Upload
vothuan
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
(Institutional Profiles Database)
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)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 30
0 indicates no restrictions
30 indicates restrictions
Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable)/(30))
1.4. Political pressures and controls on media content
(Freedom House)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 40
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)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 2
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
Recoded by 10*(Variable/2)
2.2. Harassment of religious groups
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 1
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
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 1
(Scale 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1)
11
Recoded by 10-10*Variable
2.4. Domination of public life
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 1
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
Recoded by 10-10*Variable
2.5. Hostility over proselytizing
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 1
0 indicates no
0.5 indicates yes, but they felt short on physical violence
1 indicates yes
Recoded by 10-10*Variable
2.6. Hostility over conversions
(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 1
0 indicates no
0.5 indicates yes, but they felt short on physical violence,
1 indicates yes
Recoded by 10-10*Variable
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
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
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
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
3.2. Freedom of movement of foreigners
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
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
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
3.3. Freedom of foreign movement
(CIRI Human Rights Data Project)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 2
0 indicates that this freedom was severely restricted
1 indicates the freedom was somewhat restricted
2 indicates unrestricted freedom of foreign movement
Recoded by 10*(Variable/2)
3.4. Visa Restrictions
(Henley and Partners Visa Restrictions Index)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 200
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)
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 4
0 indicates no rights guaranteeing freedoms or their respect
1 indicates little freedom of association (if there are rights)
4 indicates substantial freedom (if there are rights)
Recoded by 10*(Variable/4)
4.2. Freedom of assembly and demonstration
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 4
0 indicates no rights guaranteeing freedoms or their respect
1 indicates little freedom of assembly and demonstration (if there are
rights)
4 indicates substantial freedom (if there are rights)
Recoded by 10*(Variable/4)
4.3. Freedom of assembly & association
(CIRI Human Rights Data Project)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 2
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
Recoded by 10*(Variable/2)
4.4. Operating autonomy of organizations (only educational, sports and cultural
organizations)
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
1 indicates no operating autonomy in practice
4 indicates total autonomy
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
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
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
1 indicates no freedom
4 indicates total freedom of internet access
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
5.2. Freedom of access to foreign press (no seizures, etc.)
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
1 indicates no freedom
4 indicates total freedom of access to foreign press
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
5.3. State control over Internet access
(Institutional Profiles Database)
Original Score Ranked 1 to 4
1 indicates extremely tight restrictions
4 indicates totally free access
Recoded by 10*(Variable-1/3)
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)
Recoded by 10*(Variable/100)
2. In practice, the government does not censor citizens creating content online
19
(Global Integrity)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 100 (from Freedom to no Freedom)
Recoded by 10*(Variable/100)
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)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 25 (from Freedom to no Freedom)
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)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 35 (from Freedom to no Freedom)
Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable/35))
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)
Original Score Ranked 0 to 4
0 indicates free/no filtering
1 indicates suspected filtering
2 indicates selective filtering
3 indicates substantial filtering
4 indicates unfree/pervasive filtering
Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable/4))
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)
Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable/4))
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)
Recoded by 10-(10*(Variable/4))
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
www.freiheit.org