the average Freedom House measure. Hadenius & Teorell (2005) show that this average index performs better both in terms of validity and reliability than its constituent parts.
GDP / Capita – Gleditsch Trade and GDP Data
In order to fill in gaps in the Penn World Table’s mark 5.6 and 6.2 data (see below: Heston, Sum-mers & Aten), Gleditsch has imputed missing data by using an alternative source of data (the CIA
World Fact Book), and through extrapolation beyond available time-series. This is his estimate of
GDP per Capita in US dollars at current year international prices.
Economic Equality (Gini index) – World Development Indicators
Gini measure of economic inequality, where greater values represent greater inequality. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database.
Economic Freedom – Heritage Foundation
The Economic Freedom index uses 10 specific freedoms, some as composites of even further de-tailed and quantifiable components:
Business freedom (hf_business) Trade freedom (hf_trade) Fiscal freedom (hf_fiscal)
Freedom from government (hf_govt) Monetary freedom (hf_monetary) Investment freedom (hf_invest) Financial freedom (hf_financ) Property rights (hf_prights)
Freedom from corruption (hf_corrupt) Labor freedom (hf_labor)
Each of these freedoms is weighted equally and turned into an index ranging from 0 to100, where 100 represents the maximum economic freedom. Although changes in methodology have been
GDP / Capita growth – World Development Indicators
Annual percentage growth rate of GDP per capita based on constant local currency. Sources: World Bank and OECD.
Population below $2 a Day (%) – World Development Indicators
Percentage of the population living on less than $2.00 a day at 2005 international prices. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database.
Foreign Credit Rating – Standard & Poor’s
Credit ratings are forward-looking opinions about credit risk. Standard & Poor’s credit ratings ex-press the agency’s opinion about the ability and willingness of an issuer, such as a corporation or state or city government, to meet its financial obligations in full and on time.
Credit ratings can also speak to the credit quality of an individual debt issue, such as a corporate note, a municipal bond or a mortgage-backed security, and the relative likelihood that the issue may default.
Ratings are provided by organizations such as Standard & Poor’s, commonly called credit rating agencies, which specialize in evaluating credit risk.
Each agency applies its own methodology in measuring creditworthiness and uses a specific rating scale to publish its ratings opinions. Typically, ratings are expressed as letter grades that range, for example, from ‘AAA’ to ‘D’ to communicate the agency’s opinion of relative level of credit risk.
Human Development Index – UNDP Human Development Report
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achieve-ments in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth;; knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate and the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools;; and a decent standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) US dollars.
Government Revenue (% of GDP) – World Development Indicators
Revenue is cash receipts from taxes, social contributions and other revenues. Grants are excluded here. Measured as a percentage of GDP. Source: International Monetary Fund. (World Bank and OECD for GDP estimates.)
Tax Revenue (% of GDP) – World Development Indicators
Measures social security benefits as the average of the three variables: x Old Age, Disability and Death Benefit Index
x Sickness and Health Benefits Index x Unemployment Benefits Index
Average Schooling Years – Barro & Lee
Average schooling years in the total population aged 25 and over.
Life Expectancy – World Development Indicators
Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life. Sources: Unit-ed Nations Population Division, national statistical offices, Eurostat, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, and U.S. Census Bureau.
Healthy Life Years – WHO Statistical Information System
Average number of years that a person can expect to live in "full health" by taking into account years lived in less than full health due to disease and/or injury.
Infant Mortality Rate – World Development Indicators
Infant mortality rate is the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age, per 1,000 live births in a given year. Source: Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, UNPD, universities and research institutions).
Maternal Mortality Rate – Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation University of Wash-ington
Number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live Births.
Government Expenditure on Health (% of total health) – WHO Statistical Information System
Government expenditure on health care services and goods as a percentage of total expenditure on health. Expenditures on health include final consumption, subsidies to producers, and transfers to households (chiefly reimbursements for medical and pharmaceutical bills). Besides domestic funds it also includes external resources (mainly as grants passing through the government or loans chan-neled through the national budget).
Private Expenditure on Health (% of total health) – WHO Statistical Information System
Private expenditure on health-care services and goods as a percentage of total expenditure on health.
CO2 Emissions / Capita – Environmental Performance Index
WHO.
Access to Adequate Sanitation – Environmental Performance Index
The percentage of population with an access to an improved source of sanitation. Original source is WHO.
Gender Equality – World Economic Forum
All scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 representing maximum gender equality. The study measures the extent to which women have achieved full equality with men in five critical areas:
- Economic participation - Economic opportunity - Political empowerment - Educational Attainment - Health and well-being
Secondary Education Enrollment (female) – UNESCO Institute for Statistics
All values given are gross enrollment rate (GER). GER is defined as the number of pupils enrolled at a given level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the theoretical age group for the same level of education. Gross enrollment rate can be over 100% due to the inclusion of over-aged and under-aged pupils/students because of early or late entrants, and grade repetition. In this case, a rigorous interpretation of GER needs additional information to assess the extent of repetition, late entrants, etc.
Homicide Rate – UNODC
Intentional homicide, rate per 100,000 population. Intentional homicide is defined as unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.
Number of Police Officers – UNODC
Police officers per 100,000 population.
Number of Prisoners – UNODC
Sentenced incarcerated persons per 100,000 population
Interpersonal Trust – World Values Survey
“Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very care-ful in dealing with people?
dence you have in them: is it a great deal of confidence, quite a lot of confidence, not very much confidence or none at all?
(1) A great deal
(2) Quite a lot
(3) Not very much
(4) None at all”
Confidence in Government – World Values Survey
“I am going to name a number of organizations. For each one, could you tell me how much confi-dence you have in them: is it a great deal of conficonfi-dence, quite a lot of conficonfi-dence, not very much confidence or none at all?
(1) A great deal
(2) Quite a lot
(3) Not very much
(4) None at all”
Feeling of Happiness – World Values Survey
“Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?
(1) Very happy
(2) Quite happy
(3) Not very happy
(3) Not at all happy”
Life Satisfaction – World Values Survey
“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? (1) Dissatisfied (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Satisfied”
Government Effectiveness – World Bank Governance Indicators
