Polity data series

❧

Wikipedia

Number of nations 1800–2018 scoring 8 or higher on the Polity5 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 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

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
Republic of 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
Swaziland09−9Autocracy
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; 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.
  2. ↑ "Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic". Pew Research Center. 14 May 2019. 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
  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.