Countries at the Crossroads 2006

Country Reports  |  Overview Essay  |  Acknowledgments  |  Expert Advisory Committee  |  Survey Methodology  |  Introduction to Country Reports  |  Tables and Charts  |  Recommendations Progress Report

Print-Friendly Version

Survey Methodology

The Freedom House Countries at the Crossroads survey provides a comparative evaluation of government performance in four touchstone areas of democratic governance: Accountability and Public Voice, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Anticorruption and Transparency. This survey examines these areas of performance in a set of 30 countries that are at a critical crossroads in determining their political future.

Crossroads evaluates two different sets of 30 countries bi-annually, with the 2004 countries covered in each even-numbered year and the 2005 countries covered in odd-numbered years.  The 2006 edition is the third in the Countries at the Crossroads series; it evaluates the same 30 countries initially examined in the 2004 edition, providing an opportunity for a year-on-year analysis and assessing the extent to which this group of countries is backsliding, stalling, or improving in terms of democratic governance. The timeframe for events covered is October 1, 2003, through November 30, 2005.

In cooperation with a team of methodology experts, Freedom House designed a methodology that includes a questionnaire used both to prepare analytical narratives and for numerical ratings for each government. The survey methodology provides authors with a transparent and consistent guide to scoring and analyzing the countries under review and uses identical benchmarks for both narratives and ratings, rendering the two indicators mutually reinforcing. The final result is a system of comparative ratings accompanied by narratives that reflect both governments' commitment to passing good laws and also their records on upholding them.

The survey's methodology was created for the 2004 edition by a committee of senior advisers from the academic and scholarly communities. Its members were Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution; Adrian Karatnycky, Freedom House; Paul Martin, Columbia University; Rick Messick, the World Bank; Ted Piccone, Open Society Institute; Louise Shelley, American University; Jay Verkuilen, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Ruth Wedgwood, Johns Hopkins University; and Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House. In consultation with the committee, the Freedom House staff revised and updated the methodology for 2005 and 2006. Most notably, a new subsection on property rights has been included under the Rule of Law section and the subsection on the rights of women, ethnic, and religious minorities has been separated into two distinct subsections under Civil Liberties.

Freedom House enlisted the participation of prominent scholars and analysts to author the survey's country reports. In preparing the survey's written analyses with accompanying comparative ratings, Freedom House undertook a systematic gathering of data. Each country narrative report is approximately 6,500 words. Expert regional advisers reviewed the draft narrative reports, providing written comments and requests for revisions, additions, or clarifications. Authors were asked to respond as fully as possible to all of the questions posed when composing the analytical narratives; thus, the country narrative reports help inform the numerical scores.

For all 30 countries in the survey, Freedom House, in consultation with the report authors and academic advisers, has provided numerical ratings for the four thematic categories listed above. Authors produced a first round of ratings for each subcategory by evaluating each of the questions and assigning scores on a scale of 0-7, where 0 represents weakest performance and 7 represents strongest performance. The regional advisers and Freedom House staff systematically reviewed all country ratings on a comparative basis to ensure accuracy and fairness. All final ratings decisions rest with Freedom House.

Scores are assigned on a scale of 07, where 0 represents weakest performance and 7 represents strongest performance. These ratings allow for comparative analysis of reform among the countries surveyed and are valuable for making general assessments of the level of democratic governance in a given country; they should not be taken as absolute indicators of the situation in a given country.  

In devising a framework for evaluating government performance, Freedom House sought to develop a scale broad enough to capture degrees of variation so that comparisons could be made between countries in the current year, and also so that future time series comparisons might be made to assess a country's progress in these areas relative to past performance. These scales achieve an effective balance between a scoring system that is too broad--which may make it difficult for analysts to make fine distinctions between different scores--and one that is too narrow--which may make it difficult to capture degrees of variation between countries and therefore more difficult to recognize how much a given government's performance has improved or eroded over time.

Narrative essays and scoring were applied to the following main areas of performance, which Freedom House considers to be key to evaluating the state of democratic governance within a country:

Accountability and Public Voice

• Free and fair electoral laws and elections
• Effective and accountable government
• Civic engagement and civic monitoring
• Media independence and freedom of expression

Civil Liberties

• Protection from state terror, unjustified imprisonment, and torture
• Gender equity
• Rights of ethnic, religious, and other distinct groups
• Freedom of conscience and belief
• Freedom of association and assembly

Rule of Law

• Independent judiciary
• Primacy of rule of law in civil and criminal matters
• Accountability of security forces and military to civilian authorities
• Protection of property rights
• Equal treatment under the law

Anticorruption and Transparency

• Environment to protect against corruption
• Existence of laws, ethical standards, and boundaries between private and public sectors
• Enforcement of anticorruption laws
• Governmental transparency

In addition to the main subject matter areas, authors were asked to prepare an Introduction, giving a brief history of the country and outlining key issues in its development. At the end of each of the four major category sections, the authors provide succinct recommendations for the regime to take with respect to areas of most immediate and pressing concern. Moreover, for the first time, in 2006, the authors were required to follow up on the recommendations made in the previous edition and evaluate whether any progress had been made.

Scoring Range

The Countries at the Crossroads survey rates countries' performance in each of the four major subject areas on a scale of 0 to 7, with 0 representing the weakest performance and 7 the strongest. The scoring scale is as follows:

Score of 0-2: Countries that receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 ensure no or very few adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Laws protecting the rights of citizens or the justice of the political process are nonexistent, rarely enforced, or routinely abused by the authorities.
Score of 3-4: Countries that receive a score of 3 or 4 provide few or very few adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Legal protections are weak and enforcement of the law is inconsistent or corrupt.
Score of 5: Countries that receive a score of 5 provide some adequate protections, legal standards or rights in the rated category. Rights and political standards are protected, but enforcement may be unreliable and some abuses may occur. A score of 5 is considered to be the minimally adequate performance in the rated category.
Score of 6-7: Countries that receive a score of 6-7 ensure nearly all adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Legal protections are strong and are usually enforced fairly. Citizens have access to legal redress when their rights are violated, and the political system functions smoothly.