Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a novel approach to conceptualizing and measuring democracy. It provides a multidimensional and disaggregated dataset that reflects the complexity of the concept of democracy as a system of rule that goes beyond the simple presence of elections. The V-Dem project distinguishes between five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, and collects data to measure these principles.
Please note there have been some changes introduced to the methodology; please refer to the website of the original source to read said modifications in more detail.
Last updated by source: 2023-02-22
| Dataset type: | Time-Series |
| Dataset level: | Country |
(Coppedge, Gerring, Knutsen,
Lindberg, Teorell, Altman, Bernhard, Cornell, Fish, Gastaldi, Gjerløw,
Glynn, God, et al., 2023)
(Pemstein et al.,
2023)
(Coppedge, Gerring, Knutsen,
Lindberg, Teorell, Altman, Bernhard, Cornell, Fish, Gastaldi, Gjerløw,
Glynn, Grahn, et al., 2023)
Academic Freedom Index Question: To what extent is academic freedom respected? Clarification: Academic freedom is understood as the right of academics, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies (UNESCO 1997 Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel). The Academic Freedom Index is designed to provide an aggregated measure that captures the de facto realization of academic freedom, including the degree to which higher-education institutions are autonomous. Aggregation: The index is formed by point estimates drawn from a Bayesian factor analysis model including the following indicators: freedom to research and teach, freedom of academic exchange and dissemination, institutional autonomy, campus integrity, freedom of academic and cultural expression.
More about this variablePolitical corruption index Question: How pervasive is political corruption? Clarification: The directionality of the V-Dem corruption index runs from less corrupt (0) to more corrupt (1) (unlike the other V-Dem variables that generally run from less democratic to more democratic situation). The corruption index includes measures of six distinct types of corruption that cover both different areas and levels of the polity realm, distinguishing between executive, legislative and judicial corruption. Within the executive realm, the measures also distinguish between corruption mostly pertaining to bribery and corruption due to embezzlement. Finally, they differentiate between corruption in the highest echelons of the executive (at the level of the rulers/cabinet) on the one hand, and in the public sector at large on the other. The measures thus tap into several distinguished types of corruption: both 'petty' and 'grand'; both bribery and theft; both corruption aimed and influencing law making and that affecting implementation. Aggregation: The index is arrived at by taking the average of (a) public sector corruption index; (b) executive corruption index; (c) the indicator for legislative corruption; and (d) the indicator for judicial corruption. In other words, these four different government spheres are weighted equally in the resulting index. V-Dem replaces missing values for countries with no legislature by only taking the average of (a), (b) and (d).
More about this variableDeliberative democracy index Question: To what extent is the ideal of deliberative democracy achieved? Clarification: The deliberative principle of democracy focuses on the process by which decisions are reached in a polity. A deliberative process is one in which public reasoning focused on the common good motivates political decisions - as contrasted with emotional appeals, solidary attachments, parochial interests, or coercion. According to this principle, democracy requires more than an aggregation of existing preferences. There should also be respectful dialogue at all levels - from preference formation to final decision - among informed and competent participants who are open to persuasion. To make it a measure of not only the deliberative principle but also of democracy, the index also takes the level of electoral democracy into account.
More about this variableDeliberative component index Question: To what extent is the deliberative principle of democracy achieved? Clarification: The deliberative principle of democracy focuses on the process by which decisions are reached in a polity. A deliberative process is one in which public reasoning focused on the common good motivates political decisions - as contrasted with emotional appeals, solidary attachments, parochial interests, or coercion. According to this principle, democracy requires more than an aggregation of existing preferences. There should also be respectful dialogue at all levels - from preference formation to final decision - among informed and competent participants who are open to persuasion. To measure these features of a polity, we try to determine the extent to which political elites give public justifications for their positions on matters of public policy, justify their positions in terms of the public good, acknowledge and respect counter-arguments; and how wide the range of consultation is at elite levels. Aggregation: The index is formed by point estimates drawn from a Bayesian factor analysis model including the following indicators: reasoned justification, common good justification, respect for counterarguments, range of consultation, and engaged society.
More about this variableElectoral component index Question: To what extent is the electoral principle of democracy achieved? Clarifications: The electoral principle of democracy seeks to achieve responsiveness and accountability between leaders and citizens through the mechanism of competitive elections. This is presumed to be achieved when suffrage is extensive; political and civil society organizations can operate freely; elections are clean and not marred by fraud or systematic irregularities; and the chief executive of a country is selected directly or indirectly through elections. Aggregation: The electoral component index is operationalized as a chain defined by its weakest link of freedom of association, suffrage, clean elections, and elected executive.
More about this variableEgalitarian component index Question: To what extent is the egalitarian principle achieved? Clarifications: The egalitarian principle of democracy holds that material and immaterial inequalities inhibit the exercise of formal rights and liberties, and diminish the ability of citizens from all social groups to participate. Egalitarian democracy is achieved when 1 rights and freedoms of individuals are protected equally across all social groups; 2 resources are distributed equally across all social groups; and 3 access to power is equally distributed by gender, socioeconomic class and social group. Aggregation: This index is formed by averaging the following indices: equal protection index, equal access index and equal distribution of resources.
More about this variableEgalitarian democracy index Question: To what extent is the ideal of egalitarian democracy achieved? Clarifications: The egalitarian principle of democracy holds that material and immaterial inequalities inhibit the exercise of formal rights and liberties, and diminish the ability of citizens from all social groups to participate. Egalitarian democracy is achieved when 1 rights and freedoms of individuals are protected equally across all social groups; and 2 resources are distributed equally across all social groups; 3 groups and individuals enjoy equal access to power. To make it a measure of egalitarian democracy, the index also takes the level of electoral democracy into account.
More about this variableElection vote buying Question: In this national election, was there evidence of vote and/or turnout buying? Clarification: Vote and turnout buying refers to the distribution of money or gifts to individuals, families, or small groups in order to influence their decision to vote/not vote or whom to vote for. It does not include legislation targeted at specific constituencies, i.e., "porkbarrel" legislation. Responses: 0: Yes. There was systematic, widespread, and almost nationwide vote/turnout buying by almost all parties and candidates. 1: Yes, some. There were non-systematic but rather common vote-buying efforts, even if only in some parts of the country or by one or a few parties. 2: Restricted. Money and/or personal gifts were distributed by parties or candidates but these offerings were more about meeting an ‘entry-ticket’ expectation and less about actual vote choice or turnout, even if a smaller number of individuals may also be persuaded. 3: Almost none. There was limited use of money and personal gifts, or these attempts were limited to a few small areas of the country. In all, they probably affected less than a few percent of voters. 4: None. There was no evidence of vote/turnout buying.
More about this variableExecutive bribery and corrupt exchanges Question: How routinely do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government, and cabinet ministers), or their agents, grant favors in exchange for bribes, kickbacks, or other material inducements? Responses: 0: It is routine and expected. 1: It happens more often than not in dealings with the executive. 2: It happens but is unpredictable: those dealing with the executive find it hard to predict when an inducement will be necessary. 3: It happens occasionally but is not expected. 4: It never, or hardly ever, happens.
More about this variablePublic sector corrupt exchanges Question: How routinely do public sector employees grant favors in exchange for bribes, kickbacks, or other material inducements? Clarification: When responding to this question, we would like to you think about a typical person employed by the public sector, excluding the military. If you think there are large discrepancies between branches of the public sector, between the national/federal and subnational/state level, or between the core bureaucracy and employees working with public service delivery, please try to average them out before stating your response. Responses: 0: Extremely common. Most public sector employees are systematically involved in petty but corrupt exchanges almost all the time. 1: Common. Such petty but corrupt exchanges occur regularly involving a majority of public employees. 2: Sometimes. About half or less than half of public sector employees engage in such exchanges for petty gains at times. 3: Scattered. A small minority of public sector employees engage in petty corruption from time to time. 4: No. Never, or hardly ever.
More about this variableExecutive corruption index Question: How routinely do members of the executive, or their agents grant favors in exchange for bribes, kickbacks, or other material inducements, and how often do they steal, embezzle, or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use? Clarification: The point estimates for this index have been reversed such that the directionality is opposite to the input variables. That is, lower scores indicate a normatively better situation (e.g. more democratic) and higher scores a normatively worse situation (e.g. less democratic). Note that this directionality is opposite of that of other V-Dem indices, which generally run from normatively worse to better. Aggregation: VDem estimates the index by averaging two indicators: executive bribery and executive embezzlement.
More about this variableExecutive embezzlement and theft Question: How often do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government, and cabinet ministers), or their agents, steal, embezzle, or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use? Responses: 0: Constantly. Members of the executive act as though all public resources were their personal or family property. 1: Often. Members of the executive are responsible stewards of selected public resources but treat the rest like personal property. 2: About half the time. Members of the executive are about as likely to be responsible stewards of selected public resources as they are to treat them like personal property. 3: Occasionally. Members of the executive are responsible stewards of most public resources but treat selected others like personal property. 4: Never, or hardly ever. Members of the executive are almost always responsible stewards of public resources and keep them separate from personal or family property.
More about this variablePublic sector theft Question: How often do public sector employees steal, embezzle, or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use? Clarification: When responding to this question, we would like you to think about a typical person employed by the public sector, excluding the military. If you think there are large discrepancies between branches of the public sector, between the national/federal and subnational/state level, or between the core bureaucracy and employees working with public service delivery, please try to average them out before stating your response. Responses: 0: Constantly. Public sector employees act as though all public resources were their personal or family property. 1: Often. Public sector employees are responsible stewards of selected public resources but treat the rest like personal property. 2: About half the time. Public sector employees are about as likely to be responsible stewards of selected public resources as they are to treat them like personal property. 3: Occasionally. Public sector employees are responsible stewards of most public resources but treat selected others like personal property. 4: Never, or hardly ever. Public sector employees are almost always responsible stewards of public resources and keep them separate from personal or family property.
More about this variableLegislature corrupt activities Question: Do members of the legislature abuse their position for financial gain? Clarification: This includes any of the following: (a) accepting bribes, (b) helping to obtain government contracts for firms that the legislator (or his/her family/friends/political supporters) own, (c) doing favors for firms in exchange for the opportunity of employment after leaving the legislature, (d) stealing money from the state or from campaign donations for personal use. Responses: 0: Commonly. Most legislators probably engage in these activities. 1: Often. Many legislators probably engage in these activities. 2: Sometimes. Some legislators probably engage in these activities. 3: Very occasionally. There may be a few legislators who engage in these activities but the vast majority do not. 4: Never, or hardly ever.
More about this variableWomen political empowerment index Question: How politically empowered are women? Clarifications: Women’s political empowerment is defined as a process of increasing capacity for women, leading to greater choice, agency, and participation in societal decision-making. It is understood to incorporate three equally-weighted dimensions: fundamental civil liberties, women’s open discussion of political issues and participation in civil society organizations, and the descriptive representation of women in formal political positions. Aggregation: The index is formed by taking the average of women's civil liberties index, women's civil society participation index, and women's political participation index.
More about this variableJudicial corruption decision Question: How often do individuals or businesses make undocumented extra payments or bribes in order to speed up or delay the process or to obtain a favorable judicial decision? Responses: 0: Always. 1: Usually. 2: About half of the time. 3: Not usually. 4: Never.
More about this variableLiberal democracy index Question: To what extent is the ideal of liberal democracy achieved? Clarification: The liberal principle of democracy emphasizes the importance of protecting individual and minority rights against the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of the majority. The liberal model takes a "negative" view of political power insofar as it judges the quality of democracy by the limits placed on government. This is achieved by constitutionally protected civil liberties, strong rule of law, an independent judiciary, and effective checks and balances that, together, limit the exercise of executive power. To make this a measure of liberal democracy, the index also takes the level of electoral democracy into account.
More about this variableLiberal component index Question: To what extent is the liberal principle of democracy achieved? Clarification: The liberal principle of democracy emphasizes the importance of protecting individual and minority rights against the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of the majority. The liberal model takes a "negative" view of political power insofar as it judges the quality of democracy by the limits placed on government. This is achieved by constitutionally protected civil liberties, strong rule of law, an independent judiciary, and effective checks and balances that, together, limit the exercise of executive power. Aggregation: This index is formed by averaging the following indices: equality before the law and individual liberties, judicial constraints on the executive, and legislative constraints on the executive.
More about this variableMedia corrupt Question: Do journalists, publishers, or broadcasters accept payments in exchange for altering news coverage? Responses: 0: The media are so closely directed by the government that any such payments would be either unnecessary to ensure pro-government coverage or ineffective in producing anti-government coverage. 1: Journalists, publishers, and broadcasters routinely alter news coverage in exchange for payments. 2: It is common, but not routine, for journalists, publishers, and broadcasters to alter news coverage in exchange for payments. 3: It is not normal for journalists, publishers, and broadcasters to alter news coverage in exchange for payments, but it happens occasionally, without anyone being punished. 4: Journalists, publishers, and broadcasters rarely alter news coverage in exchange for payments, and if it becomes known, someone is punished for it.
More about this variableParticipatory component index Question: To what extent is the participatory principle achieved? Clarification: The participatory principle of democracy emphasizes active participation by citizens in all political processes, electoral and non-electoral. It is motivated by uneasiness about a bedrock practice of electoral democracy: delegating authority to representatives. Thus, direct rule by citizens is preferred, wherever practicable. This model of democracy thus takes suffrage for granted, emphasizing engagement in civil society organizations, direct democracy, and subnational elected bodies. Aggregation: This index is formed by averaging the following indices: civil society participation, elected local government power or elected regional government power — whichever has a higher score — and direct popular vote.
More about this variableParticipatory democracy index Question: To what extent is the ideal of participatory democracy achieved? Clarification: The participatory principle of democracy emphasizes active participation by citizens in all political processes, electoral and non-electoral. It is motivated by uneasiness about a bedrock practice of electoral democracy: delegating authority to representatives. Thus, direct rule by citizens is preferred, wherever practicable. This model of democracy thus takes suffrage for granted, emphasizing engagement in civil society organizations, direct democracy, and subnational elected bodies. To make it a measure of participatory democracy, the index also takes the level of electoral democracy into account.
More about this variableElectoral democracy index Question: To what extent is the ideal of electoral democracy in its fullest sense achieved? Clarification: The electoral principle of democracy seeks to embody the core value of making rulers responsive to citizens, achieved through electoral competition for the electorate’s approval under circumstances when suffrage is extensive; political and civil society organizations can operate freely; elections are clean and not marred by fraud or systematic irregularities; and elections affect the composition of the chief executive of the country. In between elections, there is freedom of expression and an independent media capable of presenting alternative views on matters of political relevance. In the V-Dem conceptual scheme, electoral democracy is understood as an essential element of any other conception of representative democracy — liberal, participatory, deliberative, egalitarian, or some other. Aggregation: The index is formed by taking the average of, on the one hand, the weighted average of the indices measuring freedom of association thick, clean elections, freedom of expression, elected officials, and suffrage and, on the other, the five-way multiplicative interaction between those indices. This is half way between a straight average and strict multiplication, meaning the average of the two. It is thus a compromise between the two most well known aggregation formulas in the literature, both allowing partial "compensation" in one sub-component for lack of polyarchy in the others, but also punishing countries not strong in one sub-component according to the "weakest link" argument. The aggregation is done at the level of Dahl’s subcomponents with the one exception of the non-electoral component.
More about this variablePublic sector corruption index Question: To what extent do public sector employees grant favors in exchange for bribes, kickbacks, or other material inducements, and how often do they steal, embezzle, or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use? Clarification: The point estimates for this index have been reversed such that the directionality is opposite to the input variables. That is, lower scores indicate a normatively better situation (e.g. more democratic) and higher scores a normatively worse situation (e.g. less democratic). Note that this directionality is opposite of that of other V-Dem indices, which generally run from normatively worse to better. Aggregation: VDem estimates the index by averaging two indicators: public sector bribery and embezzlement.
More about this variable