index of individual freedom - · pdf fileto construct the freedom index two item selection...

Index of Individual Freedom

Peter Graeff, Saskia M. Fuchs, Lydia Chebbah

Manual

2

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3

2. Criteria of index construction ............................................................................. 4

3. Areas and Components ........................................................................................ 6

1. Freedom of the Media .................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Freedom of Religion ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3. Freedom of Movement ................................................................................................................................. 11

4. Freedom of Association ................................................................................................................................ 14

5. Modern Information ...................................................................................................................................... 16

4. Empirical properties ........................................................................................... 21

4.1 Average freedom scores ............................................................................................................................ 21

4.2 Correlations between subscales.............................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Correlations with economic variables................................................................................................... 23

5. References ........................................................................................................... 25

6. Appendix ............................................................................................................. 28

6.1 Freedom Index Frankfurt 2006-2008 .................................................................................................... 28

6.2 Freedom Index Frankfurt 2009-2011 .................................................................................................... 35

Acknowledgement

The development of this index was financially supported by the Friedrich Naumann

Foundation for Freedom.

3

1. Introduction

This manual introduces an index for restrictions of liberties compiled from existing cross-

country freedom datasets. Based on the idea of negative freedom, the index measures

obstructions of liberties in five areas.

The areas correspond to social domains in which individual freedom is challenged every day.

Among those are basic types of freedom such as the liberty to move within or to leave a

country, or the freedom to assemble which refers to the social need of contacting others and

the necessity to coordinating social activities. More elaborated types of freedom apply to the

supply and the demand of information. In some countries, the supply of information is

intentionally restricted by the government or certain groups in charge. But because of the

technical revolution coming from the internet, the censoring of information on the demand side

has also become an issue when restrictions of freedom are considered. Individuals in modern

societies have grown accustomed to a globalized way of receiving their information from

sources such as the World Wide Web. The last area pertains to the freedom of religions which is

even in modern societies a major issue as - despite of secular tendencies - religious attitudes

and activities leave their mark in social life. As a consequence, restrictions in this area affect

individuals severely.

In the next chapter, the criteria for constructing the freedom index are presented. As negative

freedom is a rather clearly defined topic in literature, criteria for index construction must reflect

the core of this underlying theoretical approach especially in contrast to issues which are not

considered as liberties. Only by this way of procedure it is possible to “[…] explain the causes

behind the emergence of free societies” (Doering 2012: 3). The next chapter introduces the five

areas of freedom in detail, providing information about the single items and the index subscales.

Some of the empirical properties of the index are presented in the following chapter. Since

freedoms in the economic area are a research topic referring to its own theoretical approaches

and operationalizations, these issues were explicitly excluded from this index. As a consequence,

its five areas are constructed to mainly avoiding economic features in its measurements.

4

2. Criteria of index construction

In order to assure that the index is consistent in itself and also consistently created, it is

necessary to choose the items and its content referring to the theoretical rationale. A valid

measurement tool would ensure on the one hand that its items and scales actually measure

what they should measure. It would also ensure on the other hand, that issues of no interest are

left out of the measurement (Neumann & Graeff 2013). Here, only items which a clear reference

to negative freedom are used. Items that capture social phenomena which are associated with

liberty but are also clearly distinct from it (such as conflicts) are not regarded in the index.

“Negative freedom“ means the absence of restrictions on freedom (Berlin 1969, Carter 2004,

Palmer 2009). As restrictions count obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others

(Carter 2012: Chapter 1). The idea of the negative freedom concept corresponds to the

observation that the need to assess degrees of freedoms seldom occurs when individuals enjoy

liberties. The need occurs particularly when existing liberties are reduced. Since the index

compiles data from various freedom datasets and these original datasets typically measure

challenges of freedom, the index areas refer to disputed social sections. This leads to two

ramifications:

a. The quantification of the degree of freedoms in a certain area is done by measuring the

restrictions of liberties (Carter 2004).

b. Restrictions usually work on different levels. On a general societal level, individuals are

intentionally restricted by some laws or prohibiting norms. Beside or in conjunction with

normative regulations, individuals might be intentionally restricted also by actions of

others. This differentiation resembles the difference between de facto and de jure

restrictions which is frequently applied to macro datasets about human rights or

democracy (see for example the Manuals of the CIRI Human Rights Data Project1, the

Freedom House´s Press Freedom Index2 or the Institutional Profiles Database3. As a

consequence, the index items are classified as more referring to de facto/actions or more

to de jure/rights (see table 1). By this it becomes more transparent for users who apply

the index whether the source of restriction is rooted in a country´s law or in its societal

practice.

1 http://www.humanrightsdata.org/documentation/ciri_coding_guide.pdf; 9/5/13.

2 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2012/methodology; 9/5/13.

3 http://www.cepii.fr/institutions/09-12_DGT_IPD%202009_cahiers-2009-14%20ENG.pdf ; 9/5/13.

5

In order to operationalize the theoretical propositions of negative freedom, the restrictions must

meet the criterion that there is a responsible agent, who obstructs liberties by external (action

or law etc.), or internal (regulation or manipulation etc.) obstacles (Carter 2012: Chapter 5). If

the agent is not claimed to be responsible, restrictions of freedom are not determined. This is in

line with theoretical propositions because natural causes, genetic handicap, a virus or climatic

conditions cannot be considered as restricting freedom (Carter 2012: Chapter 5).

Property rights can be considered as precondition of freedom. As such, they belong to the core

elements in theories about economic freedom and are also left out of the index. For index

construction, the intention was realized to measuring freedom or its restrictions but not

preconditions or ramifications of certain liberties.

The freedom index consists of five scales: freedom of the media, freedom of the religion,

freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of modern information. Applying the

concept of negative freedom meant in practice to arrive at a compromise between available

items and theoretical fit. Moreover, the selection of these five scales was done with reference to

the importance of each dimension for the daily life of people. In the next chapter the special

role of each scale is discussed in more detail.

To construct the freedom index two item selection criteria were applied. The most important

selection criterion was the theoretical reference of item content. Another aim was to including

different data sources in order to enable index validity (see for example Bowman et al. 2005:

939, Skaaning 2006: 22). For macro data, the application of different data sources or different

research methods for investigating the same phenomenon can improve measurement validity

(Neumann & Graeff 2010).

During index construction, two statistical criteria were applied to assure a valid and reliable

measurement tool (Graeff 2012). Index consistency was warranted by computing item-rest

correlations which test whether the items and their scale measure less restriction by higher

scores. In order to produce unidimensional scales only which rule out measuring more than one

theoretical concept at the same time, canonical correlation analysis was applied.

6

3. Areas and Components

In this section, the index components are presented and discussed. Since the ranges from the

original data sources were different, these had to be transformed in order to warrant item and

scale comparability. All components of this index possess the same range from 0 (no freedom)

to 10 (maximum freedom).

Table 1 provides an overview over the scales and items. The items´ content from the original

sources refers to either more de jure liberties or their restrictions (such as the “right to move”)

or the actual freedoms or their restrictions (such as “harassment of religious groups”). In table 1,

the items are also classified with reference to human rights which are considered as the most

fundamental rights for human beings and are, therefore, closely related to values and ideas

about human existence (McMahon 2012, Doering 2012).

Table 1: Scales and items of the index

de jure/rights or de facto/actions

Human rights

1. Media 1.1. Press freedom both no 1.2. State control both no 1.3. Laws and regulations both no 1.4. Political pressure and control both no

2. Religion

2.1. Religious liberty de facto yes 2.2. Harassment of religious groups de facto no 2.3. Force towards religious groups de facto no 2.4. Domination of public life de facto no 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing de facto no 2.6. Hostility over conversions de facto no

3. Movement

3.1. Movement of nationals both no 3.2. Movement of foreigners both no 3.3. Foreign movement de facto yes 3.4. Visa restrictions de facto no

4. Association

4.1. Association (formal & informal) both no 4.2. Assembly and demonstration both no 4.3. Assembly and association de facto yes 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational, sports and cultural organizations

both no

5. Modern Information

5.1. Internet Access both no

7

5.2. Access to foreign press both no 5.3. State control over the internet both no 5.4. Internet censorship both no The index covers the years 2009 to 2011. For the years 2006-2008 another index version was

compiled. Several items and country data were not available for the earlier years. Items for the

Modern Information scale were generally missing so this scale could not be computed.

Comparisons across time are limited to scales with the same item configuration.

1. Freedom of the Media

“A main justification for press freedom is that free media will act as a watchdog over the government.”

(Whitten-Woodring 2009: 595).

Freedom of the media is a fundamental national feature because it ensures the generation of

unbiased information. As such it possesses a particular function. Only a free press “brings about

transparency and raises accountability of the entities in power – government and businesses

alike, and curb rent seeking behavior” (Dutta & Roy 2012: 2). This benefit only exists if there is

an adequate access to information so that unbiased information reaches every section of the

population

In this vein, media institutions play a crucial role in modern societies as they are closely linked

to the functioning and operations of other institutions. The degree by which media institutions

act freely and self-determined determines their efficiency to fulfill their aims. Free media are

associated with high standards of governmental institutions and low fraud or corruption levels.

For corruption, Dutta & Roy (2012: 2) posit “that independence (free press) and access to

information through internet, mobile and television, have a joint significant impact on

corruption level of a country. While for countries, with lower press freedom, greater access to

information may not mitigate corruption, there is a beneficial impact for high press freedom

countries.” Other studies come up with similar results (see for example Freille, Haque and

Kneller 2007; Chowdhury 2004).

The independence of free media institutions pertains particularly its relationship to the

government. A negative example is the political domination of the media in Italy where the

former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and several members of his family controlled a good

deal of the national media institutions. When governmental and media interests are intertwined,

8

several negative ramifications occur. Leeson (2008: 155) puts it this way: “where government

owns a larger share of media outlets and infrastructure, regulates the media industry more, and

does more to control the content of news, citizens are more politically ignorant and apathetic.”

The freedom of the media scale consists of four items. Two are drawn from the Institutional

Profiles Database (IPD). Two items are taken from Freedom House´s Press Freedom Index. These

indicators focus on the proportion of the media under state control and also incorporate issues

such as the legal environment or restricting political context

Unlike IPD, Freedom House4 is explicit about the rating criteria. The rating bases on check list

questions measuring aspects of freedom restrictions. Freedom House sums up the key points like

this:

We assess the positive impact of legal and constitutional guarantees for freedom of

expression; the potentially negative aspects of security legislation, the penal code, and

other criminal statutes; penalties for libel and defamation; the existence of and ability

to use freedom of information legislation; the independence of the judiciary and of

official media regulatory bodies; registration requirements for both media outlets and

journalists; and the ability of journalists’ groups to operate freely.

The political environment category encompasses an examination of the degree of political

control over the content of news media. Issues include the editorial independence of both state-

owned and privately owned media; access to information and sources; official censorship and

self-censorship. Moreover the vibrancy of the media and the diversity of news available within

each country; the ability of both foreign and local reporters to cover the news freely and

without harassment; and the intimidation of journalists by the state or other actors, including

arbitrary detention and imprisonment, violent assaults, and other threats are measured5.

The scale freedom of the media consists of the following items:

1.1. Freedom of the press

(Institutional Profiles Database)

Original Score Ranked 0 to 4

0 indicates no rights guaranteeing freedoms or their respect

1 indicates little freedom of press (if there are rights)

4 indicates substantial freedom (if there are rights) 4 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2012/methodology; 5/9/13.

5 http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2012/methodology; 5/9/13.

9

Recoded by 10*(Variable/4)

1.2. State control of content of information


Original Score Scored 1 to 4

1 indicates that information is tightly controlled by the State

4 indicates little or no control of information by the State

Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)

1.3. Laws and regulations that influence media content

(Freedom House)


0 indicates no restrictions

30 indicates restrictions

Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable)/(30))

1.4. Political pressures and controls on media content

(Freedom House)


0 indicates no restrictions

40 indicates restrictions

Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable)/(40))

2. Freedom of Religion

Freedom of religion is a core feature of liberty as “religious belief is essentially a personal and

private matter over which the individual should exercise control and choice” (Trenerry and

Webster 2011: 3). But does religion still matter today, particularly in industrial nations where

secularization seems to gain ground more and more?

Norris and Inglehart (2011: 5) posit two different trends: “1. The publics of virtually all advanced

industrial societies have been moving toward more secular orientations during the past fifty

years. Nevertheless, 2. The world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious

views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.”

10

Given this societal importance, restrictions of religious freedom lead to a lot of negative

ramifications (Klocker, Trenerry & Webster 2011: 3): “Religious discrimination may also be

associated with a range of other negative social and economic impacts including reduced social

cohesion and social connection, and reduced morale and productivity in the workplace and

education.”

The scale Freedom of Religion in this index consists of six indicators. One item is taken from the

CIRI Human Rights Data Project (CIRI). Two PEW items were taken from the Government

Restriction Index (GRI) and three from the Social Hostility Index (SHI). While the PEW items

measure one restricting feature of religious freedom, CIRI items are multidimensional. They mix

different issues up in one item such as the freedom of religious practices and the freedom of

proselytizing.

The Freedom of Religion scale consists of the following items:

2.1. Religious liberty

(CIRI Human Rights Data Project)


0 indicates that government restrictions on religious practices are

severe and widespread

1 indicates such practices are moderate

2 indicates such practices are practically absent


2.2. Harassment of religious groups

(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)


0 indicates no intimidation

0.5 indicates yes there was limited intimidation

1 indicates yes there was intimidation

Recoded by 10-10*Variable

2.3. Force toward religious groups



(Scale 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1)

11


2.4. Domination of public life



0 indicates no

0.33 indicates yes, at the local level

0.67 indicates yes, at the region level

1 indicates yes, at the national level


2.5. Hostility over proselytizing



0 indicates no

0.5 indicates yes, but they felt short on physical violence

1 indicates yes


2.6. Hostility over conversions



0 indicates no

0.5 indicates yes, but they felt short on physical violence,

1 indicates yes


3. Freedom of Movement

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” (Art. 13,

UDHR (1948))

12

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the key statements of freedom of

movement consider the right of every citizen to move freely within their own country and/or to

travel in and out of their country. So “[…] freedom of movement combines a right of exit, a right

of entry, and a right to stay“ (Bauböck 2009: 9). Freedom of movement is a fundamental form of

liberty and its restriction is usually considered as severe punishment. Putting people into prison

or restricting their space of movement belongs to the typical sanctions for deviant behavior. If

people’s movement is restricted, they can’t “enjoy the benefits of living and moving freely in an

area of freedom, security and justice” (Carrera 2005: 702).

Without the right to move freely a person may also be prevented from following their own aims,

e.g. by practicing their religion or exercising their profession. Ideally a state has to guarantee

the right of free movement at any time to secure peoples´ individual autonomy (Bauböck 2009).

Despite its individual value, freedom of movement always refers to a political dimension. A well-

known example for this case is the situation of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo and his

wife Liu Xia6. While he is arrested for his alleged “delicts”, Liu Xia isn’t allowed to leave her

apartment. Restrictions of the freedom of movement are a frequent form of political repression.

These and similar aspects of movement restrictions are picked up in the Scale Freedom of

Movement. The scale consists of indicators which refer to the conditions of moving into/from or

through countries. The opportunity to move freely is a basic element of personal freedom and it

is a preposition for general personal decisions such as where to live or where to work. In this

vein, the nationality of a person becomes important because of different political and social

conditions in national states which regulate the liberties of living and working. According the

Schengen agreement are EU citizens able to travel in the European Union with less restriction

(visa-free) compared to a non-citizen.

Since the permission of the destination state for entering is usually needed, restrictions of

movement across borders can be quantified by assessing the difficulties to get a visa. The

indicator visa restrictions measures exactly this feature and is, therefore, integrated as a part of

the Freedom of Movement subscale.

6 http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/1813070/#/beitrag/video/1813070/Hausarrest-in-China-

Besuch-bei-Liu-Xia, 4/16/2013.

13

The scale freedom of movement consists of the following items:

3.1. Freedom of movement of nationals



1 indicates no freedom

2 indicates restricted freedom with very strict conditions

3 indicates freedom restricted to certain nationalities

4 indicates total freedom of movement


3.2. Freedom of movement of foreigners




2 indicates restricted freedom with very strict conditions

3 indicates freedom restricted to certain nationalities

4 indicates total freedom of movement


3.3. Freedom of foreign movement



0 indicates that this freedom was severely restricted

1 indicates the freedom was somewhat restricted

2 indicates unrestricted freedom of foreign movement


3.4. Visa Restrictions

(Henley and Partners Visa Restrictions Index)


14

The higher the score the less a person has restrictions of travel freedom.

Recoded by 10*(Variable/max. value)

166 = max. value (2010)

143.5 = max. value (Average score 2006, 2008)

4. Freedom of Association

“Abraham Lincoln once called 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' part of 'the Constitutional

substitute for revolution'.” (Inazu 2009: 565).

Similar to the freedom to move is the freedom of association a basic liberty in every society. It is

also a basic element of social networks which are relevant for the societal economic, political

and cultural activities. Swire (2012) highlights the key feature of social networks to foster

political association at the grassroots level. Two most recent examples jump to the mind: the

2011 “Arab Spring” in Egypt with the “Facebook Revolution” which led to the resignation of

President Mubarak. And “the 2008 Obama campaign, whose outreach and mobilization was led

by a co-founder of Facebook” (Swire 2012: 102).

When looking up the existing data data on freedom of association, one can determine that

these are “incomplete and flawed, partly because they focus almost exclusively on whether the

rights exist, without regard to practice” (Kuruvilla, Hossain & Berger 2010: 2).

As a result, the freedom of association scale in this index includes four indicators which all try

to measure the freedom of association by rights and in practice. Freedom of association is a

“capacious liberty” (Alexander 2008: 1) because it refers to several different points:

Freedom of association, as I understand it, refers to the liberty a person possesses to

enter into relationships with others—for any and all purposes, for a momentary or

long-term duration, by contract, consent, or acquiescence. It likewise refers to the

liberty to refuse to enter into such relationships or to terminate them when not

otherwise compelled by one's voluntary assumption of an obligation to maintain the

relationship. Freedom of associate on thus is a quite capacious liberty.

15

The four items of the freedom of association scale are taken from two different sources: the CIRI

Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) and the Institutional Profiles Database (IPD). Two of these

indicators refer to the freedom of association in a more general context (e.g. assembly or

demonstration) and two focus on a special issue (e.g. freedom of association in NGOs or

operating autonomy of organizations).

The scale of association consists of the following items:

4.1. Freedom of association (formal and informal NGOs)




1 indicates little freedom of association (if there are rights)

4 indicates substantial freedom (if there are rights)


4.2. Freedom of assembly and demonstration




1 indicates little freedom of assembly and demonstration (if there are

rights)

4 indicates substantial freedom (if there are rights)


4.3. Freedom of assembly & association



16

0 indicates that freedom of assembly or association were severely

restricted or denied completely to all citizens

1 indicates that these rights were limited for all citizens or severely

restricted or denied for select groups

2 indicates that these rights were virtually unrestricted and freely

enjoyed by practically all citizens


4.4. Operating autonomy of organizations (only educational, sports and cultural

organizations)



1 indicates no operating autonomy in practice

4 indicates total autonomy


5. Modern Information

“We are living in an information society, where the distribution of information rather than the

distribution of goods has become increasingly important” (Mohan 2012: 1)

While the Freedom of the media scale provides quantifications about restrictions of information

supply, the Modern Information scale refers to data about restrictions of information demand.

As such, this scale highlights a fundamental aspect of modern “Information Societies” in which

information becomes a crucial element in all social domains (Mansell 2004).

In an increasingly globalizing world, it becomes necessary for people to be informed about

national and international issues activities, and events. For this, the access to national and

international broadcasting and press media is significant. This traditional way of getting

information is still the most important one when serious and reliable information are demanded.

But also the internet as a new source of information gains more and more relevance. Getting

information by web-based sources is easy and cheap. As a result, the restriction to access the

17

internet is a strong reduction of personal freedom. Some governments have found it necessary

to intervene and impose restrictions on internet access due to political, religious or ethical

reasons. An example for this procedure is Chinas “Great Firewall”. Censorship is also strongly

conducted by states which Reporters Without Borders (2013) call “Enemies of the Internet”:

Syria, Iran, Bahrain, and Vietnam.

Even when an open internet tends to be more frequent in European and Anglo-American states,

these countries also try to regulate internet access and use. A current example is the attempt to

ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Amnesty International (2012) criticizes

that “the pact's content, process, and institutional structure impact in a number of ways on

human rights – especially the rights to due process, privacy, freedom of information, freedom of

expression, and access to essential medicines”. For Reporters Without Borders (2013), this

systematic surveillance is a rising danger. In their view, the internet should be a free place for

exchanging information, content and opinions without any form of site blocking and content

filtering (cf. RWB 2013). The actions against censorship vary by organization. Some focus mainly

on reporting illegitimate government interventions (GetUp!, Reporters Without Borders) while

others try to influence government decisions (Global Network Integrity).

Governmental intervention does not only restrict freedom of information but also repress

internet users (cf. RWB 2009). As a consequence people were obstructed “to develop new ways

of seeing the world around them” (Mansell 2004: 3).

In order to integrate these aspects into a scale about Modern Information, a composite item

was created by merging data from three different sources – OpenNet Initiative, Freedom on the

Net and Global Integrity. These organizations investigate and report internet filtering and

surveillance practices by nations. Before computing the composite item, the compatibility of the

data were tested by reliability analysis.

The scale Modern Information was created by combining the composite item with items from

the Institutional Profiles Database. Internet censorship is a rather new field of research. As data

were not available before 2009, the Modern Information scale is only available for the years

2009-2011.

18

The scale of Modern Information consists of the following items:

5.1. Freedom of internet access




4 indicates total freedom of internet access


5.2. Freedom of access to foreign press (no seizures, etc.)




4 indicates total freedom of access to foreign press


5.3. State control over Internet access



1 indicates extremely tight restrictions

4 indicates totally free access


5.4. Composite Item “Internet censorship”

1. In practice, the government does not prevent citizens from accessing content published

online (Global Integrity)

Original Score Ranked 0 to 100 (from Freedom to no Freedom)


2. In practice, the government does not censor citizens creating content online

19

(Global Integrity)



3. Obstacles to Access - including governmental efforts to block specific applications or

technologies; infrastructural and economic barriers to access; and legal and ownership

control over internet and mobile-phone access providers

(Freedom on the Net)


Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable/25))

4. Limits on Content - including filtering and blocking of websites; other forms of

censorship and self-censorship; manipulation of content; the diversity of online news

media; and usage of digital media for social and political activism.

(Freedom on the Net)



5. Political: This category is focused primarily on Web sites that express views in opposition

to those of the current government. Content more broadly related to human rights,

freedom of expression, minority rights, and religious movements is also considered here

(OpenNet Initiative)


0 indicates free/no filtering

1 indicates suspected filtering

2 indicates selective filtering

3 indicates substantial filtering

4 indicates unfree/pervasive filtering


20

6. Internet tools: Web sites that provide e-mail, Internet hosting, search, translation,

Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone service, and circumvention methods are

(OpenNet Initiative)

Original Score Ranked 0 to 4 (from no filtering to pervasive filtering; see above)


7. Conflict/security: Content related to armed conflicts, border disputes, separatist

movements, and militant groups is included in this category (OpenNet Initiative)

Original Score Ranked 0 to 4 (from no filtering to pervasive filtering; see above)


21

4. Empirical properties

In this section, an overview of the empirical properties of the Freedom Index is provided. For

this, the most recent index version is applied. Figures and comments refer to years 2009 to

2011, accordingly.

4.1 Average freedom scores

The amount of freedom people enjoy depends on the area. Means indicate how liberties in terms

of the five scales – Freedom of the Media, Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Religion, Freedom

of Association and Freedom of Modern Information – exist on the average.

Across all index scales, the average score of the Freedom Index 09-11 is 7. Since the index

ranges from 0 (no freedom) to 10 (max. freedom), a score of 7 suggests that for the country

sample a reasonable amount of freedom exists on the average but that there are also many

restrictions left. Freedom of the Media comes up with the lowest score (5.78) and the strongest

restrictions, accordingly. While the scale of modern information scores the highest (8.46),

indicating that the greatest amounts of liberties can be found in this area, the other scales -

Freedom of religion, Freedom of association and Freedom of movement – come up with medium

scores around the mean (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Average scores of Freedom scales

5,70

6,91 7,326,52

8,46

7

0123456789

10

Av

era

ge

sco

re

22

The index 2009-2011 covers a majority of countries including the nations with the biggest

economic power and population. Figure 2 provides an overview of the national average freedom

score. Differences in color correspond to a 1 scale point increase in score. Grey areas mark

missing country data.

Figure 2: Freedom scores per country

4.2 Correlations between subscales

Evidently, the areas measure different kind of freedoms but are also linearly related to each

other. Since higher scores measure the absence of restrictions, all scales of this index correlate

positively with each other (see table 2).

At least two correlation coefficients are very high, indicating that there is a strong bivariate

linear relationship between the subscales. The highest correlation (0.9) between media and

association suggests that governmental authorities which forbid free reporting also prohibit

23

organizing and executing of public gatherings. Another high correlation (0.81) emerges between

movement and association.

Table 2: Correlation coefficients of the Freedom Index 09-11 scales.

Media Religion Association Movement Religion 0.427 Association 0.901 0.486 Movement 0.786 0.427 0.814 Modern Information 0.733 0.424 0.739 0.676 N= 123; All correlations are significant at the 1%-Level

4.3 Correlations with economic variables

In congruence with theoretical propositions about negative freedom, liberties should not be

strongly associated with economic conditions, e.g. with wealth.

As can been seen from Figure 3, the relationship between freedom and wealth is neither linear

nor high. Personal freedom measured with this index is not a byproduct of wealth. There is a

cluster of countries with a medium degree of freedoms (Singapore, Kuwait, UAE) but a rather

high GDP. These countries do not follow the non-linear trend by which liberties are the lowest

on an average level of freedom.

Figure 3: Freedom and Wealth (GDP pc ppp, World Bank data, 2009-2011)

Saudi Arabia

SyriaChinaIran

UzbekistanYemenVietnam

Libya

TunisiaEgypt

Qatar

Ethiopia

Oman

SudanJordanLaos

AlgeriaAzerbaijan

Bahrain

United Arab Emirates

Malaysia

Angola

Kazakhstan

MoroccoPakistan

Russia

Singapore

Turkey

Kuwait

Sri Lanka

Venezuela

BangladeshZambiaIndiaNigeria

Gabon

MauritaniaUgandaCongo, Democratic Republic ofCentral African RepublicMadagascarIndonesiaNepalTanzaniaTogoCongo, Republic ofThailand

ChadNicaraguaKenyaMongoliaCameroonCote d'Ivoire

Ukraine

Senegal

Israel

Paraguay

Lebanon

Niger

Dominican RepublicRomaniaSerbiaBotswanaColombiaMexico

Korea, Republic of

Bulgaria

CambodiaHonduras

Peru

Mali

Greece

Namibia

MozambiqueBurkina Faso

France

EcuadorBoliviaPhilippines

Germany

Panama

GuatemalaBenin

South Africa

United States of America

MauritiusLatvia

Haiti

United KingdomJapanItalySlovenia

Slovak Republic

Lithuania

Czech RepublicSpain

Brazil

Cyprus

Ghana

Argentina

Austria

Poland

Hong Kong

HungaryChile

Switzerland

BelgiumDenmark

NetherlandsCanadaAustralia

Estonia

Norway

Finland

Malta

Sweden

Portugal

Uruguay

New Zealand

Ireland

020

000

4000

060

000

8000

0G

DP

pc

[$]

2 4 6 8 10Freedom score

24

The correlation between the freedom index and economic freedom (2009-2011) measured by

the Fraser institute is substantial (.47). However, this correlation disguises the fact that there a

lot of differences between the degree of personal and economic freedom. Take for example

Singapore or China. These countries reveal high (Singapore) or mediocre (China) economic

freedom scores. But they do provide only little personal freedom to their people.7

7 For a discussion about the differences between economic and personal freedom in China and its economic

and historical reasons see Weede (2012).

25

5. References

Alexander, L. (2008). What is Freedom of Association, and What is its Denial? Social Philosophy

and Policy 25 (2), 1-21.

Amnesty International (2012). EU urged to reject international anti-counterfeiting pact.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/eu-urged-reject-international-anti-counterfeiting-

pact-2012-02-10 [last viewed 04/27/2013].

Bauböck, R. (2009). Global Justice, Freedom of Movement and Democratic Citizenship. European

Journal of Sociology 50 (1), 1-31.

Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bowman, K., Lehoucq, F. & Mahoney, J. (2005). Measuring Political Democracy: Case Expertise,

Data Adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies (38), 939-970.

Doering, D. (2012). Why do we measure freedom? In: Fred McMahon [Ed.] Towards a Worldwide

Index of Human Freedom. The Fraser Institute, 3-6.

Dutta, N. & Roy, S. (2012). The Watchdog Reassessed: Press Freedom, Access to Information and

Corruption. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2206638.

Carrera, S. (2005). What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?

European Law Journal 11 (6), 699–721.

Carter, I. (2004). A measure of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carter, I. (2012). Positive and Negative Liberty. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward

N. Zalta [Ed.], http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/liberty-positive-

negative.

Chowdhury, S.K. (2004). The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: an empirical

test. Economic Letters 85, 93-101.

Freille, S., Haque, E. & Kneller, R. (2007). A Contribution to the Empirics of Press Freedom and

Corruption. European Journal of Political Economy 23, 838-862.

Graeff, P. (2012). Measuring individual freedom: actions and rights as indicators of individual

liberty. In: Fred McMahon [Ed.] Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. The

Fraser Institute, 113-136.

Klocker, N., Trenerry, B. & Webster, K. (2011). How does freedom of religion and belief affect

health and wellbeing? Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Carlton,

Australia.

Kuruvilla, S., Hossain, J., & Berger, S. (2010). Assessment of the progress of nations on core labor

standards: Measures of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Retrieved

26

02.02.13 from Cornell University, ILR School site:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/310.

Leeson, P.T. (2008): Media Freedom, Political Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Economic

Perspectives 22, 155–169.

Mansell, R. (2004). Introduction – Human Rights and Equity in Cyberspace. In: Klang, Mathias &

Murray, Andrew [Eds]: Human Rights in the Digital Age. London, UK: Glasshouse Books,

1-10.

McMahon, F. (2012). Human Freedom from Pericles to Measurement. In: Fred McMahon [Ed.]

Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. The Fraser Institute, 7-54.

Mohan, K. (2012). Access to Information. Media & Information Communication Technologies.

www.actionnamibia.org/sites/default/files/briefingpaper-mediaict%28final%29.pdf [last

viewed on 05/07/2013]

Neumann, R. & Graeff, P. (2010). A Multitrait-Multimethod approach to pinpoint the validity of

aggregated governance indicators. Quality & Quantity 44, 849-864.

Neumann, R. & Graeff, P. (2013). Method Bias in Comparative Research: Problems of Construct

Validity as Exemplified by the Measurement of Ethnic Diversity. The Journal of

Mathematical Sociology 37 (2), 1-27, 2013.

Norris, P. & Inglehart, R. (2011). Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge

University Press.

Palmer, T.G. (2009). Realizing freedom. Libertarian theory, history, and practice. Washington,

D.C.: Cato.

Reporters Without Borders (2009/2013). The Enemies of Internet. Special Edition: Surveillance.

http://rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Internet_enemies_2009_2_.pdf [last viewed on 04/27/2013],

http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/ [last viewed on 04/27/2013]

Skaaning, S.E. (2008). The civil liberty dataset: conceptualization and measurement. ZFVP XX, 1-

23.

Swire, P. (2012). Social networks, privacy, and freedom of association: Data empowerment vs.

data protection. North Carolina Law Review 90, 102-142.

United Nations: The Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13 [last viewed on 04/27/2013]

Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or Lapdog? Media Freedom, Regime Type, and

Government Respect for Human Rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625.

27

Weede, E. (2012). Liberty in comparative perspective. China, India and the West. In: Fred

McMahon [Ed.] Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. The Fraser Institute,

189-242.

28

6. Appendix

6.1 Freedom Index Frankfurt 2006-2008

Swed

en

New

Zea

land

Port

ugal

Irel

and

Nor

way

Chi

le

Can

ada

Hun

gary

Japa

n

Uni

ted

Stat

es

of A

mer

ica

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Media 9.52 9.47 9.35 9.27 8.71 8.44 9.17 9.04 9.02 9.1 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.2. Government control (IPD) 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 9.33 9.11 8.89 8.67 9 6.78 8.67 8.33 9.33 8.22 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 8.75 8.75 8.5 8.42 9.17 7 8 7.83 6.75 8.17 2. Religion 10 10 10 9.44 10 10 8.62 9.45 9.45 8.62 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 5 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3. Movement 9.97 9.9 9.93 9.98 9.94 9.56 9.93 9.52 9.12 9.15 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 9.9 9.58 9.72 9.93 9.76 8.22 9.72 8.08 9.83 9.93 4. Association 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.44 9.44 10 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.3. Assembly and association (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8.33 8.33 10 Freedom Index 2006-2008 9.87 9.84 9.82 9.67 9.66 9.5 9.43 9.36 9.26 9.22

29

Esto

nia

Hon

g K

ong

Lith

uani

a

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Pola

nd

Bra

zil

Arg

enti

na

Bol

ivia

Fran

ce

Mau

riti

us

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Taiw

an

Spai

n

Ger

man

y

Bot

swan

a

Peru

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9.31 8.39 9.15 9.05 7.99 6.92 6.22 8.03 8.97 8.17 8.4 8.1 7.94 9.13 5.97 6.23

10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 7.5 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 6.67

8.56 6.22 8.33 8.11 7.44 5 5.89 6.56 8.11 8 8.67 7.67 8.44 8 7.22 5.33 8.67 7.33 8.25 8.08 7.83 6 4.83 5.58 7.75 8 8.25 8.08 6.67 8.5 5.83 5.42 9.17 9 10 8.34 9.17 9.44 10 9.72 6.55 9.17 7.77 10 6.95 7.22 10 10

10 . 10 8.33 10 6.67 10 8.33 5 10 8.33 10 5 5 10 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 10 10 5 5 5 10 5 5 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.7 10 10 10 10 3.3 10 3.3 10 6.7 3.3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10

8.88 9.37 9.68 9.11 9.8 9.43 9.49 8.63 9.11 8.67 9.78 6.71 9.11 9.14 8.53 8.58 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 . 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10

8.85 8.12 8.71 9.76 9.2 7.7 7.94 4.53 9.76 4.67 9.13 3.52 9.79 9.9 4.11 4.32 9.44 10 7.78 10 9.44 10 10 8.89 10 8.33 8.33 9.44 10 8.33 9.17 8.61

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 7.5

8.33 . 3.33 10 8.33 10 10 6.67 10 10 5 8.33 10 5 10 8.33 9.2 9.19 9.15 9.12 9.1 8.95 8.93 8.82 8.66 8.58 8.57 8.57 8.5 8.45 8.42 8.36

30

Ben

in

Ital

y

Gua

tem

ala

Bul

gari

a

Ven

ezue

la

Mal

i

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

Kor

ea,

Rep

ublic

of

Sout

h A

fric

a

Sene

gal

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 1. Media 8.49 6.83 5.76 7.51 6.02 6.42 7.57 7.06 7.78 6.57 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 10 10 5 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 1.2. Government control (IPD) 10 3.33 10 6.67 10 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 6.44 6.67 4.44 6.56 1.33 7.11 7.44 7 7.44 4.78 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 7.5 7.33 3.58 6.83 2.75 7.75 5.33 7.08 7 4.83 2. Religion 9.72 7.22 9.17 6.11 8.61 10 9.72 8.17 8.05 10 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 8.33 5 10 6.67 6.67 10 8.33 10 10 10 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 10 5 5 0 5 10 10 5 5 10 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 10 10 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 3.3 10 0 10 10 10 10 3.3 10 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3. Movement 7.9 9.12 9.24 8.69 8.6 7.9 6.17 8.92 8 6.67 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 8.33 10 10 10 6.67 8.33 5 6.67 10 6.67 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 3.28 9.83 6.97 8.08 7.74 3.28 3 9.02 5.33 3.34 4. Association 7.22 10 8.61 8.89 7.78 6.67 7.5 6.67 6.94 6.94 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 7.5 10 7.5 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 7.5 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 6.67 10 8.33 6.67 3.33 5 5 5 3.33 3.33 Freedom Index 2006-2008 8.33 8.29 8.19 7.8 7.75 7.75 7.74 7.7 7.69 7.55

31

Phili

ppin

es

Gha

na

Bur

kina

Fas

o

Col

ombi

a

Gre

ece

Mad

agas

car

Cam

bodi

a

Moz

ambi

que

Nig

eria

Mex

ico

Ukr

aine

Ken

ya

Leba

non

Isra

el

Indi

a

Rom

ania

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 7.63 7.92 5.74 6.44 8.47 6.08 5.61 5.83 7.39 5.87 7 5.51 7.06 8.58 8.17 6.51

10 10 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 10 7.5 10 6.67 3.33 10 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 6.67

6.33 7.33 5.78 5.67 7.11 5.33 3.78 6.22 5.22 5.56 5.33 3.11 3.89 7.89 6.78 5.78 4.17 7.67 6.33 2.58 6.75 4.83 4.5 6.25 4.33 3.75 5.17 4.75 4.33 6.42 5.92 6.08 5.56 5.28 9.44 8.88 3.78 8.33 10 8.89 6.05 4.88 5.83 7.16 6.67 3.05 1.83 2.44 8.33 6.67 6.67 10 1.67 5 10 8.33 5 5 5 6.67 5 0 5 1.67

5 5 10 10 0 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 10 5 0 0 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 8 6 10 8 10 10 6 8 0 0 10 3.3 0 10 10 10 3.3 3.3 10 3.3 0 3.3 0 0 0 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 0 0 10 5 0 0 0

10 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 10 10 0 0 5 7.54 8.04 7.85 7.92 9.01 8.18 7.17 6.89 7.87 9.35 7.54 7.26 5.05 6.93 7.21 8.3

10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 10

6.67 8.33 8.33 8.33 10 10 10 8.33 8.33 10 6.67 5 5 3.33 6.67 10 3.48 3.83 3.07 3.34 9.37 2.72 2.02 2.58 3.14 7.39 3.48 4.04 1.88 7.74 2.16 6.55 9.44 8.89 6.94 6.11 7.78 6.39 5.83 6.67 6.94 7.5 6.67 6.39 7.5 7.22 7.78 7.5

10 10 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 5 7.5 10 5 5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 10

8.33 6.67 8.33 3.33 3.33 6.67 5 5 3.33 5 5 1.67 5 1.67 3.33 5 7.54 7.53 7.49 7.34 7.26 7.25 7.15 7.07 7.06 6.9 6.76 6.58 6.57 6.45 6.25 6.19

32

Uga

nda

Cam

eroo

n

Nig

er

Cot

e d'

Ivoi

re

Gab

on

Turk

ey

Kuw

ait

Thai

land

Indo

nesi

a

Sing

apor

e

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1. Media 4.98 5.35 3.84 5.13 3.65 6.52 5.7 4.65 6.37 2.77 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 5 1.2. Government control (IPD) 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 3.33 6.67 0 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 3.33 3.33 2.78 3.33 2 3.33 3.89 4.11 4.22 2 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 4.92 3.92 4.25 3 4.25 5.25 4.75 3.67 4.58 4.08 2. Religion 8.33 8.62 7.17 5.28 10 4.06 6.12 6.61 2.66 7.39 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 5 10 10 6.67 10 1.67 0 3.33 1.67 3.33 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 5 5 5 5 10 0 5 5 0 5 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 10 10 8 10 10 6 10 8 6 6 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 6.7 0 10 10 6.7 6.7 3.3 3.3 10 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 10 0 10 5 5 10 0 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 0 10 5 10 10 5 10 3. Movement 6.76 5.64 7.07 7.49 3.94 8.61 5.98 6.96 7 6.95 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 6.67 10 10 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 3.33 3.33 5 6.67 0 10 3.33 8.33 8.33 5 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 3.69 2.58 3.28 3.28 2.44 4.43 3.9 2.82 3 9.48 4. Association 4.44 4.72 6.11 6.11 6.11 4.44 5.83 5.28 6.67 4.44 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 5 7.5 7.5 10 5 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 5 5 7.5 5 5 5 5 7.5 7.5 5 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 3.33 1.67 3.33 3.33 8.33 3.33 5 3.33 5 3.33 Freedom Index 2006-2008 6.13 6.08 6.05 6 5.93 5.91 5.91 5.87 5.67 5.39

33

Mau

rita

nia

Ban

glad

esh

Alg

eria

Mal

aysi

a

Sri L

anka

Cha

d

Rus

sia

Zim

babw

e

Jord

an

Mor

occo

Yem

en

Paki

stan

Ethi

opia

Kaz

akhs

tan

Vie

tnam

Egyp

t

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 4.08 4.17 4.44 2.75 5.04 3.87 3.92 1.79 5.54 4.32 3.76 5.24 1.49 2.46 1.39 2.53

7.5 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5 5 7.5 5 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 3.33 3.33 0 6.67 3.33 3.33 0 10 3.33 6.67 6.67 0 3.33 0 0 4 3.11 2.67 2 3.67 2.22 3.11 0.33 3 2.11 1.11 3.78 1.22 1.33 0.89 2.89

4.83 2.75 4.25 4 2.33 2.42 1.75 1.83 4.17 4.33 2.25 3 2.25 2.67 2.17 4.75 5.16 3.28 6.39 5.17 2.94 6.11 4.05 8 4.39 3.83 3.22 1 5.23 4.61 4.55 2 1.67 6.67 3.33 0 3.33 1.67 0 5 1.67 0 0 0 6.67 1.67 0 0

0 5 10 0 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 6 8 10 6 6 10 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 6 4 2

3.3 0 0 10 3.3 0 3.3 10 6.7 0 3.3 0 6.7 0 3.3 0 10 0 10 10 0 10 5 10 5 5 5 0 10 5 10 5 10 0 5 5 0 10 10 10 0 5 0 0 0 10 10 5

6.27 6.93 6.46 7.73 5.16 6.06 5.83 5.91 5.03 5.73 4.27 6.2 8.01 6.24 4.74 4.67 6.67 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 6.67

10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 5 5 6.67 5 1.67 5 6.67 0 1.67 6.67 1.67 6.67 10 5 3.33 3.33

3.41 2.72 2.51 9.23 2.3 2.58 3.31 3.62 1.78 2.93 2.09 1.46 2.02 3.28 2.3 2.02 5.83 6.39 3.33 4.72 6.94 3.89 6.11 4.17 4.44 5.28 5.83 3.89 0.83 2.22 1.67 2.22

5 7.5 5 7.5 10 5 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 10 5 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 5 5 5 5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5

5 1.67 0 1.67 3.33 1.67 3.33 0 3.33 3.33 5 1.67 0 1.67 0 1.67 5.34 5.19 5.16 5.09 5.02 4.98 4.98 4.97 4.85 4.79 4.27 4.08 3.89 3.88 3.09 2.86

34

Tuni

sia

Chi

na

Iran

Syri

a

Cub

a

Uzb

ekis

tan

Saud

i Ara

bia

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 1. Media 1.43 1.12 1.08 0.52 0.19 0.23 1.46 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 1.2. Government control (IPD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 0.89 0.67 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 0.67 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 2.33 1.33 1.5 1.75 0.75 0.58 2.67 2. Religion 2.67 4.5 2.67 3.78 6.67 2.33 1 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 0 0 0 1.67 0 0 0 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 6 2 6 6 10 4 6 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 5 5 0 10 10 5 0 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 0 10 10 0 10 5 0 3. Movement 5.12 2.94 3.26 4.27 1.57 3.21 3.14 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 0 3.33 6.67 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 3.33 0 1.67 1.67 0 0 0 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 3.83 1.78 1.36 2.09 2.93 2.86 2.54 4. Association 1.39 0.83 1.67 0 0 2.5 0 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.5 0 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 0 0 2.5 0 0 5 0 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 1.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freedom Index 2006-2008 2.65 2.35 2.17 2.14 2.1 2.07 1.4

35

6.2 Freedom Index Frankfurt 2009-2011

Irel

and

New

Zea

land

Uru

guay

Port

ugal

Swed

en

Mal

ta

Finl

and

Nor

way

Esto

nia

Aus

tral

ia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Media 9.26 9.35 8.74 9.24 9.56 9.1 9.56 9.54 9.24 9 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.2. State control (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 8.56 9 7.44 8.44 9.33 8.67 9 9 8.44 8.33 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 8.5 8.42 7.5 8.5 8.92 7.75 9.25 9.17 8.5 7.67 2. Religion 10 8.83 10 9.73 8.48 9.83 9.08 8.31 9.83 9.58 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 5 10 7.5 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 10 8 10 10 10 9 7 9 9 10 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 5 10 8.35 3.35 10 10 8.35 10 10 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 7.5 10 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3. Movement 9.89 9.86 9.28 9.05 9.95 8.87 9.11 9.89 8.78 9.03 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 9.58 9.46 7.11 9.52 9.82 8.8 9.76 9.58 8.43 9.46 4. Association 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.3. Assembly and association (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational. sports and cultural organizations (IPD)

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

5. Modern Information 9.38 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.83 9.85 5.1. Internet Access (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.2. Access to foreign press(IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.3. State control over the internet (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.4. Internet censorship (ONI/FOTN/GI) 7.5 . . . 10 . 10 10 9.31 9.42 Freedom Index 2009-2011 9.71 9.61 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.56 9.55 9.55 9.53 9.49

36

Can

ada

Net

herl

ands

Den

mar

k

Bel

gium

Swit

zerl

and

Chi

le

Hun

gary

Hon

g K

ong

Pola

nd

Aus

tria

Arg

enti

na

Gha

na

Cyp

rus

Bra

zil

Spai

n

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9.08 9.36 9.52 9.53 9.42 8.47 8.51 8.28 8.73 8.83 6.97 8.75 9.02 7.67 8.78 9.19

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

8.33 9.11 9.33 9.11 8.44 7.22 6.78 6.22 7.33 7.33 5.89 7.33 8.33 5.44 8.56 8.67 8 8.33 8.75 9 9.25 6.67 7.25 6.92 7.58 8 4.5 7.67 7.75 5.25 6.58 8.08

9.17 8.75 8 8.02 8.06 9.73 8.73 8.1 8.17 7.64 9.83 8.75 7.42 8.56 7.22 7.42 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 . 10 7.5 10 7.5 5 10 5 10 5 7.5 5 2.5 5 10 10 2.5 10 0 10 7.5 5 5 5 7.5

10 10 8 9 10 10 9 8 9 10 9 10 7 8 10 7 10 5 5 6.65 8.35 8.35 3.35 10 0 8.35 10 10 10 8.35 8.35 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 7.5 10 5 10

9.03 9.09 9.14 9.91 9.02 9.47 9.64 9.48 9.68 9.88 9.49 8.43 8.81 9.46 9.08 9.64 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

6.67 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 . 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

9.46 9.7 9.88 9.64 9.4 7.89 8.55 8.43 8.73 9.52 7.95 3.73 8.55 7.83 9.64 8.55 10 10 10 9.17 10 8.54 9.38 10 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.38 10 10 10 8.75 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 . 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 9.84 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.43 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 . 10 . . . 9.38 . 10 . 10 10 . 7.73 . 10

9.46 9.44 9.33 9.33 9.3 9.24 9.22 9.17 9.15 9.1 9.09 9.06 9.05 9.02 9.02 9

37

Lith

uani

a

Slov

ak

Rep

ublic

Slov

enia

Ital

y

Japa

n

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Hai

ti

Latv

ia

Mau

riti

us

Uni

ted

Stat

es

of A

mer

ica

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 1. Media 9.02 8.94 6.42 7.45 7.54 8.95 7.72 8.81 7.26 8.29 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 10 10 7.5 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 1.2. State control (IPD) 10 10 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 3.33 6.67 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 8.33 8 7.33 6.22 9.33 7.89 5.22 8 7.89 8.67 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 7.75 7.75 7.5 6.92 6.67 7.92 5.67 7.25 7.83 7.83 2. Religion 9 7.14 9.42 8.17 8.75 6.44 10 9 7.75 7.87 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 10 5 10 5 10 7.5 10 5 10 10 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 10 7.5 10 5 7.5 0 10 10 7.5 2.5 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 9 7 9 9 10 7 10 9 9 8 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 5 3.35 10 10 10 6.65 10 10 10 6.7 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 10 5 7.5 10 10 5 10 3. Movement 8.78 9.67 9.67 9.09 9.08 9.17 8.13 8.76 9.17 8.23 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 10 3.33 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 8.43 8.67 8.67 9.7 9.64 10 2.53 8.37 6.69 9.58 4. Association 8.13 9.17 9.17 10 9.17 10 8.33 7.29 9.38 9.17 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 7.5 10 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational. sports and cultural organizations (IPD)

10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 10 3.33 6.67 10 6.67

5. Modern Information 10 10 10 9.88 10 9.89 10 10 10 9.95 5.1. Internet Access (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.2. Access to foreign press(IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.3. State control over the internet (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.4. Internet censorship (ONI/FOTN/GI) . . . 9.53 . 9.56 . 10 . 9.78 Freedom Index 2009-2011 8.98 8.98 8.93 8.92 8.91 8.89 8.84 8.77 8.71 8.7

38

Sout

h A

fric

a

Ben

in

Gua

tem

ala

Pana

ma

Taiw

an

Ger

man

y

Phili

ppin

es

Bol

ivia

Ecua

dor

Fran

ce

Bur

kina

Fas

o

Moz

ambi

que

Nam

ibia

Gre

ece

Mal

i

Peru

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 7.53 6.67 5.6 5.97 8.83 9.06 7.57 5.58 4.84 8.85 5.67 6.49 6.96 8.33 6.51 6.21

10 10 7.5 7.5 10 10 10 5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 3.33 10 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 6.67 6.89 6.33 4.67 4.22 7.56 8 5.78 5.89 4.11 8 5.67 5.89 7 7 7.11 5.33 6.58 7 3.58 5.5 7.75 8.25 4.5 4.75 4.42 7.42 6.17 5.92 6.67 6.33 8.08 5.33 8.89 10 10 9.58 8.75 6.22 7.63 9.58 10 4.67 10 9.83 10 4.75 8.75 8.75

10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 5 10 7.5 5 10 10 7.5 2.5 0 7.5 7.5 10 0 10 10 10 0 7.5 5

10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 8 10 9 10 6 10 10 8.35 10 10 10 10 3.35 3.3 10 10 5 10 10 10 5 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 0 10 10 10 2.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10

7.99 8.31 9.08 8.26 7.57 9.09 7.06 8.43 7.65 8.26 8.27 7.34 7.68 8.97 8.28 7.74 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67

6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.3 3.25 6.33 6.39 3.61 9.7 3.25 3.73 3.92 9.7 3.07 2.71 4.04 9.22 3.13 4.28

9.38 8.13 8.54 9.17 7.29 8.75 9.38 7.92 8.54 9.17 6.67 6.67 6.67 8.13 6.46 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 7.5 10 7.5 10 10 7.5 10 10 5 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 10 5 5 10 10 7.5 10 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 5 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 6.67

9.69 10 9.84 10 10 8.98 10 10 10 10 10 10 8.89 10 10 9.84 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

8.78 . 9.38 . . 9.24 10 10 . 10 10 . . . . 9.38 8.7 8.62 8.61 8.6 8.49 8.42 8.33 8.3 8.21 8.19 8.12 8.07 8.04 8.04 8 7.84

39

Hon

dura

s

Cam

bodi

a

Bul

gari

a

Kor

ea,

Rep

ublic

of

Mex

ico

Col

ombi

a

Bot

swan

a

Serb

ia

Rom

ania

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1. Media 5.34 4.57 5.92 6.96 6.07 5.72 4.9 6.78 8.01 5.87 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 1.2. State control (IPD) 6.67 3.33 3.33 6.67 10 6.67 0 6.67 10 3.33 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 4.44 3.11 6.33 7 4.44 5.89 6.33 6.78 5.78 7.56 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 2.75 4.33 6.5 6.67 2.33 2.83 5.75 6.17 6.25 5.08 2. Religion 9.17 8.83 5.25 6.92 5.19 7.03 9.58 5.67 2.75 10 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 2.5 7.5 10 5 2.5 10 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 7.5 7.5 2.5 0 0 5 7.5 0 0 10 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 10 8 9 4 7 8 10 9 4 10 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 10 0 10 6.65 6.65 10 5 0 10 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 10 10 5 10 10 5 10 5 2.5 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 7.5 10 3. Movement 9.08 8.09 8.67 7.69 9.31 7.48 6.87 7.99 9.55 6.17 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 5 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 6.33 2.35 8.01 9.1 7.23 3.25 4.16 5.3 8.19 3.01 4. Association 6.67 7.5 9.38 8.54 8.13 8.13 7.92 7.71 7.29 5.21 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 7.5 7.5 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 7.5 7.5 10 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 7.5 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 5 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 5 2.5 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational. sports and cultural organizations (IPD)

6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33

5. Modern Information 8.89 10 9.69 8.49 9.81 9.92 8.89 9.84 10 10 5.1. Internet Access (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.2. Access to foreign press(IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 5.3. State control over the internet (IPD) 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.4. Internet censorship (ONI/FOTN/GI) . . 8.75 7.29 9.23 9.69 . 9.38 10 . Freedom Index 2009-2011 7.83 7.8 7.78 7.72 7.7 7.65 7.63 7.6 7.52 7.45

40

Nig

er

Leba

non

Para

guay

Isra

el

Seneg

al

Ukr

aine

Cot

e d'

Ivoi

re

Cam

eroo

n

Mon

golia

Ken

ya

Nic

arag

ua

Chad

Thai

land

Con

go,

Rep

ubl

ic o

f

Togo

Tanza

nia

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 4.68 7.23 5.56 8.5 5.56 5.95 3.59 5.23 5.15 5.82 5.58 3.81 4.51 5.38 4.08 6.06

7.5 10 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.33 10 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 3.33 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.22 4 3.89 7.67 3.22 4.56 3.11 3 5.44 3.78 5.56 2.22 3.78 3.67 2.33 4.22 4.67 4.92 4.17 6.33 4.83 5.08 2.92 3.75 6.83 5.33 5.08 2.17 3.42 3.67 3.17 5.83 9.25 7.17 10 2 9.17 5.53 7.75 10 5.17 4.69 7.75 6.75 6.63 10 9.58 6.61

10 7.5 10 0 10 5 7.5 10 5 5 5 5 2.5 10 10 5 7.5 7.5 10 0 10 2.5 2.5 10 0 0 2.5 2.5 5 10 7.5 5

8 8 10 7 5 9 9 10 6 4 9 8 9 10 10 8 10 0 10 0 10 1.65 10 10 10 6.65 10 5 3.3 10 10 6.65 10 10 10 2.5 10 5 7.5 10 7.5 5 10 10 10 10 10 7.5 10 10 10 2.5 10 10 10 10 2.5 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 7.5

7.64 5.07 6.06 7.42 6.18 7.21 10 4.8 8.18 7.23 9.02 8.33 8.4 4.59 5.35 7.59 10 6.67 3.33 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 7.5 5 7.5 5 5 5 10 0 10 5 10 5 10 2.5 5 10

3.07 1.93 6.75 8.01 3.07 3.86 . 2.53 2.71 3.92 6.08 . 3.61 2.53 3.07 3.67 6.25 7.92 7.92 7.5 5.42 6.67 3.33 5.42 6.67 6.88 3.96 5.83 8.13 4.38 5.21 6.04

7.5 10 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 5 10 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 10 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 7.5 5 10 5 5 7.5

0 5 10 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 7.5 5 5 2.5 2.5 10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 3.33 10 0 3.33 6.67

8.89 9.17 6.67 10 8.89 9.69 10 9.06 9.17 9.54 7.71 8.89 5.6 8.89 8.89 6.67 10 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 3.33

6.67 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.33 10 10 10

. 10 . 10 . 8.75 . 6.25 10 8.15 7.5 . 5.73 . . 10 7.34 7.31 7.24 7.08 7.04 7.01 6.93 6.9 6.87 6.83 6.8 6.72 6.65 6.65 6.62 6.59

41

Nep

al

Indo

nesi

a

Mad

agas

car

Cen

tral

Afr

ican

R

epub

lic

Con

go, D

em.

Rep

ublic

of

Uga

nda

Mau

rita

nia

Gab

on

Nig

eria

Indi

a

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 1. Media 4.92 6.74 5.18 4.87 3.46 4.95 5.26 2.75 6.02 8.19 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 5 7.5 7.5 5 5 5 5 5 7.5 10 1.2. State control (IPD) 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 0 6.67 10 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 4.78 4.22 3.89 3.56 2.67 3.56 4.22 2 5.33 7 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 3.25 5.25 2.67 4.25 2.83 4.58 5.17 4 4.58 5.75 2. Religion 3.22 1.61 7 6.83 7.67 4.75 5.75 10 2.97 0.75 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 2.5 0 2.5 5 5 2.5 0 10 2.5 2.5 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 0 0 2.5 0 5 0 2.5 10 0 0 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 6 3 7 6 6 6 7 10 2 2 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 3.35 1.65 10 10 10 5 10 10 3.3 0 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 7.5 0 10 10 10 5 10 10 7.5 0 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 0 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 2.5 0 3. Movement 8.07 7.31 6.08 6.11 6.67 6.51 6.2 4.38 7.43 6.17 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 10 10 5 5 0 2.5 5 5 10 5 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 2.29 2.59 2.65 2.77 . 3.55 3.13 2.53 3.07 3.01 4. Association 6.67 7.5 3.96 5 3.75 5.42 5.42 5.21 4.79 7.29 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 10 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 7.5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 5 5 7.5 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 5 5 0 5 2.5 0 2.5 7.5 0 5 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational. sports and cultural organizations (IPD)

6.67 10 3.33 0 0 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67

5. Modern Information 10 9.36 10 8.89 10 9.84 8.75 8.89 9.8 8.31 5.1. Internet Access (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.2. Access to foreign press(IPD) 10 10 10 6.67 10 10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 5.3. State control over the internet (IPD) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5.4. Internet censorship (ONI/FOTN/GI) 10 7.44 . . . 9.38 8.33 . 9.19 6.56 Freedom Index 2009-2011 6.58 6.51 6.44 6.34 6.31 6.3 6.28 6.25 6.2 6.14

42

Zam

bia

Ban

glad

esh

Ven

ezue

la

Sri L

anka

Kuw

ait

Turk

ey

Sing

apor

e

Rus

sia

Paki

stan

Mor

occo

Kaz

akhs

tan

Ang

ola

Mal

aysi

a

Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irat

es

Bah

rain

Aze

rbai

jan

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 4.67 4.99 3.03 3.23 4.8 6.27 2.21 3.04 5.31 2.63 2.12 2.53 2.21 3.56 2.88 1.51

7.5 7.5 5 5 7.5 7.5 2.5 5 7.5 5 5 2.5 2.5 5 7.5 2.5 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 10 0 3.33 6.67 0 0 0 0 3.33 0 0 3.67 4.44 1.11 2.33 3.78 2.67 2 2 3.89 1.67 0.89 3.89 2 2 1.44 1.44 4.17 4.67 2.67 2.25 4.58 4.92 4.33 1.83 3.17 3.83 2.58 3.75 4.33 3.92 2.58 2.08 8.27 2.69 6.75 3.17 6.81 2.94 8.42 2.67 0.67 4.42 4.62 8.58 4.75 7.08 5.67 4.58

10 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 5 0 0 0 2.5 7.5 0 0 5 0 5 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 7.5 0 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 0 8 2 8 9 10 6 8 6 4 4 6 9 6 10 9 5

6.65 1.65 10 0 8.35 1.65 10 0 0 10 6.7 10 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 2.5 10 5 10 5 0 10 5 10 10 5 10 2.5 10 0 10 2.5 7.5 5 10 5 0 2.5 7.5 10 7.5 7.5 0 10

5.96 6.88 6.11 5.23 5.24 8.01 7.75 7.08 5.96 5.35 7.06 3.01 8.32 5.13 7.88 5.56 6.67 10 3.33 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 6.67

10 5 7.5 5 0 10 5 10 5 5 5 0 7.5 0 7.5 2.5 3.86 2.53 6.93 2.59 4.28 5.36 9.34 5 2.17 3.07 3.25 2.05 9.1 3.86 4.04 3.07 3.96 5.83 4.58 6.67 5.21 4.17 3.96 4.38 5.42 4.79 2.71 1.88 3.33 3.54 3.33 2.92

5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5 5 2.5 5 5 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 2.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 5 2.5 5 7.5 5 5 2.5 5 2.5 5 2.5

2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0 5 0 2.5 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 3.33 3.33 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 0 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67

7.78 9.69 8.61 10 5.83 6.41 4.44 9.17 8.66 7.6 8.1 8.54 5.87 4.79 4.17 8.06 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 10 6.67 10 10 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 10 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 6.67 3.33 10 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67

10 10 6.67 10 6.67 3.33 3.33 10 10 6.67 10 10 3.33 3.33 3.33 10 . 8.75 7.78 10 3.33 5.63 . 6.68 4.62 7.08 5.73 7.5 6.83 2.5 3.36 5.55

6.13 6.02 5.82 5.66 5.58 5.56 5.36 5.27 5.2 4.96 4.92 4.91 4.9 4.82 4.79 4.52

43

Zim

babw

e

Alg

eria

Laos

Jord

an

Suda

n

Om

an

Ethi

opia

Qat

ar

Egyp

t

Tuni

sia

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 1. Media 3.11 3.77 0.77 3.08 2.44 1.85 1.24 1.81 3.91 1.9 1.1. Press freedom (IPD) 5 5 0 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 5 2.5 1.2. State control (IPD) 3.33 3.33 0 0 3.33 0 0 0 3.33 0 1.3. Laws and regulations (FOTP) 1.44 2.67 1.33 3.22 1.33 1.67 0.89 3.33 2.89 2 1.4. Political pressures and controls (FOTP) 2.67 4.08 1.75 4.08 2.58 3.25 1.58 3.92 4.42 3.08 2. Religion 5.25 3.08 4.58 3.5 3.25 8.33 4.89 7.42 2.56 5.5 2.1. Religious liberty (CIRI) 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.2. Harassment of religious groups (PEW) 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 2.5 5 0 0 2.3. Force toward religious groups (PEW) 4 6 5 6 7 10 6 7 2 8 2.4. Domination of public life (PEW) 10 0 10 5 0 10 8.35 10 3.35 10 2.5. Hostility over proselytizing (PEW) 7.5 5 5 10 7.5 10 0 10 10 10 2.6. Hostility over conversions (PEW) 10 7.5 7.5 0 5 10 10 10 0 5 3. Movement 3.39 4.47 4.59 4.75 4.41 4.67 7.18 3.49 4.44 4.27 3.1. Movement of nationals (IPD) 3.33 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.2. Movement of foreigners (IPD) 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 3.3. Foreign movement (CIRI) 0 5 2.5 0 2.5 5 10 0 0 0 3.4. Visa restrictions (HVRI) 3.55 2.89 2.53 2.35 1.81 3.67 2.05 3.98 . 3.73 4. Association 4.17 2.5 1.25 1.25 4.17 2.08 2.08 1.46 2.08 2.92 4.1. Association (formal & informal) (IPD) 5 5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.2. Assembly and demonstration (CIRI) 5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 4.3. Assembly and association (IPD) 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 4.4. Operating autonomy: Educational. sports and cultural organizations (IPD)

6.67 0 0 0 6.67 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 6.67

5. Modern Information 6.52 7.5 10 8.45 6.46 3.13 3.07 4.17 5.26 2.16 5.1. Internet Access (IPD) 6.67 10 10 10 6.67 3.33 3.33 6.67 6.67 3.33 5.2. Access to foreign press(IPD) 3.33 3.33 10 10 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 5.3. State control over the internet (IPD) 10 6.67 10 6.67 6.67 0 0 0 3.33 0 5.4. Internet censorship (ONI/FOTN/GI) 6.08 10 10 7.14 5.83 5.83 2.29 3.33 4.36 1.97 Freedom Index 2009-2011 4.49 4.27 4.24 4.21 4.14 4.01 3.69 3.67 3.65 3.35

44

Liby

a

Vie

tnam

Yem

en

Cub

a

Uzb

ekis

tan

Iran

Chi

na

Syri

a

Saud

i Ara

bia

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 0.88 1.23 1.99 0.38 0.84 0.81 1.11 1.02 1.39

0 2.5 5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.78 0.67 1.11 0.11 0.11 0 0.44 0.33 0.56 1.75 1.75 1.83 1.42 0.75 0.75 1.5 1.25 2.5 6.03 3.44 0.61 6.17 4.08 1.92 4.5 3.25 1.75

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 4 2 7 2 4 2 2 3 6.65 6.65 1.65 10 5 0 10 10 0

10 10 0 10 10 5 7.5 7.5 2.5 10 0 0 10 7.5 2.5 7.5 0 5

4.75 5.23 3.91 2.4 4.04 4.03 3.07 3.09 2.53 10 6.67 6.67 0 6.67 6.67 3.33 6.67 6.67

6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.35 2.59 2.29 2.95 2.83 2.77 2.29 2.35 3.43 0 2.08 3.96 0.83 1.25 2.92 0.63 0.83 0 0 2.5 7.5 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 3.33 3.33 0 6.67 0 3.33 0

3.75 3.06 3.33 3.5 2.22 2.01 2.16 1.25 2.38 6.67 3.33 3.33 6.67 3.33 3.33 3.33 0 3.33

0 3.33 6.67 0 0 0 3.33 3.33 3.33 0 3.33 3.33 6.67 3.33 3.33 0 0 0

8.33 2.24 0 0.67 . 1.39 1.97 1.67 2.84 3.08 3.01 2.76 2.66 2.49 2.34 2.29 1.89 1.61

45

Imprint

Published by the Liberal Institute

of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom

Reinhardtstraße 12

D-10117 Berlin

[email protected]

www.freiheit.org

index of individual freedom - · pdf fileto construct the freedom index two item selection...

Documents