The 4 info maps below come from datainrace and show countries based on their 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index scores.
List of countries that are considered Full Democracies
List of countries that are considered Flawed Democracies
List of countries that are considered Hybrid Regimes
List of countries that are considered Authoritarian Regimes
Map Of Numerical Score By Country
Number of Countries by Democracy Type:
- Full Democracies: 25
- Flawed Democracies: 46
- Hybrid Regimes: 36
- Authoritarian Regimes: 60
Score By Country
| Country | Democracy score | Category |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 9.81 | Full democracy |
| New Zealand | 9.61 | Full democracy |
| Sweden | 9.39 | Full democracy |
| Iceland | 9.38 | Full democracy |
| Switzerland | 9.32 | Full democracy |
| Finland | 9.3 | Full democracy |
| Denmark | 9.28 | Full democracy |
| Ireland | 9.19 | Full democracy |
| Netherlands | 9 | Full democracy |
| Luxembourg | 8.88 | Full democracy |
| Australia | 8.85 | Full democracy |
| Taiwan | 8.78 | Full democracy |
| Germany | 8.73 | Full democracy |
| Canada | 8.69 | Full democracy |
| Uruguay | 8.67 | Full democracy |
| Japan | 8.48 | Full democracy |
| United Kingdom | 8.34 | Full democracy |
| Costa Rica | 8.29 | Full democracy |
| Austria | 8.28 | Full democracy |
| Mauritius | 8.23 | Full democracy |
| Estonia | 8.13 | Full democracy |
| Spain | 8.13 | Full democracy |
| Czechia | 8.08 | Full democracy |
| Portugal | 8.08 | Full democracy |
| Greece | 8.07 | Full democracy |
| France | 7.99 | Flawed democracy |
| Malta | 7.93 | Flawed democracy |
| United States | 7.85 | Flawed democracy |
| Chile | 7.83 | Flawed democracy |
| Slovenia | 7.82 | Flawed democracy |
| Israel | 7.8 | Flawed democracy |
| South Korea | 7.75 | Flawed democracy |
| Latvia | 7.66 | Flawed democracy |
| Belgium | 7.64 | Flawed democracy |
| Botswana | 7.63 | Flawed democracy |
| Lithuania | 7.59 | Flawed democracy |
| Cape Verde | 7.58 | Flawed democracy |
| Italy | 7.58 | Flawed democracy |
| Poland | 7.4 | Flawed democracy |
| Cyprus | 7.38 | Flawed democracy |
| India | 7.29 | Flawed democracy |
| Slovakia | 7.21 | Flawed democracy |
| South Africa | 7.16 | Flawed democracy |
| Malaysia | 7.11 | Flawed democracy |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 7.09 | Flawed democracy |
| East Timor | 7.03 | Flawed democracy |
| Panama | 6.84 | Flawed democracy |
| Suriname | 6.79 | Flawed democracy |
| Jamaica | 6.74 | Flawed democracy |
| Montenegro | 6.73 | Flawed democracy |
| Philippines | 6.63 | Flawed democracy |
| Dominican Republic | 6.62 | Flawed democracy |
| Mongolia | 6.53 | Flawed democracy |
| Argentina | 6.51 | Flawed democracy |
| Hungary | 6.51 | Flawed democracy |
| Croatia | 6.5 | Flawed democracy |
| Brazil | 6.49 | Flawed democracy |
| Namibia | 6.48 | Flawed democracy |
| Indonesia | 6.44 | Flawed democracy |
| Colombia | 6.35 | Flawed democracy |
| Bulgaria | 6.34 | Flawed democracy |
| North Macedonia | 6.28 | Flawed democracy |
| Thailand | 6.27 | Flawed democracy |
| Serbia | 6.26 | Flawed democracy |
| Ghana | 6.24 | Flawed democracy |
| Albania | 6.2 | Flawed democracy |
| Sri Lanka | 6.19 | Flawed democracy |
| Singapore | 6.18 | Flawed democracy |
| Guyana | 6.11 | Flawed democracy |
| Lesotho | 6.06 | Flawed democracy |
| Moldova | 6.04 | Flawed democracy |
| Romania | 5.99 | Hybrid regime |
| Papua New Guinea | 5.97 | Hybrid regime |
| Senegal | 5.93 | Hybrid regime |
| Paraguay | 5.92 | Hybrid regime |
| Malawi | 5.85 | Hybrid regime |
| Zambia | 5.73 | Hybrid regime |
| Peru | 5.69 | Hybrid regime |
| Bhutan | 5.65 | Hybrid regime |
| Liberia | 5.57 | Hybrid regime |
| Fiji | 5.39 | Hybrid regime |
| Armenia | 5.35 | Hybrid regime |
| Madagascar | 5.33 | Hybrid regime |
| Mexico | 5.32 | Hybrid regime |
| Ecuador | 5.24 | Hybrid regime |
| Tanzania | 5.2 | Hybrid regime |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 5.06 | Hybrid regime |
| Kenya | 5.05 | Hybrid regime |
| Honduras | 4.98 | Hybrid regime |
| Morocco | 4.97 | Hybrid regime |
| Ukraine | 4.9 | Hybrid regime |
| Tunisia | 4.71 | Hybrid regime |
| Georgia | 4.7 | Hybrid regime |
| El Salvador | 4.61 | Hybrid regime |
| Nepal | 4.6 | Hybrid regime |
| Guatemala | 4.55 | Hybrid regime |
| Uganda | 4.49 | Hybrid regime |
| Gambia | 4.47 | Hybrid regime |
| Bangladesh | 4.44 | Hybrid regime |
| Benin | 4.44 | Hybrid regime |
| Sierra Leone | 4.32 | Hybrid regime |
| Bolivia | 4.26 | Hybrid regime |
| Turkey | 4.26 | Hybrid regime |
| Cote d'Ivoire | 4.22 | Hybrid regime |
| Nigeria | 4.16 | Hybrid regime |
| Angola | 4.05 | Hybrid regime |
| Mauritania | 3.96 | Authoritarian regime |
| Lebanon | 3.56 | Authoritarian regime |
| Algeria | 3.55 | Authoritarian regime |
| Kyrgyzstan | 3.52 | Authoritarian regime |
| Palestine | 3.44 | Authoritarian regime |
| Mozambique | 3.38 | Authoritarian regime |
| Rwanda | 3.34 | Authoritarian regime |
| Jordan | 3.28 | Authoritarian regime |
| Ethiopia | 3.24 | Authoritarian regime |
| Qatar | 3.17 | Authoritarian regime |
| Kazakhstan | 3.08 | Authoritarian regime |
| United Arab Emirates | 3.07 | Authoritarian regime |
| Oman | 3.05 | Authoritarian regime |
| Togo | 2.99 | Authoritarian regime |
| Zimbabwe | 2.98 | Authoritarian regime |
| Cambodia | 2.94 | Authoritarian regime |
| Comoros | 2.84 | Authoritarian regime |
| Pakistan | 2.84 | Authoritarian regime |
| Azerbaijan | 2.8 | Authoritarian regime |
| Iraq | 2.8 | Authoritarian regime |
| Congo | 2.79 | Authoritarian regime |
| Egypt | 2.79 | Authoritarian regime |
| Kuwait | 2.78 | Authoritarian regime |
| Haiti | 2.74 | Authoritarian regime |
| Djibouti | 2.7 | Authoritarian regime |
| Vietnam | 2.62 | Authoritarian regime |
| Eswatini | 2.6 | Authoritarian regime |
| Cuba | 2.58 | Authoritarian regime |
| Cameroon | 2.56 | Authoritarian regime |
| Burkina Faso | 2.55 | Authoritarian regime |
| Bahrain | 2.45 | Authoritarian regime |
| Mali | 2.4 | Authoritarian regime |
| Libya | 2.31 | Authoritarian regime |
| Niger | 2.26 | Authoritarian regime |
| Venezuela | 2.25 | Authoritarian regime |
| Gabon | 2.18 | Authoritarian regime |
| Burundi | 2.13 | Authoritarian regime |
| China | 2.11 | Authoritarian regime |
| Uzbekistan | 2.1 | Authoritarian regime |
| Nicaragua | 2.09 | Authoritarian regime |
| Saudi Arabia | 2.08 | Authoritarian regime |
| Guinea | 2.04 | Authoritarian regime |
| Guinea-Bissau | 2.03 | Authoritarian regime |
| Russia | 2.03 | Authoritarian regime |
| Belarus | 1.99 | Authoritarian regime |
| Eritrea | 1.97 | Authoritarian regime |
| Iran | 1.96 | Authoritarian regime |
| Yemen | 1.95 | Authoritarian regime |
| Democratic Republic of Congo | 1.92 | Authoritarian regime |
| Equatorial Guinea | 1.92 | Authoritarian regime |
| Chad | 1.89 | Authoritarian regime |
| Tajikistan | 1.83 | Authoritarian regime |
| Laos | 1.71 | Authoritarian regime |
| Turkmenistan | 1.66 | Authoritarian regime |
| Sudan | 1.46 | Authoritarian regime |
| Syria | 1.32 | Authoritarian regime |
| Central African Republic | 1.18 | Authoritarian regime |
| North Korea | 1.08 | Authoritarian regime |
| Myanmar | 0.96 | Authoritarian regime |
| Afghanistan | 0.25 | Authoritarian regime |
Note the data for the score by country comes from Our World In Data
Now one big question I have about the index is how it is calculated. And this how the Economist Intelligence Unit explains it from their free report you can download here (note has loads of good findings beyond the raw scores above).
Methodology
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy, on a 0 to 10 scale, is based on the ratings for 60 indicators, grouped into five categories:
- electoral process and pluralism;
- civil liberties;
- the functioning of government;
- political participation; and
- political culture.
Each category has a rating on a 0 to 10 scale, and the overall Index is the simple average of the five category indexes.
The category indexes are based on the sum of the indicator scores in the category, converted to a 0 to 10 scale. Adjustments to the category scores are made if countries do not score a 1 in the following critical areas for democracy:
- Whether national elections are free and fair.
- The security of voters.
- The influence of foreign powers on government.
- The capability of the civil service to implement policies.
If the scores for the first three questions are 0 (or 0.5), one point (0.5 point) is deducted from the index in the relevant category (either the electoral process and pluralism or the functioning of government). If the score for 4 is 0, one point is deducted from the functioning of government category index.
The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regime:
- Full democracies: scores greater than 8
- Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than 8
- Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than 6
- Authoritarian regimes: scores less than 4
Full democracies: Countries in which not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, but which also tend to be underpinned by a political culture conducive to the flourishing of democracy.
The functioning of government is satisfactory. Media are independent and diverse. There is an effective system of checks and balances. The judiciary is independent and judicial decisions are enforced. There are only limited problems in the functioning of democracies.
Flawed democracies: These countries also have free and fair elections and, even if there are problems (such as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties are respected.
However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.
Hybrid regimes: Elections have substantial irregularities that often prevent them from being both free and fair. Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common.
Serious weaknesses are more prevalent than in flawed democracies—in political culture, functioning of government and political participation. Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak.
Typically, there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent.
Authoritarian regimes: In these states, state political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed. Many countries in this category are outright dictatorships. Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance.
Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by groups connected to the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of the government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary.
The scoring system
We use a combination of a dichotomous and a three-point scoring system for the 60 indicators. A dichotomous 1-0 scoring system (1 for a yes and 0 for a no answer) is not without problems, but it has several distinct advantages over more refined scoring scales (such as the often-used 1-5 or 1-7).
For many indicators, the possibility of a 0.5 score is introduced, to capture “grey areas”, where a simple yes (1) or no (0) is problematic, with guidelines as to when that should be used.
Consequently, for many indicators there is a three-point scoring system, which represents a compromise between simple dichotomous scoring and the use of finer scales.
The problems of 1-5 or 1-7 scoring scales are numerous. For most indicators under such systems, it is extremely difficult to define meaningful and comparable criteria or guidelines for each score. This can lead to arbitrary, spurious and non-comparable scorings.
For example, a score of 2 for one country may be scored a 3 in another, and so on. Alternatively, one expert might score an indicator for a particular country in a different way to another expert.
This contravenes a basic principle of measurement, that of so-called reliability—the degree to which a measurement procedure produces the same measurements every time, regardless of who is performing it.
Two- and three-point systems do not guarantee reliability, but make it more likely. Second, comparability between indicator scores and aggregation into a multi-dimensional index appears more valid with a two- or three-point scale for each indicator (the dimensions being aggregated are similar across indicators).
By contrast, with a 1-5 system, the scores are more likely to mean different things across the indicators (for example, a 2 for one indicator may be more comparable to a 3 or 4 for another indicator). The problems of a 1-5 or 1-7 system are magnified when attempting to extend the index to many regions and countries.
What do you think about their rankings?
BC Loden says
One problem with the Democracy map. The UA should not be on it at all. The USA is not a democracy. It is a federal Republic. Democracy sucks. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Paul Bacon says
Re: 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index Map
The “free” report is only available to people with corporate or .edu email addresses, which I find discriminatory. There is an email you can write to if you are having difficulty with the download, but I’ve had no reply in the four days since I emailed. I suppose they’re not terribly interested in interest from a retired geezer in downstate Illinois, with a bachelor degree in politics, and who has spent quite a number of years in Europe and North Africa.
Rick Stace says
Isn’t it wonderful for England to have a ‘full democracy’ where Sharia laws of hell on earth are ‘voted in’ and everyone gets to chime in to make it count? This is why ALL democracies are flawed and a balanced system like the USA is much superior to the hell hold that England has become.