Polity data series
The Polity data series is a data series in political science research.[1][2][3] Along with the V-Dem Democracy Indices project and The Economist Democracy Index, 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][full citation needed]
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
[edit]| Polity score range | 10 | 6 to 9 | 1 to 5 | −5 to 0 | −10 to −6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regime type | Full Democracy | Democracy | Open Anocracy | Closed Anocracy | Autocracy |
Scores for 2018
[edit]| Country | Democracy score | Autocracy score | Polity IV score[11][12] | Polity IV regime type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Afghanistan | 1 | 2 | −1 | Closed Anocracy |
 Albania | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Algeria | 3 | 1 | 2 | Open Anocracy |
 Angola | 2 | 4 | −2 | Closed Anocracy |
 Argentina | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Armenia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Australia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Austria | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Azerbaijan | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Bahrain | 0 | 10 | −10 | Autocracy |
 Bangladesh | 0 | 6 | −6 | Autocracy |
 Belarus | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Belgium | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Benin | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Bhutan | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Bolivia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Botswana | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Brazil | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Bulgaria | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Burkina Faso | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Burundi | 2 | 3 | −1 | Closed Anocracy |
 Cambodia | 0 | 4 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Cameroon | 1 | 5 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Canada | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Cape Verde | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Central African Republic | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Chad | 1 | 3 | −2 | Closed Anocracy |
 Chile | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 China | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Colombia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Comoros | 0 | 3 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Congo Brazzaville | 0 | 4 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Congo Kinshasa | 1 | 4 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Costa Rica | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Croatia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Cuba | 1 | 6 | −5 | Closed Anocracy |
 Cyprus | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Czech Republic | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Denmark | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Djibouti | 3 | 0 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
 Dominican Republic | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 East Timor | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
 Ecuador | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Egypt | 0 | 4 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 El Salvador | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Equatorial Guinea | 0 | 6 | −6 | Autocracy |
 Eritrea | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Estonia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Ethiopia | 3 | 2 | 1 | Open Anocracy |
 Fiji | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 Finland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 France | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Gabon | 4 | 1 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
 Gambia | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 Georgia | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 Germany | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Ghana | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Greece | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Guatemala | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
 Guinea | 4 | 0 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 Guinea-Bissau | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Guyana | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 Haiti | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Honduras | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Hungary | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 India | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Indonesia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Iran | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Iraq | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Ireland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Israel | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Italy | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Ivory Coast | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 Jamaica | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Japan | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Jordan | 2 | 5 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Kazakhstan | 0 | 6 | −6 | Autocracy |
 Kenya | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Kosovo | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Kuwait | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Kyrgyzstan | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Laos | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Latvia | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Lebanon | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Lesotho | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
 Liberia | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 Lithuania | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Luxembourg | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Republic of Macedonia | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Madagascar | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Malawi | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Malaysia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Mali | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Mauritania | 0 | 2 | −2 | Closed Anocracy |
 Mauritius | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Mexico | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Moldova | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Mongolia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Montenegro | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Morocco | 1 | 5 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Mozambique | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Myanmar | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Namibia | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Nepal | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 Netherlands | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 New Zealand | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Nicaragua | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Niger | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Nigeria | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 North Korea | 0 | 10 | −10 | Autocracy |
 Norway | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Oman | 0 | 8 | −8 | Autocracy |
 Pakistan | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Panama | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Papua New Guinea | 5 | 0 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Paraguay | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Peru | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Philippines | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Poland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Portugal | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Qatar | 0 | 10 | −10 | Autocracy |
 Romania | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 Russia | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 Rwanda | 0 | 3 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Saudi Arabia | 0 | 10 | −10 | Autocracy |
 Senegal | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Serbia | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
 Sierra Leone | 8 | 1 | 7 | Democracy |
 Singapore | 2 | 4 | −2 | Closed Anocracy |
 Slovak Republic | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Slovenia | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Solomon Islands | 9 | 1 | 8 | Democracy |
 Somalia | 5 | 0 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 South Africa | 9 | 0 | 9 | Democracy |
 South Korea | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Spain | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Sri Lanka | 7 | 1 | 6 | Democracy |
 Sudan | 0 | 4 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Suriname | 6 | 1 | 5 | Open Anocracy |
 Swaziland | 0 | 9 | −9 | Autocracy |
 Sweden | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Switzerland | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Syria | 0 | 9 | −9 | Autocracy |
 Taiwan | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Tajikistan | 1 | 4 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Tanzania | 4 | 1 | 3 | Open Anocracy |
 Thailand | 0 | 3 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Togo | 1 | 3 | −2 | Closed Anocracy |
 Trinidad and Tobago | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Tunisia | 7 | 0 | 7 | Democracy |
 Turkey | 0 | 4 | −4 | Closed Anocracy |
 Turkmenistan | 0 | 8 | −8 | Autocracy |
 Uganda | 1 | 2 | −1 | Closed Anocracy |
 Ukraine | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
 United Arab Emirates | 0 | 8 | −8 | Autocracy |
 United Kingdom | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 United States | 8 | 0 | 8 | Democracy |
 Uruguay | 10 | 0 | 10 | Full Democracy |
 Uzbekistan | 0 | 9 | −9 | Autocracy |
 Venezuela | 1 | 4 | −3 | Closed Anocracy |
 Vietnam | 0 | 7 | −7 | Autocracy |
 Zambia | 6 | 0 | 6 | Democracy |
 Zimbabwe | 5 | 1 | 4 | Open Anocracy |
Criticism
[edit]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
[edit]- Democracy-Dictatorship Index
- Democracy Index
- Democracy Ranking
- V-Dem Democracy indices
- List of democracy indices
- List of freedom indices
- Freedom in the World
References
[edit]- ^ Casper, Gretchen; Tufis, Claudiu (2003). "Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets". Political Analysis. 11 (2): 196–203. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg009.
- ^ "Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic". Pew Research Center. 14 May 2019. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Polity". Polity. 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-01-26. Retrieved 16 July 2021.
- ^ Polity IV Country Report 2010: Canada
- ^ "Polity IV Annual Time-Series, 1800-2018". Retrieved 31 August 2019.
- ^ "INSCR Data Page". 2019-06-02.
- ^ 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
- ^ "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.
- ^ "How do you measure 'democracy'?". The Washington Post. June 23, 2015. Archived from the original on July 16, 2021.