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 Box 711, SE 405 30 GÖTEBORG October 2011 ISSN 1653-8919 © 2011 by Sören Holmberg and Bo Rothstein. All rights reserved. 2 Content Economy GDP / Capita 4 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 Number of Police Officers 27 Number of Prisoners 28 3 Trust Interpersonal Trust 29 Confidence in Parliament (all countries) 30 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 Description of Variables 39       4   AndorraAntigua and BarbudaBahrain 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 G D P / C ap 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 TomeZimbabwe Swaziland Swe Thailand Togo Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Tanzania USA Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela 30 40 50 60 70 80 E co no m ic E qu al ity (R ev er se d G in i-i nd ex ) 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       6   Bahrain Armenia BosniaBelarus Cambodia China Congo Cuba El Salvador Ethiopia Estonia Haiti Iran Israel Japan Jordan North Korea Madagascar Malaysia Oman New Zealand Pakistan Peru Qatar RomaniaRussia Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Slovenia Zimbabwe Suriname SweUnited Arab Emirates Turkmenistan USA Serbia 0 20 40 60 80 E co no m ic F re ed om 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 G D P / C ap ita G ro 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High (N.B. The data for GDP / Capita growth is for a single year only)       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 op ul at io n B el ow $ 2 a D ay (% ) 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       9   Albania Argentina Brazil Belarus Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde China Colombia Fiji Georgia Greece India Israel Jamaica Japan Kenya Kuwait MalaysiaOman Nor Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Vietnam Swe ThailandTunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine Egypt USA Uruguay Venezuela Zambia 2 4 6 8 10 Fo re ig n C re di t R at in 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       10   Albania ArgentinaBahrain Bangladesh BoliviaSolomon 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 um an D ev el op m en t I nd ex 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       11   Afghanistan Algeria Bahamas Bangladesh Belgium Bosnia Botswana BrazilMyanmar 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 ov er nm en t R ev en ue (% 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 SeychellesZimbabwe Swaziland Swe Syria United Arab Emirates Tunisia Macedonia USA Burkina Faso Zambia 0 10 20 30 40 Ta x R ev en ue (% 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       13   ArgentinaArmenia Bolivia Brazil China Colombia Denmark Ecuador Georgia Ghana Indonesia Israel Jamaica Japan Kazakhstan Jordan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Malawi Malaysia MexicoMorocco Nigeria Pakistan Russia Singapore Vietnam South Africa Zimbabwe Swe Tunisia Turkey Uganda Egypt Tanzania USA Venezuela 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 S oc ia l S ec ur ity L aw s In de 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 ge S ch oo lin g Y ea 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 Israel Japan Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Madagascar Malawi Mali Mongolia MozambiqueNigeria 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 Li fe E xp ec ta nc y at B irt h (Y ea 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       16   Syria Bosnia and Herzegovina Papua New Guinea Argentina S. Arabia Nor Croatia Japan Swe South Korea Egypt Bahrain Armenia Macedonia ZimbabweSwaziland Malaysia Azerbaijan Turkmenistan Mongolia Israel Georgia Singapore South Africa Belarus USA Russia Nigeria Burundi Equatorial Guinea Kuwait Ethiopia KenyaDjibouti Rwanda Cameroon Afghanistan Senegal Lesotho Mozambique Laos BotswanaLiberia Iraq Gambia Honduras Angola Maldives Tanzania Cambodia TuvaluBangladesh Brunei Sierra Leone Mali Tajikistan Cuba Haiti Chad Pakistan Iran Lebanon China 30 40 50 60 70 80 H ea lth y Li fe Y ea 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 IranIraq 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 nt M or ta lit y (p er 1 00 0 liv e bi rth 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       18   Afghanistan Albania Bangladesh Armenia Botswana Myanmar Cameroon Central African Republic Chad China Equatorial Guinea EthiopiaEritrea 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 TajikistanTunisia USA Burkina Faso 0 50 0 10 00 15 00 20 00 M at er na l M or ta lit y R at io (p er 1 00 ,0 00 li ve b irt hs ) 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       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 ov er nm en t E xp en di tu re o n H ea lth (% o f t ot al h ea 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       20   Afghanistan Angola Azerbaijan AusBahrain 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 SweTongaUnited Arab Emirates Ukraine USA Uruguay Zambia 0 20 40 60 80 10 0 P riv at e E xp en di tu re o n H ea lth (% o f t ot al h ea 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       21   Argentina Australia Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Brazil BelizeSolomon 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 TobagoTurkmenistan Ukraine Egypt Tanzania USA Serbia 0 20 40 60 C ar bo n D io xi de E m is si on s (T on s pe r C ap 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 MozambiqueNiger Guinea-Bissau Timor-Leste Romania Russia Sao Tome Senegal Singapore Somalia Sweden Thailand Tunisia Turkey USA 20 40 60 80 10 0 A cc es s to Im pr ov ed D rin ki ng W at er (% ) 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 cc es s to A de qu at e S an 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       24   Angola Bangladesh Belarus Sri Lanka China Cuba Benin Iceland India Israel Japan Kazakhstan S. KoreaKuwait 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 G en de r E qu al ity 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 ec on da ry E du ca tio n E nr ol lm en t ( Fe m al e) 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       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 om ic id e R at e (p er 1 00 ,0 00 p op ul at io 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 SingaporeKazakhstan Ukraine USA Kuwait Nicaragua Malta Jordan Maldives India Bangladesh Brunei Lebanon 0 50 0 10 00 15 00 20 00 N um be r o f P ol ic e O ffi ce rs (p er 1 00 ,0 00 p op ul at io 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       28   Nepal BoliviaBosnia and Herzegovina Venezuela Saudi Arabia Qatar SweEgypt Bahrain ArmeniaZambia Macedonia Mexico Romania Czech RepublicMalaysia AzerbaijanTurkmenistan Moldova GeorgiaKyrgyzstan Estonia Singapore South Africa Kazakhstan Ukraine Belarus USA Russia 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 N um be r o f P ris on er s (p er 1 00 ,0 00 p op ul at io 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 os t P eo pl e C an B e Tr us te 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       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 on fid en ce in P ar lia m en 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       31   Albania Argentina Armenia Taiwan Colombia El Salvador Georgia Ghana Guatemala Hungary Iceland India Latvia Mali NorwayPhilippines Poland South Africa Swe Turkey Macedonia USA Venezuela Zambia .5 1 1. 5 2 C on fid en ce in P ar lia m en 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High N.B. Only democracies (countries with a FreedomHouse/Polity rating above 6) are included. Bangladesh is also excluded.       32   Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Argentina Bangladesh Bosnia Belarus China Cyp El Salvador Ethiopia Estonia IndiaIndonesia 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 on fid en ce in G ov er nm en 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       33   Albania Argentina Armenia Cyp Dominican Republic El Salvador Estonia Georgia Ghana IndiaIndonesia Japan Mali Nor Poland Romania Swe Switzerland Ukraine Macedonia USA Serbia Zambia .5 1 1. 5 2 C on fid en ce in G ov er nm en 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High N.B. Only democracies (countries with a FreedomHouse/Polity rating above 6) are included. Bangladesh is also excluded.       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 Fe el in g of H ap pi ne 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       35   Argentina Bangladesh Armenia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Belarus China Colombia Denmark Ethiopia Georgia India Iran Iraq Italy JapanKyrgyzstan 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 Li fe S at is fa 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 Low Data runs by: Richard Svensson       36   Angola Belarus Bhutan Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Chad China Congo, Democratic Republic Equatorial Guinea EthiopiaGambia Georgia Ghana Greece India Indonesia Iraq KenyaKuwait Liberia Madagascar Maldives Nepal NigerNigeriaPakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Rwanda Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Somalia Sweden Thailand Uganda Ukraine USA Venezuela 0 2 4 6 8 10 Le ve l o f D em oc ra cy 2 00 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson 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 MalaysiaMaldives Monaco Oman Namibia Nauru Nicaragua Norway Pakistan Paraguay Peru Qatar RussiaSaudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Vietnam Slovenia Somalia Swe Tonga United Arab Emirates Tunisia Turkmenistan Tuvalu Tanzania USA -2 -1 0 1 2 G ov er nm en t E ffe ct iv en es s 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson Low High       38   Afghanistan Angola Antigua and BarbudaBahrain 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 MalaysiaMauritania MexicoMorocco 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 C on tro l o f C or ru pt io 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 Data runs by: Richard Svensson High Corruption Low Corruption 39 Correlates of Democracy – Description of Variables1 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: ƒ Business freedom (hf_business) ƒ Trade freedom (hf_trade) ƒ Fiscal freedom (hf_fiscal) ƒ Freedom from government (hf_govt) ƒ Monetary freedom (hf_monetary) ƒ Investment freedom (hf_invest) ƒ Financial freedom (hf_financ) ƒ Property rights (hf_prights) ƒ Freedom from corruption (hf_corrupt) ƒ Labor freedom (hf_labor) Each of these freedoms is weighted equally and turned into an index ranging from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum economic freedom. Although changes in methodology have been 1 Some of the variables have been reversed in the scatterplots in order to make the interpretation more intuitive 40 undertaken throughout the measurement period, continuous backtracking has been used to maxim- ize comparability over time. 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 Tax revenue refers to compulsory transfers to the central government for public purposes. Certain compulsory transfers such as fines, penalties, and most social security contributions are excluded. Measured as a percentage of GDP. Source: International Monetary Fund. (World Bank and OECD for GDP estimates.) 41 Social Security Laws – Botero, Djankov, La Porta, López-de-Silanes & Shleifer Regulation of Labor 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 Emissions of greenhouse gases per capita, measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. 42 Access to Improved Drinking Water – Environmental Performance Index The percentage of population with an access to an improved water source. Original source is 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? (1) Most people can be trusted (2) Can’t be too careful” 43 Confidence in Parliament – 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 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 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” 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 “Government Effectiveness” combines into a single grouping responses on the quality of public service provision, the quality of the bureaucracy, the competence of civil servants, the independ- ence of the civil service from political pressures, and the credibility of the government’s commit- ment to policies. The main focus of this index is on “inputs” required for the government to be able to produce and implement good policies and deliver public goods. 44 Control of Corruption – World Bank Governance Indicators “Control of Corruption” measures perceptions of corruption, conventionally defined as the exer- cise of public power for private gain. The particular aspect of corruption measured by the various sources differs somewhat, ranging from the frequency of “additional payments to get things done”, to the effects of corruption on the business environment, to measuring “grand corruption” in the political arena or in the tendency of elite forms to engage in “state capture”.