Accueil - OMID

Indicator identity cards

Name of the indicator	Name of the organization, its status, missions	Geographical coverage	Available years	Nature of the collected data	Method	Field of application	Theme or sub-theme	Values taken by the indicator	Link	Similar indicators	Indicators from the same organization
Business Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as "the fundamental right of every individual to control their own labor and property." Economic freedom, therefore, measures "the freedom of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or interference from the government." The Economic Freedom Index is a tool designed for a diverse audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, as well as business and finance professionals. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These freedoms are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Size of Government (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country's overall economic freedom score is obtained by averaging these 12 components, giving equal weight to each, with rankings on a scale of 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and sustaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can strengthen progress in another, and similarly, economic freedom suppressed in one area can make progress much more difficult in another.	The Business Freedom indicator is one of the three criteria in the "Regulatory Efficiency" category (iii), and therefore one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom Index. The Business Freedom indicator is calculated by averaging four equally weighted sub-factors, with scores ranging from 0 to 100: Access to electricity (a), Business environment risk (b), Regulatory quality (c), and Economic inclusion of women (d). A country's Business Freedom score ranges from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the freest business environment.	Business freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Doing Business (WB), Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC) and Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA)
Business Regulatory Environment Rating (CPIA)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Sub-Saharan Africa	2005 to 2022	The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which evaluates in Sub-Saharan African countries the policies and institutional frameworks regarding the implementation of sustainable growth and poverty reduction, was developed by the World Bank in the 1970s. In June 2006, the World Bank published for the first time the scores of national policy and institutional assessments (CPIA). CPIA assessments also help determine which countries are eligible for financing from the International Development Association (IDA). IDA is the World Bank institution responsible for assisting the world’s poorest countries by providing concessional loans, grants, or donations to support programs aimed at stimulating economic growth and improving living conditions. The CPIA measures a country’s performance for a given year, while the results for IDA-eligible countries are published in June of the following year. National teams, chief economists, and experts from the World Bank’s Global Practices are responsible for country ratings. Their assessments are based on diagnostic studies that rely on economic reports, public expenditure reviews, and poverty assessments. The country’s authorities are consulted beforehand to ensure that the evaluations are based on up-to-date information. As a result, the ratings reflect extensive observations based on country expertise and publicly available indicators.	The CPIA is designed to assess the quality of national policies and institutional frameworks, focusing on key elements that are under the control of the countries. “The ratings represent the ability to effectively utilize development aid.” The CPIA evaluates countries based on a set of 16 criteria grouped into four categories: (i) Economic management, (ii) Structural policies, (iii) Policies for social inclusion and equity, and (iv) Public sector management and institutions. For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country's performance and assign a score ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high). All 16 criteria have equal weight, and each category accounts for 25% of a country's overall score. Thus, the CPIA score is obtained by averaging the ratings from the four categories. The Business Regulatory Environment rating is one of the three criteria under the "Structural Policies" (ii) category of the CPIA. It assesses the extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private businesses in investing, creating jobs, and improving productivity.	The quality of the business regulatory environment	Economy	From 1 to 6	https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.BREG.XQ	Regulatory Quality (WGI), Doing Business (WB) et Business Freedom (HF)	Freedom in the World (FH) et Freedom of the Press (FH)
Control of Corruption (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are assessed across six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and then rescaled from 0 to 1. A latent component model is then used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. One of the key features of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be considered when making comparisons between countries and over time. The Control of Corruption indicator reflects perceptions of the use of public power for private gain, including both small-scale and large-scale corruption, as well as state capture by elites and private interests.	Corruption in the public sector	Public policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/	Corruption Perception Index (TI)	Government Effectiveness (WGI), Regulatory Quality (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Corruption Perception Index (TI)	Transparency International is an independent, non-governmental, non-profit organization based in Germany and present in over one hundred countries worldwide. Its mission is to combat corruption and promote transparency, accountability, and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society.	Worldwide	1995 to 2023	The CPI relies on data collected by 13 institutions, including the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, private consulting and risk management firms, as well as think tanks. Consequently, the scores assigned by the indicator reflect the perspectives of business experts on a range of corrupt behaviors in the public sector (such as corruption, embezzlement of public funds, and the use of public office for private purposes).	Each professional institution evaluates a specific concept, which must be explicitly linked to levels of corruption or corruption risks in the public sector, according to its own criteria. Transparency International examines the robustness of the methodology used by the institutions producing these data. Once verified, the data are standardized to allow aggregation into the final CPI score. Standardization converts all data points onto a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the highest perceived level of corruption and 100 represents the lowest perceived level. Each country's CPI score is calculated as a simple average of all available rescaled scores for that country. Thus, a country will only be assigned a score if at least three data sources are available to calculate this average. In 2012, significant changes were made to the methodology to allow for the comparison of scores across countries over time.	Corruption in the public sector worldwide	Public policy	From 0 to 100	https://www.transparency.org/fr/press/cpi2023-corruption-perceptions-index-weakening-justice-systems-leave-corruption-unchecked	Control of Corruption (WGI)	Rule of Law (WGI), Regulatory Quality (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem)	The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) research project was established in 2014 by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist. Its headquarters are located at the V-Dem Institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. This international institute brings together 4,200 experts and researchers with the goal of studying democracy, its various components, and its evolution across different countries worldwide. The researchers' approach involves measuring five fundamental democratic principles: (i) Electoral, (ii) Liberal, (iii) Participatory, (iv) Deliberative, and (v) Egalitarian. The V-Dem Institute also publishes an annual report to provide its global findings based on the results obtained for each country.	Worldwide	1900 to 2023	The V-Dem Institute collects an extensive amount of data (31 million in total) on democracy for each of the 202 countries assessed, thanks to its vast global network of experts. Each national expert participates in online surveys, which enable the institute to develop 600 indicators measuring the five components of democracy previously identified, covering the period from 1789 to the present day. A minimum of five experts per indicator is required, meaning that at least 25 experts per country are needed to measure each of the five components of democracy.	The deliberative principle of democracy focuses on the decision-making process within a state. A deliberative process is one in which public reasoning, centered on the common good, drives political decisions. According to this principle, democracy requires more than just an aggregation of existing preferences—it must also involve respectful dialogue at all levels, from the formation of preferences to the final decision, among informed and competent participants who are open to persuasion. The Deliberative Democracy indicator is based on the evaluation of two sub-indicators: (a) The Electoral Democracy Index, and (b) The Deliberative Component Index. Sub-indicator (a) aims to ensure responsiveness and accountability between leaders and citizens through competitive elections. This goal is considered achieved when suffrage is broad, political and civil society organizations can operate freely, elections are fair and free from systematic fraud or irregularities, and when the head of the executive is chosen directly or indirectly through elections. Sub-indicator (b) evaluates the extent to which political elites publicly justify their positions on public policy issues, frame their arguments in terms of the common good, recognize and respect counterarguments, and engage in broad consultations at the elite level. The V-Dem Institute aggregates expert responses and converts them using Bayesian Item Response Theory (IRT) to smooth out differences in individual judgments and ensure consistent quantitative scoring thresholds. This method assesses the relative reliability of each expert compared to others and examines how their perception of the response scale aligns with that of their peers. The final Deliberative Democracy score is obtained by aggregating the total scores from the two sub-indicators (a) and (b).	Deliberative Democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 1	https://www.v-dem.net/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI) et Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Democracy Index (Economist)	The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is a subsidiary of the major media group The Economist. Dedicated to research and analysis, this British firm was founded in 1946 and specializes in providing information on international trade and global affairs. The EIU offers advice to businesses, governments, and financial institutions, publishes economic and political studies useful to academic organizations, and provides data-driven insights. The EIU produces detailed economic and political forecasts for over 200 countries worldwide, enabling various stakeholders to observe and anticipate future market trends.	Worldwide	2006 to 2023	The Democracy Index was launched in 2006 and annually assesses the state of democracy in 165 countries and two territories. Its objective is to track whether democracy is globally declining. To achieve this, experts evaluate each country’s situation using a standardized questionnaire. In addition to expert assessments, analysts also rely on public opinion surveys, including Gallup polls, the World Values Survey, the Eurobarometer, the Asian Barometer, the Latinobarómetro, and the Afrobarometer.	Experts answer a questionnaire consisting of 60 questions, divided into five main categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. Each category is scored out of 10. The country's final score is the average of the five category scores, resulting in an overall rating between 0 and 10, where 10 represents a full democracy. Based on their scores, countries are then grouped into four possible categories. A score less than or equal to 4 corresponds to authoritarian regimes. A score greater than 4 but less than 6 corresponds to hybrid regimes. A score greater than 6 but less than or equal to 8 corresponds to flawed democracies, and a score greater than 8 corresponds to full democracies.	Analysis of the state of democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 10	https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/	Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Democracy Status (BF), Political Participation (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Government Integrity (HF)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI) Regulatory Quality (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Democracy Status (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Democracy Status indicator corresponds to the "Political Transformation" category (i) of the BTI index. It is measured based on the following criteria: State (a), Political Participation (b), Rule of Law (c), Stability of Democratic Institutions (d), and Political and Social Integration (e). The average of these five criteria forms the value of the Democracy Status indicator. This value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, with 10 representing a high degree of democracy.	The degree of democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/	Democracy Index (Economist), Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Regulatory Quality (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Doing Business (WB)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	2010 to 2020	From 2003 to 2020, the World Bank annually published the Doing Business report, and from 2010 onward, country-level scores became available. This project aimed to assess the efficiency of national economies by reference to a benchmark of "regulatory best practices," identified by researchers as optimally conducive to economic growth. The Doing Business indicator also fostered competition among countries, enabling them to compare their respective business environments and to undertake regulatory reforms in order to improve their scores—and thus enhance the overall efficiency of their economies. More specifically, the indicator focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at the national level, evaluating the regulatory environment applicable to them throughout their life cycle. The World Bank thereby provided measurable benchmarks and a documentary resource for academics, journalists, private-sector researchers, and all stakeholders interested in the business climate across global economies.	The Doing Business indicator measures the ease of doing business by assessing an economy’s performance against a benchmark of regulatory best practices across 41 sub-indicators, which are grouped into 10 thematic areas. These ten areas are: (i) starting a business, (ii) registering property, (iii) getting credit, (iv) protecting minority investors, (v) paying taxes, (vi) enforcing contracts, (vii) resolving insolvency, (viii) dealing with construction permits, (ix) getting electricity, and (x) trading across borders. Doing Business adopts a straightforward methodology: each thematic area is weighted equally, and within each theme, all components carry the same weight. An economy’s score is calculated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 denotes the lowest performance and 100 indicates the best possible performance. The score thus reflects the distance of an economy from the frontier of best regulatory practice on each dimension. For example, an ease of doing business score of 75 indicates that the economy is 25 points away from the best observed regulatory performance, measured across all countries and over time.	Ease of doing business	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/data/doing-business-score	Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA) and Business Freedom (HF)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI) Regulatory Quality (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem)	The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) research project was established in 2014 by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist. Its headquarters are located at the V-Dem Institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. This international institute brings together 4,200 experts and researchers with the goal of studying democracy, its various components, and its evolution across different countries worldwide. The researchers' approach involves measuring five fundamental democratic principles: (i) Electoral, (ii) Liberal, (iii) Participatory, (iv) Deliberative, and (v) Egalitarian. The V-Dem Institute also publishes an annual report to provide its global findings based on the results obtained for each country.	Worldwide	1900 to 2023	The V-Dem Institute collects an extensive amount of data (31 million in total) on democracy for each of the 202 countries assessed, thanks to its vast global network of experts. Each national expert participates in online surveys, which enable the institute to develop 600 indicators measuring the five components of democracy previously identified, covering the period from 1789 to the present day. A minimum of five experts per indicator is required, meaning that at least 25 experts per country are needed to measure each of the five components of democracy.	The egalitarian principle of democracy holds that material and immaterial inequalities hinder the effective exercise of rights and freedoms, and reduce the capacity of citizens from all social groups to participate. Egalitarian democracy is achieved when the rights and freedoms of individuals are equally protected across all social groups, when resources are distributed equitably among these groups, and when both groups and individuals enjoy equal access to power. The indicator of egalitarian democracy is based on the assessment of two sub-components: (a) the electoral democracy index and (b) the egalitarian component index. Sub-indicator (a) aims to ensure government responsiveness and accountability through competitive elections. This goal is considered fulfilled when suffrage is broad, political and civil society organizations are able to operate freely, elections are clean and free from systematic fraud or irregularities, and the country’s chief executive is selected directly or indirectly through electoral processes. Sub-indicator (b), for its part, evaluates whether social protection is provided equally across all classes and social groups, whether the distribution and allocation of resources is fair, and whether access to power is equally shared among all segments of society.	Egalitarian Democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 1	https://www.v-dem.net/	Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Regulatory Quality (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI) et Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem)	The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) research project was established in 2014 by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist. Its headquarters are located at the V-Dem Institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. This international institute brings together 4,200 experts and researchers with the goal of studying democracy, its various components, and its evolution across different countries worldwide. The researchers' approach involves measuring five fundamental democratic principles: (i) Electoral, (ii) Liberal, (iii) Participatory, (iv) Deliberative, and (v) Egalitarian. The V-Dem Institute also publishes an annual report to provide its global findings based on the results obtained for each country.	Worldwide	1900 to 2023	The V-Dem Institute collects an extensive amount of data (31 million in total) on democracy for each of the 202 countries assessed, thanks to its vast global network of experts. Each national expert participates in online surveys, which enable the institute to develop 600 indicators measuring the five components of democracy previously identified, covering the period from 1789 to the present day. A minimum of five experts per indicator is required, meaning that at least 25 experts per country are needed to measure each of the five components of democracy.	The electoral principle of democracy seeks to ensure government responsiveness and accountability through competitive elections. This objective is considered to be fulfilled when suffrage is broad, political and civil society organizations are free to operate, elections are clean and not marred by systematic fraud or irregularities, and the country’s chief executive is selected—either directly or indirectly—through electoral processes. In the V-Dem conceptual framework, this indicator is regarded as a foundational component of all other conceptions of democracy (liberal, participatory, deliberative, egalitarian, etc.). The Electoral Democracy Index is based on the evaluation of two sub-indices: (a) the additive polyarchy index, and (b) the multiplicative polyarchy index. Sub-index (a) is calculated as the weighted average of five components: (1) freedom of association, (2) suffrage, (3) clean elections, (4) elected executive, and (5) freedom of expression and alternative sources of information. Sub-index (b), by contrast, is computed by multiplying the same five components. V-Dem aggregates ordinal expert ratings and applies a Bayesian item response theory (IRT) model to smooth differences in individual judgments and to produce comparable quantitative scores. This method enables the estimation of the relative reliability of each expert and evaluates how each expert’s interpretation of the response scale compares to others. The final score of the Electoral Democracy Index is obtained by aggregating the total scores of both sub-indices (a) and (b).	Electoral Democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 1	https://www.v-dem.net/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)
Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Electoral Self-Determination indicator measures citizens’ right to freely determine their own political system and leadership. Enjoyment of this right implies that citizens possess both the legal entitlement and the practical ability to change the laws and officials governing them through periodic, free, and fair elections conducted under universal suffrage. CIRI indicators are ordinal in nature, meaning they provide information about frequency (i.e., more or less), rather than exact numerical values. Countries receive a score of either 0, 1, or 2 depending on the extent to which the assessed practice is observed. For electoral self-determination, a score of 0 indicates that the right of citizens to change their government through free and fair elections is not respected; a score of 1 indicates that this right is limited—i.e., elections are only moderately free and fair; and a score of 2 indicates that the right to self-determination is generally respected, with elections being very free and fair during the given year. In cases where no elections are held in a particular year, experts assign the score based on the most recent election.	Electoral Self-Determination	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG) and Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Empowerment Rights Index NEW (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Empowerment Rights Index NEW is an additive index constructed from 7 of the 15 human rights indicators recorded by CIRI. These include: freedom of domestic movement, freedom of foreign movement, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, workers' rights, electoral self-determination, and freedom of religion. The index ranges from 0 (no governmental respect for any of the seven rights) to 14 (full governmental respect for all seven rights). CIRI indicators are ordinal in nature, meaning they convey information in terms of frequency (i.e., more or less), rather than providing exact numerical measurements. For each of the seven indicators, a country receives a score of either 0, 1, or 2, depending on the frequency and severity of the observed practice. For example, in the case of freedom of religion, the indicator evaluates government-imposed restrictions on religious practices in each country: a score of 0 indicates severe and widespread restrictions, a score of 1 indicates moderate restrictions, and a score of 2 indicates little to no restrictions.	Right to empowerment	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 14	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Labor Freedom (HF), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Environmental Performance Index (en collaboration avec l’université de Yale et l’université de Colombia)
Empowerment Rights Index OLD (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2006	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Empowerment Rights Index OLD is an additive index constructed from 5 of the 15 human rights indicators recorded by CIRI. These include: freedom of movement, freedom of speech, workers’ rights, political participation, and freedom of religion. The index ranges from 0 (no governmental respect for any of the five rights) to 10 (full governmental respect for all five rights). CIRI indicators are ordinal in nature, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (i.e., more or less), rather than offering exact numerical values. For each of the five indicators, a country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2, depending on the frequency and severity of the practice assessed. For example, for freedom of religion, the indicator measures government-imposed restrictions on religious practices in each country: a score of 0 indicates severe and widespread restrictions, 1 indicates moderate restrictions, and 2 indicates minimal or no restrictions. Starting with the 2007 coding, the Empowerment Rights Index OLD was discontinued and replaced by the Empowerment Rights Index NEW, which includes 7 indicators and is scored on a scale from 0 to 14.	Empowerment rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 10	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Freedom of the Press (FH), World Press Freedom index (RSF), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Labor Freedom (HF), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Freedom on the Net (FH) et Freedom of the Press (FH)
Environmental Performance Index	The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was created by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University. The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy is a joint initiative of Yale Law School and the Yale School of the Environment. It fosters new thinking and rigorous analytical approaches to environmental decision-making across all sectors. In addition to its research activities, the Center serves as a hub for the Yale University community interested in environmental law and policy issues. It supports a broad program of teaching, research, and outreach on local, regional, national, and global issues related to pollution control and natural resource management. The Center for the International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia operates at the intersection of social sciences, natural sciences, and information science, specializing in data and information management, spatial data integration, and interdisciplinary research related to human-environment interactions. Since 1989, scientists and policymakers have relied on its informational resources to better understand the evolving relationship between humans and the environment. The EPI is funded by the McCall MacBain Foundation, established in 2007 by John and Marcy McCall MacBain and based in Geneva, Switzerland. Its mission is to improve human well-being by granting scholarships and investing in projects that address climate change, protect the natural environment, and improve health outcomes.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) measures the state of sustainability worldwide, with the primary goal of influencing governments to improve the effectiveness of their environmental policies by providing recommendations, fostering dialogue with stakeholders, and offering scientific analyses. Countries can compare their performance and align their policies with those of the highest-ranked nations according to the EPI. The EPI evaluates the progress of 180 countries using 58 performance indicators, which are grouped into 11 categories, and are further aligned with the following three political objectives: Climate Change Mitigation (i), Environmental Health Improvement (ii), and Ecosystem Vitality Protection (iii). Climate Change Mitigation (i) focuses on tracking the climate pollutants emitted by countries and consists of a single category (a). Environmental Health (ii) includes four categories: Air Quality (b), Sanitation and Drinking Water (c), Heavy Metals (d), and Waste Management (e). Ecosystem Vitality (iii) comprises six categories: Biodiversity and Habitat (f), Forests (g), Air Pollution (h), Agriculture (i), Fisheries (j), and Water Resources (k). Thus, the EPI provides a framework for countries to assess how closely they are approaching their environmental policy objectives. The EPI is a powerful tool to support efforts aimed at achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the 2015 Paris Agreement, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. For data to be included in the EPI, it must meet several criteria, such as addressing environmental issues that concern most countries, focusing on actual results rather than intentions, and coming from peer-reviewed methods. In fact, the data typically comes from international organizations, research institutes, universities, and government agencies.	To enable fair comparisons between countries, the data in the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is normalized through division by a common denominator, which allows for the calculation of proportions, rates, and per capita units, as opposed to raw units. For the 58 EPI indicators, each country receives a score between 0 and 100, with 100 representing the best performance. The indicators are placed on a common scale, facilitating comparisons and aggregation into a single index. A different weight is assigned to each of the 58 indicators when calculating their average to form the 11 categories, each of which also has a different weighting, as do the 3 political objectives in the calculation of the final index. For example, in the 2024 edition, the EPI assigns a weight of 25% to environmental health, 30% to climate change, and 45% to ecosystem vitality.	Environmental Performance	Public Policy	From 0 to 100	https://epi.yale.edu/		Freedom on the Net (FH) et Freedom in the World (FH)
Financial Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as "the fundamental right of every individual to control their own labor and property." Economic freedom, therefore, measures "the freedom of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or interference from the government." The Economic Freedom Index is a tool designed for a diverse audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, as well as business and finance professionals. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These freedoms are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Size of Government (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country's overall economic freedom score is obtained by averaging these 12 components, giving equal weight to each, with rankings on a scale of 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and sustaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can strengthen progress in another, and similarly, economic freedom suppressed in one area can make progress much more difficult in another.	The Financial Freedom indicator is one of the three criteria in the “Regulatory Efficiency” category (iii), and thus one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom index. The Financial Freedom indicator assesses the overall level of financial freedom, which guarantees easy and effective access to financing opportunities for individuals and businesses in a country through five dimensions: (a) The extent of government regulation of financial services, (b) The degree of government intervention in banks and other financial institutions through direct or indirect ownership, (c) The government’s influence on credit allocation, (d) The degree of development of financial and capital markets, and (e) Openness to foreign competition. Based on this evaluation, each country receives a score on a scale from 0 to 100, with graduations in units of 10, meaning only 11 possible scores, each with a specific meaning for each level. For example, a score of 0 corresponds to the absence of financial institutions, a score of 10 means restricted bank creation with a prohibition on foreign financial institutions, and a score of 20 indicates a government-dependent central bank practicing repressive control over financial institutions and severely limiting the presence of foreign financial institutions.	Financial Freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Financial Secrecy Index (FSI, TJN)
Financial Secrecy Index (FSI, TJN)	The Tax Justice Network is a UK-based non-governmental organization established in 2002 by Prem Nath Sikka and formalized by the UK Parliament in 2003. Its main mission is to reduce financial secrecy and tax havens globally, as they exacerbate income inequalities by giving more power to private sector giants and foster corruption, which undermines democratic systems. Thus, the organization aims to "repair these injustices by inspiring and equipping citizens and governments to reprogram their fiscal and financial systems" to build a fiscally just society. It provides global research and analysis on tax abuses and the necessary responses, through a powerful communication platform and international advocacy. Since its inception, the financial secrecy index developed by the foundation has gained significant international media visibility and has been widely adopted for practical purposes (from the Italian Central Bank to the Basel Money Laundering Index, as well as by various private sector rating agencies), and increasingly in academic research. It shapes political debates among the media and public interest groups by encouraging and monitoring political changes worldwide in favor of greater financial transparency.	Worldwide	2009 to 2022	The Financial Secrecy Index has been published every two years since 2009 and measures how jurisdictions facilitate illicit financial flows by evaluating each jurisdiction's contribution to global financial secrecy, aiming to identify the legal systems that contribute the most to financial secrecy. In 2022, the index is constructed based on information gathered about the legal, administrative, regulatory, and financial structures of 141 jurisdictions worldwide. The primary data sources are the official and public reports from the OECD and its associated Global Forum, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the IMF, and the EU. Specialized databases and websites related to taxation, such as those from the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, the “Big Four” accounting firms, and others, have been consulted. Data was also obtained, where necessary, through original investigative research and legal analyses. The Financial Secrecy Index is calculated by evaluating two components: the confidentiality score and the global scale weight. The confidentiality score measures the degree of financial and legal secrecy in each country's financial systems. It consists of 20 sub-indicators divided into four main themes: Ownership registration (i); Transparency of legal entities (ii); Integrity of tax and financial regulation (iii); and International standards and cooperation (iv). Based on the third-party sources used, the organization develops its own questionnaires and evaluation grids to rate the 20 sub-indicators that form the confidentiality score. The global scale weight assesses each jurisdiction's share in the global market for financial services provided to non-resident clients. The weight is calculated based on IMF balance of payments statistics.	The confidentiality score is obtained by measuring 20 sub-indicators across four main themes. Each sub-indicator is assessed on a scale from 0 to 100, with individual ratings based on a specific evaluation grid where experts assign points according to the situation in each country. A score of 0 indicates no possibility of financial secrecy (total transparency), while a score of 100 corresponds to unlimited financial secrecy potential. The confidentiality score (rated out of 100) is calculated by averaging the scores obtained in the four main themes, which in turn correspond to the averages of the sub-indicators under each theme. To calculate the global scale weight, experts use advanced econometric methods to determine, for each jurisdiction, the share of its financial services exports in the global total. This creates a global weight expressed as a percentage, reflecting the relative importance of each jurisdiction. The confidentiality score and the global scale weight are combined using a multiplicative mathematical formula to obtain the final score, where a higher score indicates that a country is a major provider of global financial secrecy.	Financial Secrecy	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://fsi.taxjustice.net	Global competitiveness index (WE forum), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) and Financial Freedom (HF)	Democracy Status (BF), Stateness (BF), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization aimed at accelerating the development and transformation of Africa by measuring governance performance, so that the continent can adapt to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). Governance is defined by the foundation as the collection of social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is obliged to provide to its citizens. Thus, the foundation brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who are interested in the results and consequences of policies implemented in different African countries, with the goal of identifying the most effective ones. The foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a significant voice to citizens by allowing them to evaluate and develop their own perceptions of what African governance represents. This approach goes beyond expert evaluations and incorporates citizens' own perceptions and daily life experiences.	Africa	2012 à 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the African Governance Index (IIAG) every two years, which assesses governance performance in over fifty African countries. The IIAG is the most comprehensive dataset as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides specific scores and trends at the continental, regional, and national levels on a wide range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG consists of four main categories that make up the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (ii), Foundations of Economic Opportunities (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, which are made up of 81 criteria. The IIAG is accompanied by a complementary dataset called "Citizens' Voices," which includes 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens' Voices complements the IIAG results with citizens' perceptions and satisfaction with public services. This is an external section calculated as a separate index, and its scores are not included in the calculation of the IIAG scores.	The variables deemed consistent with the Foundation's definition of governance, and which meet specific standards of quality, frequency, and country coverage, are first selected, while missing raw data values are estimated. Since the raw data comes from different sources, it is standardized on a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best possible score) to enable comparison and aggregation. Once the 265 variables are standardized, a simple aggregation method is applied to calculate the 81 criteria. The overall governance score is the average of the scores from the four categories, with the category scores being calculated by averaging their subcategories, and the subcategories being based on the average of their criteria. The indicator "Foundations for Economic Opportunity" presents the results of the category Foundations of Economic Opportunities (iii). The score, which ranges from 0 to 100, is thus equal to the average of its four subcategories: Public Administration (a), Business and Labor Environment (b), Infrastructure (c), and Rural Economy (d).	Foundations of Economic Opportunity	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Doing Business (WB), Global competitiveness index (WE forum), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income) and Right to Work (SERF_High Income)	Private Property (BF), Stateness (BF), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Freedom in the World (FH)	Freedom House is an American NGO founded in 1941 that supports and defends democracy worldwide. Its main objective is to protect existing democracies and human rights. The NGO also deploys resources to protect the victims of authoritarian regimes and funds activists who rise up against the dictatorship in their countries.	Worldwide	2013 to 2024	For each country, Freedom in the World assesses the electoral process (i), political pluralism and participation (ii), the functioning of government (iii), freedom of expression and belief (iv), associational and organizational rights (v), the rule of law (vi), as well as personal autonomy and individual rights (vii). Expert analysts assign overall scores ranging from 0 to 100 for each country based on reports, field research, consultations with other NGOs, and local contacts. The country assessment is based on responses to questions grouped under two main categories: political rights, which include 10 indicators across 3 subcategories (i; ii; iii), and civil liberties, which include 15 indicators across 4 subcategories (iv; v; vi; vii). Each of the 25 sub-indicators takes the form of responses to questions scored from 0 to 4 for each country. Once aggregated, these scores constitute the country’s overall score.	For each country, the scores from the 25 sub-indicators are added together to give a total score out of 100, with 100 being the highest possible score a country can receive. A country's or territory's status as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free” depends on both its score in political rights (measured out of 40) and in civil liberties (measured out of 60).	Civil Liberties and Political Rights	Public Policy	From 0 to 100	https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world	Democracy Index (Economist), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Political Participation (BF), Empowerment Rights Index OLD (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index NEW (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Rule of Law (WGI), Rule of Law (WJP), Rule of Law (BF) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Private Property (BF), Democracy Status (BF), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Freedom of Assembly and Association indicator is an internationally recognized right allowing citizens to gather freely and associate with others in political parties, trade unions, cultural organizations, or other interest groups. This variable reflects the extent to which assembly and association freedoms are subject to actual governmental restrictions or limitations (as opposed to strictly legal protections). CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less), rather than exact numerical values. For the freedom of assembly and association, a country receives a score of either 0, 1, or 2, depending on the frequency and severity of the evaluated practice. A score of 0 indicates that citizens’ rights to freely assemble or associate are severely restricted or entirely denied to all citizens; a score of 1 indicates that these rights are limited for all citizens, or severely restricted or denied for certain groups; and a score of 2 indicates that these rights are largely unrestricted and are freely exercised by the vast majority of citizens during a given year.	Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH) et Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Private Property (BF), Democracy Status (BF), Stateness (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Freedom of Domestic Movement indicator measures citizens’ freedom to travel within their own country. CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less), rather than exact numerical values. A country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on the frequency and severity of the evaluated practice. For domestic movement freedom, a score of 0 indicates that internal travel is severely restricted, a score of 1 indicates that it is somewhat restricted, and a score of 2 indicates that citizens can move freely without restrictions within their country.	Freedom of Domestic Movement	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Index (Economist), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Private Property (BF), Democracy Status (BF), Stateness (BF), Political Participation (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Freedom of Foreign Movement indicator measures citizens’ freedom to leave their country and return. CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less), rather than exact numerical values. A country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2 depending on how often and to what extent the practice is observed. For foreign movement freedom, a score of 0 indicates that foreign travel and movement are severely restricted, a score of 1 indicates that they are relatively restricted, and a score of 2 indicates that there are no restrictions on the freedom of foreign movement.	Foreign Movement Freedom	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Index (Economist), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Private Property (BF), Democracy Status (BF), Stateness (BF), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF) et Rule of Law (BF)
Freedom of Speech (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Freedom of Speech indicator measures the extent to which freedom of expression and press are affected by government censorship, including state ownership of media. Censorship refers to any form of restriction imposed on press, speech, or expression, depriving citizens of their right to speak freely and limiting or preventing the media from expressing views that challenge the current government’s policies. In many cases, the government owns and operates all forms of press and media. CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less), rather than exact numbers. Thus, a country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how frequently the practice is observed. For freedom of speech and press a score of 0 indicates total government censorship of the media, a score of 1 indicates partial government censorship of the media, and a score of 2 indicates that there was no government censorship of the media during a given year.	Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Freedom of the Press (FH), World Press Freedom index (RSF), Democracy Index (Economist), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Private Property (BF), Democracy Status (BF), Stateness (BF), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF) et Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF)
Freedom on the Net (FH)	Freedom House is an American NGO founded in 1941 that supports and defends democracy worldwide. Its main objective is to protect existing democracies and human rights. The NGO also deploys resources to protect the victims of authoritarian regimes and funds activists who rise up against the dictatorship in their countries.	Worldwide	2011 to 2023	The index implements a country rating system from 0 to 100. The scores are calculated based on a questionnaire comprising 21 questions and 100 sub-questions divided into three main themes: Internet access barriers (0 to 25 points), Content restrictions (0 to 35 points), and Violations of user rights (0 to 40 points). The answers assign points which, once aggregated, constitute the country's overall score. These are established by Freedom House experts, assisted by researchers from all countries, based on national reports from each country. The researchers are involved in adjusting the methodology of the questionnaire and the scores obtained according to the specificities of each country, as well as providing an analysis of the evolution of internet freedoms in their respective countries.	For each country, the answers to the questionnaire are added up to give a total score out of 100, with 100 being the highest score a country can achieve. Based on their final score, countries are then classified into the following three categories: (i) a score between 0 and 39 corresponds to "Not Free" internet freedom; (ii) a score between 40 and 69 corresponds to "Partially Free" internet freedom; (iii) a score between 70 and 100 corresponds to "Free" internet freedom.	The level of internet freedom in each country	Democracy	From 0 to 100			Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Democracy Status (BF), Political Participation (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Government Integrity (HF)
Freedom of the Press (FH)	Freedom House is an American NGO founded in 1941 that supports and defends democracy worldwide. Its main objective is to protect existing democracies and human rights. The NGO also deploys resources to protect the victims of authoritarian regimes and funds activists who rise up against the dictatorship in their countries.	Worldwide	From 1980 to 2017	Since 1980, Freedom House has assessed press freedom annually in nearly 200 countries and territories. The results of the indicator are determined through a process of analysis and evaluation conducted by a team of experts and regional scholars, with the aim of providing consistent and impartial judgments. Over 90 analysts contribute to this rating system by writing country reports and assigning scores for each country. They collect information from field research, professional contacts, reports from local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government and multilateral agency reports, as well as national and international media sources. The scores assigned are then individually reviewed during regional meetings involving analysts, academic advisors, and Freedom House staff. These are subsequently subject to cross-regional evaluations to ensure comparability and consistency of the results.	The indicator assesses the level of press freedom in each country through 23 methodological questions divided into three main categories: (i) the legal environment, (ii) the political environment, and (iii) the economic environment. For each question, a number of points is assigned to each country. The fewer the points awarded, the freer the country. Conversely, a higher number of points corresponds to a less free situation. The final score for a country is the total number of points it receives across all questions, ranging from 0 (the best) to 100 (the worst). A final score between 0 and 30 indicates a status of “free” press freedom; a score between 31 and 60 indicates a “partly free” status; and a score between 61 and 100 indicates a “not free” status.	Freedom of the Press	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://freedomhouse.org/freedom-press-research-methodology	World Press Freedom index (RSF)	International IP index
Global Competitiveness Index (WE forum)	The World Economic Forum is an international nonprofit organization founded in 1971 by German economist Klaus Schwab. The Forum’s objective is to promote interaction and cooperation between public sector actors (governments, academics, civil society) and private sector stakeholders (multinational corporations) in order to address environmental, economic, political, social, and technological challenges in a unified manner. Each year, the organization notably convenes a meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where a wide range of stakeholders—including heads of state, CEOs, academics, and leaders of international non-governmental organizations—are invited to reflect upon and develop solutions to global issues. Independent and impartial, the Forum’s primary mission is to improve the state of the world by fostering dialogue that respects the diverse beliefs of its participants and ensures that every voice is heard. In addition, the Forum publishes numerous reports and engages its members in initiatives related to specific sectors.	Worldwide	2004 to 2019	The annual Global Competitiveness Report has been published since 1979 and analyzes the economic prospects of 141 countries. The objective of the report is to stimulate economic growth in different countries with the aim of improving living standards across the world. Through this indicator, the World Economic Forum seeks to demonstrate that “there are no inherent trade-offs between boosting competitiveness, creating more equitable societies that offer opportunities to all, and transitioning to environmentally sustainable systems.” To enable the necessary societal transformation, it is essential that proactive public policies be developed to reconcile the three pillars of sustainable development, economic growth, and social inclusion. The indicator assesses national competitiveness, defined as the set of factors that determine each country's level of productivity. The Global Competitiveness Index is composed of 12 pillars, each of which contains categories that themselves include indicators (a total of 103), derived from a combination of data from international organizations and the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey. To assess each indicator, various sources are used. Some scores are based on responses to questionnaires created by the Forum, such as the “Organized Crime” indicator, which belongs to the “Security” category under the “Institutions” pillar. However, other scores are based on third-party sources published by other organizations. For example, the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is used to assess the “Press Freedom” indicator, under the “Checks and Balances” category of the “Institutions” pillar. The evaluation of sub-indicators is also conducted using calculations developed by the Forum, data from national statistical institutes, among others. All sources used to construct the indicators are detailed in the annual Global Competitiveness Index report. In 2020, a special edition of the report was published, in which the comparative rankings of countries were suspended due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, which marked a period of turbulence for the world economy.	All raw values obtained for each indicator are converted into a score ranging from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the ideal score. Once all data have been rescaled to 100, the calculation of the Global Competitiveness indicator can be performed. For each country, this score is obtained by calculating the average of the 12 pillars of Global Competitiveness: Institutions (i); Infrastructure (ii); ICT Adoption (iii); Macroeconomic Stability (iv); Health (v); Skills (vi); Product Market (vii); Labor Market (viii); Financial System (ix); Market Size (x); Business Dynamism (xi); and Innovation Capability (xii). The score of each of these 12 pillars is obtained by calculating the average of their respective categories, which correspond to the average of the indicators within those categories.	Domestic Competitiveness	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2020/	Doing Business (WB), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF), Financial Freedom (HF), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG)
Global Rights Index (CSI)	The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) was founded in 2006 in Vienna, following a merger between the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). The ITUC is a confederation of national trade union centers, each of which groups together trade unions within its respective country. It is regarded as the global voice of millions of workers. Its primary mission is to promote and defend workers’ rights and interests through international cooperation among trade unions, as well as by carrying out global campaigns and advocacy efforts within major international institutions.	Worldwide	2015 to 2023	Since 2015, the ITUC has evaluated countries annually based on their respect for collective labor rights. To do so, it collects information on violations of internationally recognized workers’ rights committed by certain governments and employers. A questionnaire is sent to 331 national trade union centers across 163 countries, asking them to report violations of workers’ rights and provide detailed information. These questionnaires are then distributed, explained, and completed during regional meetings organized with experts in human and labor rights. When the ITUC becomes aware of a violation, it directly contacts the relevant unions to confirm or refute the facts. In addition, legal experts are involved to analyze national legislation and identify any legal provisions that fail to adequately protect internationally recognized collective labor rights.	Verified information is compiled into text form in the ITUC’s Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights, which details the situation in each country. Each country's record of labor violations is assessed against a list of 97 indicators derived from the conventions and case law of the International Labour Organization (ILO), each representing a violation of labor rights in law and in practice. These composite indicators are grouped into five categories: (i) Civil liberties, (ii) Right to establish and join a trade union, (iii) Trade union activities, (iv) Right to collective bargaining, and (v) Right to strike. ITUC members assign a score to each country by analyzing the extent of labor rights violations. A point is awarded each time a violation matches one of the 97 indicators. The points for each country are then summed to determine its final score. The Global Rights Index rates more than 140 countries on a scale from 1 to 5+, where 1 represents the best possible rating and 5+ the worst.	Workers’ rights	Economy	From 1 to 5+	https://www.globalrightsindex.org/en/2023	Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)	Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Global Rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC)	The United States Chamber of Commerce is an American lobbying group that has existed since 1912. As the world’s largest business organization, its objective is to promote economic growth by helping American businesses expand and adapt to the current global macroeconomic environment. The Chamber of Commerce is considered the most powerful lobbying network in the United States, representing the 100 largest American multinational companies. It acts as an advisor to its members by providing legal guidance and political analysis. Moreover, it defends businesses and serves as an intermediary between government officials and corporate leaders.	Worldwide	2013 to 2021	Since 2013, the Chamber of Commerce has published the Global Rule of Law and Business Dashboard every two years. The objective of this indicator is “to provide policymakers with the analytical tools necessary to understand the state of the rule of law in global and regional contexts, thereby enabling them to implement reforms that lay the foundation for greater prosperity.” In 2021, the indicator covered 113 markets worldwide. The Chamber of Commerce seeks to highlight the interdependence between a strong rule of law and the development of a prosperous economy.	The Global Rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Political Capital) is created through the compilation of various measures produced by seven existing indicators: the Global Competitiveness Index (i), the Global Corruption Barometer (ii), Doing Business (iii), the Rule of Law from the World Justice Project (iv), Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation (v), Business Experience from the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys (vi), and the Worldwide Governance Indicators from the World Bank (vii). The Chamber of Commerce draws on the methodological strengths of these indicators while correcting certain weaknesses to achieve an optimal presentation of the state of the rule of law across global economies. Researchers ensure a thorough understanding of the statistical methodology of each of the seven indicators by using a questionnaire that includes questions such as the number of countries covered, the type of rating system used, and the political or economic objectives behind each indicator.	Rule of Law Evolution	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.uschamber.com/international/the-global-rule-of-law-and-business-dashboard-2021	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Rule of Law (WJP), Global competitiveness index (WE forum), Rule of Law (BF), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Business Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF), Financial Freedom (HF)	Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Government Effectiveness (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are assessed based on six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and then rescaled from 0 to 1. An unobserved components model is then used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. One of the key features of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be taken into account when making comparisons across countries and over time. The Government Effectiveness indicator is assessed based on several elements, including the perception of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service, its degree of independence from political pressures, the quality of policy design and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to those policies.	Government Effectivness	Public Policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/	Judicial Effectiveness (HF) and Government Integrity (HF)	Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Government Integrity (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Government Integrity indicator is one of the three criteria under the "Rule of Law" category (i), and thus one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom index. The Government Integrity indicator is calculated by averaging three equally weighted sub-factors, with scores ranging from 0 to 100: Perceptions of corruption (a), Risk of corruption (b), and Control of corruption, including the "capture" of the state by elites and private interests (c). The Government Integrity score for a country ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 corresponds to a situation where government institutions engage in corruption through extortion, favoritism, or the embezzlement of funds.	Government Integrity	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Corruption Perception Index (TI) and Control of Corruption (WGI)	Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)
Human Development (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization that seeks to accelerate the continent’s development and transformation by measuring governance performance to ensure Africa adapts to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). The Foundation defines governance as the provision of the social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is responsible for delivering to its citizens. It brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who focus on the outcomes and impacts of policies implemented across African countries in order to highlight the most effective ones. The Foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a strong voice to citizens by allowing them to assess and shape their own perceptions of African governance, based not only on expert assessments but also on their own daily experiences and perceptions.	Africa	2012 to 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) every two years, evaluating governance performance across around fifty African countries. The IIAG represents the most comprehensive dataset, as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides continent-wide, regional, and national scores and trends across a broad range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG is composed of four main categories that together form the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, comprising 81 indicators. The IIAG is complemented by a separate dataset called “Citizens’ Voices,” which gathers 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens’ Voices enhances the IIAG findings by capturing citizens’ perceptions and satisfaction regarding public services. It is calculated as a distinct index and its scores are not included in the IIAG’s overall score.	The variables deemed consistent with the Foundation’s definition of governance, and which meet specific standards of quality, periodicity, and country coverage, are first selected, while missing raw data values are estimated. Since the raw data come from different sources, they are normalized on a 0 to 100 scale (with 100 being the best possible score) to allow comparison and combination. Once the 265 variables are normalized, a simple aggregation method is applied to calculate the 81 indicators. The overall governance score is equal to the average of the scores of its four categories, the category scores are calculated by averaging their respective sub-categories, and the sub-categories are calculated by averaging their indicators. The Human Development indicator presents the results of the Human Development category (iv). The score, ranging from 0 to 100, is therefore equal to the average of its four sub-categories: Health (a), Education (b), Welfare and Social Protection (c), and Sustainable Environment (d).	Human Development	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Global Rights Index (CSI), Social protection rating (CPIA), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI), Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Labor Freedom (HF) and Environmental Performance Index	Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), et Social protection rating (CPIA)
Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.		Independence of the judicial power	Public Policy	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Rule of Law (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Rule of Law (WJP), Rule of Law (BF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Empowerment Rights Index OLD (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index NEW (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
International IP index (U.S. CoC & PC)	The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is an American lobbying group that has existed since 1912. As the largest business organization in the world, its goal is to promote economic growth by helping American companies expand and integrate into the current global macroeconomic environment. The Chamber is considered the most powerful lobbying network in the United States, representing the 100 largest American multinational corporations. It serves as an information resource for its members by providing legal advice and political analysis. It defends corporate interests and acts as an intermediary between government officials and business leaders. The Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce works to protect intellectual property rights, which it sees as essential for creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth, and developing innovative solutions to global challenges.	Worldwide	2012 to 2024	Since 2012, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has published the International IP Index annually. The International Intellectual Property (IP) Index assesses the state of intellectual property protection worldwide and serves as a guide for countries seeking to strengthen their innovation and creativity ecosystems through more effective IP standards. The qualitative and quantitative data used to form the final scores come from each country’s legislation, parliamentary reports, court decisions, and international organizations such as the OECD, the World Trade Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. This data enables policymakers to see what works, what doesn’t, and what changes are necessary to ensure a better future for their country. In its twelfth edition, the IP Index evaluates the intellectual property systems of the world’s top 55 economies based on 50 indicators grouped into nine categories: (i) Patents, related rights, and limitations (ii) Copyrights, related rights, and limitations (iii) Trademarks, related rights, and limitations (iv) Design rights, related rights, and limitations (v) Trade secrets and protection of confidential information (vi) Commercialization of IP assets and market access (vii) Enforcement (viii) Systemic efficiency (ix) Membership and ratification of international treaties.	The criteria in the International IP Index can be scored using three distinct methods: binary, numeric, and hybrid. For binary criteria, a score of 0 is assigned if a specific IP component does not exist in a given economy, and a score of 1 is assigned if it does. A numeric criterion may be based on a quantitative source or, for example, measure exclusivity terms. Exclusivity durations are calculated by dividing the actual exclusivity term of each relevant criterion by a standard benchmark. For instance, the benchmark used for copyright duration is 95 years, as granted for orphan works in the United States. If a country has a copyright term of 95 years, it receives a score of 1 for that criterion. If the term is shorter, the score will also be less than 1. When no adequate benchmarks exist, and the mere existence of legislation or regulation is insufficient to determine actual use or enforcement, a hybrid approach is used. This method evenly weights two elements: (a) the existence of primary and/or secondary legislation (regulation), and (b) the effective application and enforcement of this legislation. Hybrid criteria are scored on a five-point scale: 0; 0.25; 0.5; 0.75; and 1. These are the most commonly used criteria in the IP Index and allow for a more nuanced assessment of each economy. In certain cases, a hybrid criterion can be broken down into two separate components. For example, in the ninth category, criteria are measured by the signature and ratification or accession to an international treaty. A score of 0.5 is assigned for signing a treaty or for ratifying or acceding to it. Each of the 50 criteria is scored from 0 to 1. The cumulative score of the IP Index thus ranges from 0 to 50 and is then multiplied by 2 to produce the final score, which ranges from 0 to 100.	Effectiveness of intellectual property	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/2024-ip-index	Private Property (BF), Property Rights Index (HF), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index NEW (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Investment Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Investment Freedom indicator is one of the three components of the “Regulatory Efficiency” category (iii), and therefore one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom Index. To construct the Investment Freedom indicator, points are deducted from an ideal score of 100, which represents a situation in which there are no constraints on the flow of investment capital, and where individuals and businesses can move their resources into and out of specific activities—both domestically and across national borders—without restrictions. The number of points deducted is determined by the assessment of seven types of restrictions: National treatment of foreign investment (up to 45 points), Foreign investment code (up to 35 points), Land ownership restrictions (up to 30 points), Sectoral investment restrictions (up to 35 points), Expropriation of investments without fair compensation (up to 45 points), Foreign exchange controls (up to 45 points), Capital controls (up to 45 points). Up to an additional 20 points may be deducted for issues related to security, lack of basic investment infrastructure, or other government policies that create uncertainty, weigh indirectly on the investment process, and limit investment freedom. A country can lose a maximum of 300 points, but if it accumulates 100 or more points in deductions, it is automatically assigned a score of 0.	Investment Freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology		Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Judicial Effectiveness (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 2017 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Judicial Effectiveness indicator is one of the three components of the “Rule of Law” category (i), and therefore one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom Index. The Judicial Effectiveness indicator is calculated by averaging three equally weighted sub-factors, each scored from 0 to 100: Judicial independence (a), Quality of judicial processes (b), and Perceptions of public service quality and civil service independence (c). A country's Judicial Effectiveness score ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 representing an effective and fair judicial system in which laws are fully upheld and appropriate legal measures are taken against violations.	Effectiveness of Judicial System	Public Policy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Government Effectiveness (WGI)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Kids Rights Index	The KidsRights Index has been developed annually since 2013 by the KidsRights Foundation, an international non-governmental organization that promotes the well-being of vulnerable children around the world and advocates for the realization of their rights. The foundation also collaborates with the Erasmus School of Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam and the International Institute of Social Studies. Its main objective is to provide an overview of the state of children’s rights across different countries worldwide. It defends and implements local actions to protect children’s rights by developing its own research and reports. What makes the foundation unique is that it directly involves children in the fight for their rights by helping them express their opinions and take action to bring about change. The Foundation notably funds local projects aimed at directly improving the rights of vulnerable children.	Worldwide	2013 to 2023	The KidsRights Foundation publishes an annual report that evaluates the state of children's rights in 193 countries. The KidsRights Index is the only global annual ranking that provides comparative analyses of different countries' performance regarding their progress and respect for children's rights. The index is assessed based on five areas: the right to life (i), the right to health (ii), the right to education (iii), the right to protection (iv), and an environment conducive to children's rights (v). The first four components are quantitative data and result from an integrated analysis of high-quality existing data published by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The fifth component is calculated based on qualitative data produced by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This area serves to provide concrete recommendations on how governments could improve in various areas of children's rights.	The five areas include 20 sub-indicators, 13 of which are quantitative and are distributed across the first four components, and 7 are qualitative in the fifth component. The scores of the sub-indicators for components (i) to (iv) are standardized between 0.01 and 1, and then the score for each of the four areas is obtained by averaging their sub-indicators. To assess the "environment conducive to children's rights" domain, the foundation relies on the rating provided by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which rates 7 qualitative sub-criteria on a scale from 1 to 3, based on national reports from states. The 7 qualitative criteria are as follows: non-discrimination (1), the best interest of the child (2), respect for the child’s opinion/child participation (3), enabling national legislation (4), mobilization of the "best available budget" (5), collection and analysis of disaggregated data (6), and cooperation between the state and civil society for children's rights (7). A score of 1 means the Committee provided exclusively negative remarks, a score of 2 indicates both positive and negative remarks, and a score of 3 means mostly positive remarks from the Committee. Two researchers from the KidsRights Foundation, independently, assign an overall score for domain 5 based on the previous evaluation by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. These scores are then normalized into an average of the received scores. The final score of the KidsRights Index is obtained by calculating the geometric average of the 5 areas, where each area holds equal weight. The geometric average makes it more difficult for low scores in specific areas to be compensated by high scores in other areas. For example, a very low score in the area of "environment conducive to children's rights" cannot be offset by a high score in "education". A score for a particular area is not calculated if data is missing for more than half of the sub-indicators in that area. The KidsRights Index also ranks countries using a color code based on their final score. There are five color groups, where countries within the same color group show similar levels of performance.	Children Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 1	https://www.kidsrights.org/	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Labor Freedom (HF), Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Overall Governance (IIAG) et Human Development (IIAG)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Labor Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 2005 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Labor Freedom indicator is one of the three criteria within the "Regulatory Efficiency" (iii) category, making it one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom Index. The Labor Freedom indicator is derived by averaging 9 equally weighted sub-factors: Minimum wage (a), Right to associate (b), Paid annual leave (c), Notice period for dismissal (d), Severance pay (e), Labor productivity (f), Labor force participation rate (g), Restrictions on overtime (h), and Legally permitted dismissals (i). The scores for the first seven sub-factors range from 0 to 100. For sub-factor (h), a score of 100 is given to a country where the value is "No," and 0 is assigned where the value is "Yes." Conversely, for factor (i), a score of 100 is assigned when the value is "Yes," and 0 is given when the value is "No." The Judicial Labor Freedom indicator assesses the degree of freedom that workers enjoy. A country's score ranges from 0 to 100, where 100 represents a high degree of freedom and thus an effective labor market.	Labor Freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income) and Right to Work (SERF_High Income)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
LGBT equality index	The LGBT Equality Index was created in 2009 by Dan Leveille, a developer who decided to build a website called Equaldex to track advancements in LGBT rights across different countries while also providing insights into public attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals. Launched in 2014, Equaldex is a collaborative platform, meaning that each registered user can contribute additional information about current or new legislation concerning LGBTQ+ rights in the various countries listed. Therefore, the mission of Equaldex is to disseminate laws and public opinion data related to LGBTQ+ rights to provide a comprehensive view of the movement.	Worldwide	2021 to 2024	The data is constructed from information provided by users regarding the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals by populations in different countries. The information submitted is then sorted by the Equaldex team and taken into account if verified as accurate. Subsequently, experts adjust and update the scores of the countries concerned by new measures. The LGBT Equality Index evaluates 196 countries based on two main components: the legal index and the public opinion index. The legal index is measured according to 15 sub-themes: Homosexuality (i); Gay marriage (ii); Censorship (iii); Gender transition (iv); Gender-affirming care (v); Recognition of non-binary gender (vi); Discrimination (vii); Employment discrimination (viii); Housing discrimination (ix); Adoption (x); Intersex infant surgery (xi); Military service (xii); Blood donation (xiii); Conversion therapy (xiv); and Legal age of maturity (xv). Regarding the public opinion index, it is evaluated based on surveys and polls conducted by national or international organizations among individuals from different countries.	The legal index is evaluated by averaging the scores obtained for each of the 15 sub-themes. Each of the 15 sub-categories is calculated based on a total possible score set according to a reference grid, which is then multiplied by a weighted factor according to the importance of the sub-themes and their impact on fundamental rights. The sum is then divided by the total sum of all possible scores. To calculate the public opinion index, experts average the results of all surveys conducted by reputable organizations for each country. They take into account the value of each survey result, multiplied by a time decay factor. This means that more recent surveys carry more weight in the public opinion index than earlier surveys. The total is then divided by a weighting chosen based on the importance and impact of the survey, and multiplied by the time decay factor. For each survey, the value of the survey used to calculate the opinion index is the one that received more than 50% of responses. The legal index and the public opinion index are scored on a scale from 0 to 100. The average of the two scores out of 100 for the two indices gives the overall score of the LGBT Equality Index.	LGBT Equality	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index		Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem)	The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) research project was established in 2014 by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist. Its headquarters are located at the V-Dem Institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. This international institute brings together 4,200 experts and researchers with the goal of studying democracy, its various components, and its evolution across different countries worldwide. The researchers' approach involves measuring five fundamental democratic principles: (i) Electoral, (ii) Liberal, (iii) Participatory, (iv) Deliberative, and (v) Egalitarian. The V-Dem Institute also publishes an annual report to provide its global findings based on the results obtained for each country.	Worldwide	1789 to 2023	The V-Dem Institute collects an extensive amount of data (31 million in total) on democracy for each of the 202 countries assessed, thanks to its vast global network of experts. Each national expert participates in online surveys, which enable the institute to develop 600 indicators measuring the five components of democracy previously identified, covering the period from 1789 to the present day. A minimum of five experts per indicator is required, meaning that at least 25 experts per country are needed to measure each of the five components of democracy.	The liberal principle of democracy emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of the majority. The liberal model adopts a "negative" view of political power, assessing the quality of democracy based on the limits imposed on government. To achieve this, civil liberties are protected by the Constitution, the rule of law is strong, the judiciary is independent, and effective checks limit the exercise of executive power. The Liberal Democracy indicator is based on the evaluation of two major sub-indicators: the Electoral Democracy Index (a) and the Liberal Component Index (b). Sub-indicator (a) aims to ensure the responsiveness and accountability of leaders and citizens through competitive elections. This goal is presumed to be met when suffrage is broad, political and civil society organizations can operate freely, elections are clean and free from fraud or systemic irregularities, and the head of the executive in a country is chosen directly or indirectly through elections. Sub-indicator (b) evaluates equality before the law, individual freedoms, judicial constraints, and legislative constraints placed on the executive. The institute aggregates all the ordinal responses from experts and converts them using the basic Bayesian response theory (IRT) to smooth differences in appreciation and judgments, thereby obtaining similar quantitative grading thresholds. This method allows for the assessment of the reliability of one expert's judgment relative to another's and observes their own perception of the response scale compared to that of other experts. The final score of the Liberal Democracy indicator is obtained by aggregating the total score from the two sub-indicators (a) and (b).	Liberal Democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 1	https://www.v-dem.net/	Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Rule of Law (WJP), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Rule of Law (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Government Integrity (HF), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI),Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Monetary Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 2017 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Monetary Freedom indicator is one of the three criteria in the "Regulatory Efficiency" category (iii), and thus one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom index. The Monetary Freedom indicator is constructed from two sub-factors: the weighted average inflation rate for the last three years (a) and a qualitative judgment on the extent of government manipulation of prices through direct controls or subsidies (b). The Monetary Freedom score for a country ranges from 0 to 100, where 100 represents a situation in which price stability is achieved without microeconomic intervention, which is the ideal state for a free market.	Monetary Freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology		Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Overall Governance (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization that seeks to accelerate the continent’s development and transformation by measuring governance performance to ensure Africa adapts to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). The Foundation defines governance as the provision of the social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is responsible for delivering to its citizens. It brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who focus on the outcomes and impacts of policies implemented across African countries in order to highlight the most effective ones. The Foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a strong voice to citizens by allowing them to assess and shape their own perceptions of African governance, based not only on expert assessments but also on their own daily experiences and perceptions.	Africa	2012 to 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) every two years, evaluating governance performance across around fifty African countries. The IIAG represents the most comprehensive dataset, as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides continent-wide, regional, and national scores and trends across a broad range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG is composed of four main categories that together form the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, comprising 81 indicators. The IIAG is complemented by a separate dataset called “Citizens’ Voices,” which gathers 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens’ Voices enhances the IIAG findings by capturing citizens’ perceptions and satisfaction regarding public services. It is calculated as a distinct index and its scores are not included in the IIAG’s overall score.	The variables considered consistent with the foundation's definition of governance and meeting specific standards of quality, periodicity, and country coverage are first selected, while missing raw data values are estimated. Since the raw data comes from different sources, it is normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best possible score) to allow for comparison and aggregation. Once the 265 variables are normalized, a simple aggregation method is applied to calculate the 81 criteria. The overall governance score is the average of the scores of its four categories, with the scores of these categories being constructed by averaging their sub-categories, and the sub-categories corresponding to the average of their criteria. The Overall Governance indicator presents the results of global governance, with the score, ranging from 0 to 100, being the average of the four categories: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations of Economic Opportunities (iii), and Human Development (iv).	Governance Quality	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Government Effectiveness (WGI) and Democracy Status (BF)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization that seeks to accelerate the continent’s development and transformation by measuring governance performance to ensure Africa adapts to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). The Foundation defines governance as the provision of the social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is responsible for delivering to its citizens. It brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who focus on the outcomes and impacts of policies implemented across African countries in order to highlight the most effective ones. The Foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a strong voice to citizens by allowing them to assess and shape their own perceptions of African governance, based not only on expert assessments but also on their own daily experiences and perceptions.	Africa	2012 to 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) every two years, evaluating governance performance across around fifty African countries. The IIAG represents the most comprehensive dataset, as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides continent-wide, regional, and national scores and trends across a broad range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG is composed of four main categories that together form the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, comprising 81 indicators. The IIAG is complemented by a separate dataset called “Citizens’ Voices,” which gathers 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens’ Voices enhances the IIAG findings by capturing citizens’ perceptions and satisfaction regarding public services. It is calculated as a distinct index and its scores are not included in the IIAG’s overall score.	The variables deemed consistent with the foundation's governance definition and meeting specific standards of quality, periodicity, and country coverage are first selected, while missing raw data values are estimated. Since the raw data comes from different sources, it is normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best possible score) for comparison and aggregation. Once the 265 variables are normalized, a simple aggregation method is applied to calculate the 81 criteria. The overall governance score is the average of the scores of its four categories, with the category scores being constructed by averaging their sub-categories, and the sub-categories corresponding to the average of their criteria. The Participation, Rights, and Inclusion indicator presents the results of the Participation, Rights, and Inclusion category (ii). The score, which ranges from 0 to 100, is therefore the average of its four sub-categories: Participation (a), Rights (b), Inclusion and Equality (c), and Gender Equality (d).	Participation, Rights, and Inclusion of Citizens in Political Life	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Political and Social Integration (BF), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem) and Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)	The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) research project was established in 2014 by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist. Its headquarters are located at the V-Dem Institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. This international institute brings together 4,200 experts and researchers with the goal of studying democracy, its various components, and its evolution across different countries worldwide. The researchers' approach involves measuring five fundamental democratic principles: (i) Electoral, (ii) Liberal, (iii) Participatory, (iv) Deliberative, and (v) Egalitarian. The V-Dem Institute also publishes an annual report to provide its global findings based on the results obtained for each country.	Worldwide	1789 to 2023	The V-Dem Institute collects an extensive amount of data (31 million in total) on democracy for each of the 202 countries assessed, thanks to its vast global network of experts. Each national expert participates in online surveys, which enable the institute to develop 600 indicators measuring the five components of democracy previously identified, covering the period from 1789 to the present day. A minimum of five experts per indicator is required, meaning that at least 25 experts per country are needed to measure each of the five components of democracy.	The participatory principle of democracy emphasizes the active participation of citizens in all political processes, whether electoral or non-electoral. It is driven by concerns surrounding a fundamental practice of electoral democracy: the delegation of authority to representatives. Therefore, direct citizen power is prioritized wherever possible. This model of democracy considers suffrage as a given and focuses on citizen engagement in civil society organizations, direct democracy, and elected bodies at the subnational level. The Participatory Democracy indicator is based on the evaluation of two major sub-indicators: the Electoral Democracy Index (a) and the Participatory Component Index (b). Sub-indicator (a) aims to ensure the responsiveness and accountability of leaders and citizens through competitive elections. This goal is assumed to be achieved when suffrage is broad, political and civil society organizations can operate freely, elections are clean and free from fraud or systematic irregularities, and the head of government is chosen directly or indirectly through elections. Sub-indicator (b) evaluates the political participation of civil society, direct voting by the population, and the power of locally and regionally elected administrations. The institute aggregates all the ordinal responses from experts and converts them using the basic-response Bayesian theory (IRT) to smooth out differences in assessments and judgments to achieve similar quantitative scoring thresholds. The method also assesses the reliability of one expert compared to another and observes their perception of the response scale relative to other experts. The final Participatory Democracy indicator score is obtained by aggregating the total score from both sub-indicators (a) and (b).	Participatory Democracy	Democracy	From 0 to 1	https://www.v-dem.net/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Empowerment Rights Index OLD (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index NEW (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG) and Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI) et Independence of the Judiciary (CIRI)
Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Physical Integrity Rights Index is an additive index constructed from four human rights indicators (out of the 15 listed) that assess the following human rights: Torture, Extrajudicial Executions, Political Imprisonment, and Disappearances. It ranges from 0 (no respect for these four rights by the government) to 8 (total respect for these four rights by the government). The CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less) rather than exact numbers. For each of the four indicators, a country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2 depending on the frequency of the evaluated practice. For example, for torture, the indicator measures whether torture is practiced frequently in a given year (0), occasionally (1), or is absent (2).	Physical Integrity Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 8	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Control of Corruption (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA), Political Participation (BF), Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF), Government Integrity (HF), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Physical Integrity Rights Index (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index Old (CIRI), Empowerment Rights Index New (CIRI), Freedom of Assembly and Association (CIRI), Freedom of Foreign Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Domestic Movement (CIRI), Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI), Electoral Self-Determination (CIRI), Worker’s Rights (CIRI), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI) et Women’s Social Rights (CIRI)
Political and Social Integration (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Political and Social Integration indicator is one of the five criteria in the "Political Transformation" (i) category of the BTI index and, thus, one of the sub-indicators of the Democracy Status. The Political and Social Integration indicator is calculated by averaging four sub-indicators: Party System (a), Interest Groups (b), Approval of Democracy (c), and Social Capital (d). This value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, with 10 indicating that representation models are stable and effectively mediate between society and the state.	Level of Political and Social Integration	Democracy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/		Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Political Participation (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Political Participation indicator is one of the five criteria in the "Political Transformation" (i) category of the BTI index and, therefore, one of the sub-indicators of Democracy Status. The Political Participation indicator is calculated by averaging four sub-indicators: Free and Fair Elections (a), Effective Government Power (b), Rights of Association/Assembly (c), and Freedom of Expression (d). This value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, with 10 indicating that citizens influence government decisions and enjoy political freedoms.	Participation of Citizens in the Political Life	Democracy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/	Voice and Accountability (WGI) et Women’s Political Rights (CIRI)	Property Rights (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are assessed according to six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, the data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and then rescaled from 0 to 1. A model based on unobserved components is used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. One key feature of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be considered when making comparisons between countries and over time. The Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism indicator measures perceptions of the likelihood of political instability and/or politically motivated violence, including terrorism.	Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism	Public Policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/	Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Private Property (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Private Property indicator is one of the seven criteria in the "Economic Transformation" (ii) category of the BTI index. Private Property is obtained by averaging two sub-indicators: Property Rights (a) and Private Enterprise (b). This value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, where 10 indicates a high level of protection for private property.	Private Property Protection	Economy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/	Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA) and Property Rights Index (HF)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Sub-Saharan Africa	2005 to 2022	The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which evaluates in Sub-Saharan African countries the policies and institutional frameworks regarding the implementation of sustainable growth and poverty reduction, was developed by the World Bank in the 1970s. In June 2006, the World Bank published for the first time the scores of national policy and institutional assessments (CPIA). CPIA assessments also help determine which countries are eligible for financing from the International Development Association (IDA). IDA is the World Bank institution responsible for assisting the world’s poorest countries by providing concessional loans, grants, or donations to support programs aimed at stimulating economic growth and improving living conditions. The CPIA measures a country’s performance for a given year, while the results for IDA-eligible countries are published in June of the following year. National teams, chief economists, and experts from the World Bank’s Global Practices are responsible for country ratings. Their assessments are based on diagnostic studies that rely on economic reports, public expenditure reviews, and poverty assessments. The country’s authorities are consulted beforehand to ensure that the evaluations are based on up-to-date information. As a result, the ratings reflect extensive observations based on country expertise and publicly available indicators.	The CPIA is designed to assess the quality of national policies and institutional frameworks, focusing on key elements that are under the control of the countries. “The ratings represent the ability to effectively utilize development aid.” The CPIA evaluates countries based on a set of 16 criteria grouped into four categories: (i) Economic management, (ii) Structural policies, (iii) Policies for social inclusion and equity, and (iv) Public sector management and institutions. For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country's performance and assign a score ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high). All 16 criteria have equal weight, and each category accounts for 25% of a country's overall score. Thus, the CPIA score is obtained by averaging the ratings from the four categories. The Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance Rating is one of the five criteria within the “Public Sector Management and Institutions” (iv) category of the CPIA. It assesses the extent to which private economic activity is enabled by an effective legal system and a rule-based governance structure in which property rights and contractual rights are respected and reliably enforced.	Property rights and Rule-Based Governance Quality	Democracy	From 1 to 6	https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.PROP.XQ	Private Property (BF) and Property Rights Index (HF)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Property Rights Index (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Property Rights indicator is one of the 3 criteria in the "Rule of Law" (i) category, and thus one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom Index. The Property Rights indicator is obtained by averaging 3 sub-factors: Expropriation risk (a), Respect for intellectual property rights (b), and Quality of contract enforcement, property rights, and the rule of law (c). The Property Rights score for a country ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 representing effective legal protection of private property.	The Quality of the Protection of Property Rights	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology	Private Property (BF) and Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization that seeks to accelerate the continent’s development and transformation by measuring governance performance to ensure Africa adapts to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). The Foundation defines governance as the provision of the social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is responsible for delivering to its citizens. It brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who focus on the outcomes and impacts of policies implemented across African countries in order to highlight the most effective ones. The Foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a strong voice to citizens by allowing them to assess and shape their own perceptions of African governance, based not only on expert assessments but also on their own daily experiences and perceptions.	Africa	2012 to 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) every two years, evaluating governance performance across around fifty African countries. The IIAG represents the most comprehensive dataset, as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides continent-wide, regional, and national scores and trends across a broad range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG is composed of four main categories that together form the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, comprising 81 indicators. The IIAG is complemented by a separate dataset called “Citizens’ Voices,” which gathers 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens’ Voices enhances the IIAG findings by capturing citizens’ perceptions and satisfaction regarding public services. It is calculated as a distinct index and its scores are not included in the IIAG’s overall score.	The indicator Public Perception of Overall Governance presents the complementary results referred to as “Citizens’ Voices,” which reflect the public’s perception of their government’s overall governance performance. Variables deemed consistent with the foundation’s definition of governance and meeting specific standards of quality, periodicity, and country coverage are first selected, and missing raw data are estimated. Since the raw data originate from different sources, they are normalized on a scale from 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best possible score) to allow comparability and aggregation. After normalizing the 265 variables, a simple aggregation method is used to compute the 81 criteria. The overall governance score is calculated as the average of the scores of its four categories, each of which is the average of its sub-categories, themselves calculated as the average of their criteria. The Public Perception of Overall Governance score, ranging from 0 to 100, thus corresponds to the average of the four categories—Safety and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv)—but from the perspective of the public.	Quality of Governance Perceived by Citizens	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Government Effectiveness (WGI), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Voice and Accountability (WGI) and Political Participation (BF)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Investment Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Sub-Saharan Africa	2005 to 2022	The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which evaluates in Sub-Saharan African countries the policies and institutional frameworks regarding the implementation of sustainable growth and poverty reduction, was developed by the World Bank in the 1970s. In June 2006, the World Bank published for the first time the scores of national policy and institutional assessments (CPIA). CPIA assessments also help determine which countries are eligible for financing from the International Development Association (IDA). IDA is the World Bank institution responsible for assisting the world’s poorest countries by providing concessional loans, grants, or donations to support programs aimed at stimulating economic growth and improving living conditions. The CPIA measures a country’s performance for a given year, while the results for IDA-eligible countries are published in June of the following year. National teams, chief economists, and experts from the World Bank’s Global Practices are responsible for country ratings. Their assessments are based on diagnostic studies that rely on economic reports, public expenditure reviews, and poverty assessments. The country’s authorities are consulted beforehand to ensure that the evaluations are based on up-to-date information. As a result, the ratings reflect extensive observations based on country expertise and publicly available indicators.	The CPIA is designed to assess the quality of national policies and institutional frameworks, focusing on key elements that are under the control of the countries. “The ratings represent the ability to effectively utilize development aid.” The CPIA evaluates countries based on a set of 16 criteria grouped into four categories: (i) Economic management, (ii) Structural policies, (iii) Policies for social inclusion and equity, and (iv) Public sector management and institutions. For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country's performance and assign a score ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high). All 16 criteria have equal weight, and each category accounts for 25% of a country's overall score. Thus, the CPIA score is obtained by averaging the ratings from the four categories. The Public Sector Management and Institutions Cluster Average indicator corresponds to category (iv) “Public Sector Management and Institutions” of the CPIA. It is calculated as the average of five criteria: Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance, Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management, Efficiency of Revenue Mobilisation, Quality of Public Administration, and Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in the Public Sector.	Quality of Management of Public Services	Public Policy	From 1 to 6	https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.PUBS.XQ	Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF)	Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF) et Financial Freedom (HF)
Regulatory Quality (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are assessed across six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and then rescaled from 0 to 1. A latent component model is then used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. One of the key features of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be considered when making comparisons between countries and over time. The Regulatory Quality indicator (WGI) reflects the government's ability to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that enable and promote the development of the private sector.	Regulatory Quality	Public Policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/		Property Rights (HF), Judicial Effectiveness (HF), Government Integrity (HF), Business Freedom (HF), Labor Freedom (HF), Monetary Freedom (HF), Trade Freedom (HF) et Investment Freedom (HF)
Right to Education (SERF_High Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country’s SERF score is calculated by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the appropriate benchmark—either for high-income countries or for low- and middle-income countries. For instance, the Right to Education (SERF_High Income) indicator is computed as the average of the net enrolment rate in upper secondary education and the percentage of students achieving proficiency at Level 3 or above in science, mathematics, and reading on the PISA assessment. The resulting score for each country reflects the percentage of the right’s fulfillment that is realistically achievable given its level of per capita income, ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 indicates that the country fails to fulfill the right in question relative to what would be possible at its income level. Conversely, a score of 100 means the country fulfills the right as effectively as the best historically performing country at a comparable income level. If a high-income country, which has the resources to fully realize the right, fails to do so, it receives a penalty. This penalty is more severe if the country’s income level exceeds that of the reference country that has fully achieved the right.	Rights to Education	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income benchmarks. For example, for the Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the net primary school enrolment rate, the net secondary school enrolment rate, and the results from harmonized tests of key international student assessment programs. The score obtained for each country reflects the percentage of the achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. On the other hand, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Education	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Food (SERF_High Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income benchmarks. For example, for the Right to Food (SERF_High Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the percentage of moderate or severe food insecurity. The score obtained for each country reflects the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Food	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)
Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income benchmarks. For example, for the Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the percentage of the population with access to water and the percentage of the population with at least basic sanitation. The score obtained for each country reflects the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Food	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Health (SERF_High Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income benchmarks. For example, for the Right to Health (SERF_High Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the survival rate of older adults (ages 60-80), the infant mortality rate, and the percentage of low birth weight babies. The score obtained for each country indicates the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Health	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income standards. For example, for the Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the survival rate of adults (ages 15-60), the infant mortality rate, and the rate of use of modern contraceptives (for couples aged 15-49). The score obtained for each country indicates the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Health	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Housing (SERF_High Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income standards. For example, for the Right to Housing (SERF_High Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the percentage of households with safely managed sanitation systems and the percentage of the poorest quintile of the population with access to affordable housing. The score obtained for each country indicates the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Housing	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	A country's score is obtained by averaging the selected criteria for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low- and middle-income standards. For example, for the Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income) indicator, the score is calculated as the average of the percentage of the population with access to water and the percentage of the population with at least basic sanitation. The score obtained for each country indicates the percentage of achievable realization of the right, given the country’s per capita income level, and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country does not fulfill the evaluated right relative to what would be possible based on its income level. In contrast, a score of 100 means that the country fulfills the right as well as the historically best-performing country at the same income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the right in question but that fails to do so will be penalized, with the penalty being greater if the country’s income exceeds that of the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Housing	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Food (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Work (SERF_High Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	The score of a country is obtained by averaging the criteria selected for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low-and-middle-income norms. For example, for the indicator Right to Work (SERF_High Income), it is the average of the relative poverty rate and the percentage of long-term unemployed individuals. The score obtained for each country reflects the percentage of achievable realization based on the country's income level and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country fails to respect the evaluated right compared to what would be possible given its level of income per capita. Conversely, a score of 100 indicates that the country respects the right to the same extent as the historically most performing reference country at that income level. A high-income country with sufficient resources to properly implement the evaluated right, but which fails to do so, incurs a penalty, which is higher if the country has a higher income than the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Work	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income) et Right to Work (SERF_High Income)
Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income)	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index was created in 2009 by economists and scholars Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Terra Lawson-Remer of The New School, and Susan Randolph of the University of Connecticut. Together, they launched the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative with the aim of developing an innovative indicator—the SERF Index—that evaluates how well countries fulfill their immediate obligations of result concerning fundamental economic and social rights, as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The index assesses how a country utilizes and distributes its resources to ensure its population’s essential rights to education, adequate housing, healthcare, food, and a sufficient income to secure employment. It enables an objective evaluation of whether a country’s overall situation is improving or deteriorating, allows for cross-country comparisons regarding rights fulfillment, and provides a methodology to assess disparities in rights realization across regions or among racial, ethnic, and other population subgroups.	Worldwide	From 1990 to 2020	The Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index is a comparative tool that evaluates nearly 170 countries and measures “the level of enjoyment of a right relative to the best practice among countries with approximately the same level of per capita income.” The index assesses two performance standards: one for low- and middle-income countries (a), which requires basic compliance with rights obligations, and another for high-income countries (b), which sets a more demanding standard reflecting the greater capacity of wealthier nations. Each country receives a score for both evaluation profiles, provided the relevant data are available; that is, a low-income country is also assessed using the high-income benchmark, and vice versa. The SERF Index is grounded in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it evaluates state performance across five core thematic dimensions: the right to education (i), the right to food (ii), the right to health (iii), the right to housing (iv), and the right to work (v). Each of these five indicators is measured twice per country—once under each income-based assessment standard. The SERF indicators are constructed from a wide range of data sources, primarily drawn from major international organizations such as UNICEF, the OECD, the United Nations, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.	The score of a country is obtained by averaging the criteria selected for each of the five indicators according to the high-income or low-and-middle-income norms. For example, for the indicator Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), it is the average of the poverty rate. The score obtained for each country indicates the percentage of achievable realization based on the country's income level and ranges from 0 to 100. A score of 0 means that a country fails to respect the evaluated right compared to what would be possible given its income level per capita. Conversely, a score of 100 means that the country respects the right to the same extent as the historically best-performing reference country at that income level. A high-income country that has sufficient resources to properly implement the concerned right but fails to do so incurs a penalty, which is higher if it has a higher income than the reference country that fully realizes the right.	Rights to Work	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 100	https://serfindex.uconn.edu/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Kids Rights Index and Human Development (IIAG)	Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Food (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income) et Right to Food (SERF_High Income)
Rule of Law (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Rule of Law indicator is one of the five criteria within the “Political Transformation” (i) category of the BTI index, and therefore one of the sub-indicators of Democracy Status. The Rule of Law score is calculated as the average of four sub-indicators: Separation of Powers (a), Independence of the Judiciary (b), Prosecution of Abuse of Office (c), and Civil Rights (d). The resulting value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, where a score of 10 indicates that state powers are balanced and effectively safeguard civil rights.	Respect of Rule of Law	Public Policy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/	Rule of Law (WGI), Rule of Law (WJP), Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)
Rule of Law (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are assessed along six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and rescaled to a 0-to-1 range. An unobserved components model is then used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. A key feature of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be taken into account when making comparisons across countries and over time. The Rule of Law indicator measures agents’ confidence in and adherence to the rules of society, particularly the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, police, and courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.	Confidence and respect for the rule of law	Public policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/	Rule of Law (WJP), Rule of Law (BF), Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)
Rule of Law (WJP)	The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, nonprofit American organization founded by William H. Neukom in 2006. The organization's mission is threefold: to improve understanding of what the rule of law is and why it matters (1); to promote greater adherence to the rule of law by governments around the world (2); and to foster a multidisciplinary and locally grounded culture of the rule of law (3). The WJP seeks to promote, defend, and advance the rule of law globally by influencing governments and other stakeholders to implement actions that guarantee fundamental rights for all people in their countries. Its methods include country-specific regional conferences, the development of strategic plans to address local challenges, the distribution of grants to support rule of law initiatives, and backing for local efforts. The rule of law encompasses concerns related to security, governance, legal integrity, and human dignity. An effective rule of law fosters peace, increased political participation, and improved economic growth, while reducing inequality, poverty, disease, corruption, and pollution.	Worldwide	2012 to 2023	The WJP builds its data from two surveys: the General Population Poll, which gathers responses from individuals, and the Qualified Respondents' Questionnaire, which collects input from legal professionals and experts from the countries evaluated. The results of both surveys offer insights into the lived realities and everyday practices related to the rule of law experienced by the general population. In 2023, over 149,000 households and 3,400 legal professionals and experts contributed to shaping the Rule of Law Index, which reports scores for 142 countries.	To assess countries’ performance regarding the rule of law, the WJP relies on responses from both the General Population Poll (GPP) and the Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaire (QRQ). Each survey is conducted by local polling institutes and is based on a sample of approximately 1,000 respondents per country. The questionnaires cover 44 sub-factors grouped into the following eight key dimensions: (i) Constraints on Government Powers, (ii) Absence of Corruption, (iii) Open Government, (iv) Fundamental Rights, (v) Order and Security, (vi) Regulatory Enforcement, (vii) Civil Justice, and (viii) Criminal Justice. All responses across the 44 sub-factors are then rated by experts on a scale from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the strongest adherence to the rule of law. Researchers then compute the average across these equally weighted sub-factors to produce a final country score ranging from 0 (lowest adherence) to 1 (highest adherence) to the rule of law.	Performance regarding Rule of Law	Public Policy	From 0 to 1	https://worldjusticeproject.org/	Rule of Law (WGI), Rule of Law (BF), Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC) and Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)
Security and Rule of Law (IIAG)	The Mo Ibrahim Foundation was established in 2006 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim. It is an African organization that seeks to accelerate the continent’s development and transformation by measuring governance performance to ensure Africa adapts to global challenges (health, climate, security, public service development, etc.). The Foundation defines governance as the provision of the social, economic, political, and environmental goods and services that a state is responsible for delivering to its citizens. It brings together a wide range of actors (citizens, academics, governments) who focus on the outcomes and impacts of policies implemented across African countries in order to highlight the most effective ones. The Foundation works closely with leading organizations (such as Afrobarometer and the African Development Bank) and gives a strong voice to citizens by allowing them to assess and shape their own perceptions of African governance, based not only on expert assessments but also on their own daily experiences and perceptions.	Africa	2012 to 2021	Since 2007, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) every two years, evaluating governance performance across around fifty African countries. The IIAG represents the most comprehensive dataset, as it measures governance performance in Africa using data from 47 independent African and global institutions. It provides continent-wide, regional, and national scores and trends across a broad range of governance-related themes, such as security, justice, rights, economic opportunities, and health. The IIAG is composed of four main categories that together form the overall governance score: Security and Rule of Law (i), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (ii), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (iii), and Human Development (iv). These categories are further divided into 16 subcategories, comprising 81 indicators. The IIAG is complemented by a separate dataset called “Citizens’ Voices,” which gathers 36 public perception variables from Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys across the continent. Citizens’ Voices enhances the IIAG findings by capturing citizens’ perceptions and satisfaction regarding public services. It is calculated as a distinct index and its scores are not included in the IIAG’s overall score.	The variables deemed consistent with the foundation's definition of governance—and meeting specific standards of quality, periodicity, and country coverage—are first selected, while missing raw data values are estimated. Since the raw data originate from different sources, they are normalized on a 0 to 100 scale (with 100 being the best possible score) to ensure comparability and allow for aggregation. Once the 265 variables are normalized, a simple aggregation method is applied to calculate the 81 indicators. The overall governance score is computed as the average of the four main category scores, each of which is derived by averaging its subcategory scores. The subcategory scores, in turn, correspond to the average of their underlying indicators. The Security and Rule of Law indicator reflects the performance of the Security and Rule of Law category (i). The score, ranging from 0 to 100, is calculated as the average of its four subcategories: Safety and Security (a), Rule of Law and Justice (b), Accountability and Transparency (c), and Anti-Corruption (d).	Security of citizens and application of the Rule of Law	Public Policy	From 0 to 100	https://iiag.online/about.html	Rule of Law (WGI), Rule of Law (BF), Rule of Law (WJP) et Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC)	Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)
Social protection rating (CPIA)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Sub-Saharan Africa	2005 to 2022	The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which evaluates in Sub-Saharan African countries the policies and institutional frameworks regarding the implementation of sustainable growth and poverty reduction, was developed by the World Bank in the 1970s. In June 2006, the World Bank published for the first time the scores of national policy and institutional assessments (CPIA). CPIA assessments also help determine which countries are eligible for financing from the International Development Association (IDA). IDA is the World Bank institution responsible for assisting the world’s poorest countries by providing concessional loans, grants, or donations to support programs aimed at stimulating economic growth and improving living conditions. The CPIA measures a country’s performance for a given year, while the results for IDA-eligible countries are published in June of the following year. National teams, chief economists, and experts from the World Bank’s Global Practices are responsible for country ratings. Their assessments are based on diagnostic studies that rely on economic reports, public expenditure reviews, and poverty assessments. The country’s authorities are consulted beforehand to ensure that the evaluations are based on up-to-date information. As a result, the ratings reflect extensive observations based on country expertise and publicly available indicators.	The CPIA is designed to assess the quality of a country’s policies and institutional frameworks, with a focus on key elements under national control. “The ratings reflect a country’s ability to make effective use of development assistance.” The CPIA evaluates countries across 16 criteria grouped into four categories: economic management (i), structural policies (ii), policies for social inclusion and equity (iii), and public sector management and institutions (iv). For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country’s performance and assign a score ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high). All 16 criteria carry equal weight, and each category accounts for 25% of the overall CPIA score, meaning that the CPIA score is the average of the scores across the four categories. The Social Protection Rating is one of the five criteria within the Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity category (iii). It evaluates policies that support risk prevention through social insurance, protection against deprivation via redistributive programs, promotion of human capital development and income generation, and labor market-related programs.	The quality of social protection and labor	Public Policy	From 1 to 6	https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.PROT.XQ	Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) and Political and Social Integration (BF)	Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem) et Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem)
Stability of Democratic Institutions (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The indicator "Stability of Democratic Institutions" is one of the five criteria within the "Political Transformation" (i) category of the BTI Index, and thus a sub-indicator of the overall Democracy Status. It is calculated as the average of two sub-indicators: (a) Performance of Democratic Institutions and (b) Commitment to Democratic Institutions. This score ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, where a score of 10 indicates that democratic institutions function effectively and are broadly accepted.	Stability of Democratic Institutions	Democracy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/	Democracy Index (Economist), Deliberative Democracy Index (V-Dem), Electoral Democracy Index (V-Dem), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem) and Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem)	Security and Rule of Law (IIAG), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) et Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Stateness (BF)	Bertelsmann Stiftung is an independent private foundation based in Gütersloh, Germany. It was founded by Reinhard Mohn in 1977. The foundation is a spokesperson for social change and aims to have a lasting impact that inspires future generations. The foundation pursues primarily non-profit objectives, which include promoting research and fostering understanding in areas such as religion, public health, arts and culture, public education and vocational training, social welfare, international exchanges, democracy and governance, and civic engagement. Its goal is to achieve a just society, defined by democratic values, stable economic conditions, and social considerations. As a private foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung exclusively funds and supports projects that it designs and initiates itself.	Worldwide	2006 to 2024	Since 2006, the BTI Transformation Index of the Bertelsmann Stiftung has been analyzing and evaluating, every two years, how developing countries implement social change towards constitutional democracy and a socially responsible market economy in their respective countries and in relation to other countries in the world. The foundation seeks to identify and retain the best strategies for establishing democracy and an effective economic system. To do so, the BTI provides two rankings: the status index, which ranks countries based on the state of their democracy and market economy, and the governance index, which ranks countries based on the performance of their respective leaders. The status index combines the political transformation towards democracy under the rule of law (i) and the economic transformation towards a market economy based on social justice principles (ii), while the governance index analyzes the political management of the transformation or the quality of governance (iii). The BTI assessment is based on detailed national reports, the result of a collaborative process involving nearly 300 academic experts and think tanks across 137 countries. Thus, the BTI index is based on a qualitative expert survey, where written evaluations are translated into numerical ratings. A standardized codebook serves as the foundation for this survey process and provides a reference framework for experts when answering the questions. For each country, the rating process includes both a qualitative and a quantitative component, each carried out by a national expert and a foreign expert to ensure a certain degree of objectivity. The national expert first writes a detailed report evaluating the status index and the governance index based on a total of 17 criteria subdivided into 49 questions defined in the codebook. Then, the second expert reviews, comments, and complements this national report. To ensure the validity, reliability, and comparability of the evaluations, each rating is examined by national experts, regional coordinators, the project team, and the BTI board of directors.	The Democracy Status indicator corresponds to the "Political Transformation" (i) category of the BTI Index. It is measured based on the following criteria: (a) State, (b) Political Participation, (c) Rule of Law, (d) Stability of Democratic Institutions, and (e) Political and Social Integration. The average of these five criteria forms the value of the Democracy Status indicator. This value ranges from 0 to 10 for each country, where a score of 10 corresponds to a high level of democracy.	The Quality of the Functioning of the State	Public Policy	From 0 to 10	https://bti-project.org/		Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) et Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Trade Freedom (HF)	The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, meaning it is one of the largest research groups serving American policymakers. With a conservative tradition, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Joseph Coors, with the goal of defending the American people and promoting America, without affiliating with any political party or particular interest group. In practice, this involves solving everyday problems faced by the American population through experts from the business, government, and academic sectors. As it defines itself, "The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Thus, for over 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has led reforms in all political areas, from taxation to crime, and national defense. With over 100 policy experts, it demonstrates its commitment to complex political issues by providing simple and effective conservative solutions. To further implement the political solutions it proposes and to renew public trust in elected officials, the Heritage Foundation created Heritage Action For America. Heritage Action works closely with legislators to ensure that the people are heard and that concrete actions are taken accordingly. The lobbying group has been effective, as under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, nearly two-thirds of the Foundation’s 2,000 policy recommendations were implemented. The Heritage Foundation is also credited with the historic 1996 welfare reform legislation, which helped reduce child poverty and increase employment.	Worldwide	From 1995 to 2024	In 1995, the Heritage Foundation published the first edition of the Economic Freedom Index. For the past thirty years, this annual guide has provided a thoughtful analysis of economic freedom, which the Heritage Foundation defines as “the fundamental right of every human being to control his or her own labor and property.” Economic freedom thus measures “the liberty of individuals to use their labor or finances without excessive restrictions or government interference.” The Economic Freedom Index is a tool aimed at a wide audience, including academics, policymakers, journalists, students, teachers, and professionals in business and finance. The 2024 edition analyzes 12 economic freedoms across 184 economies worldwide. These are assessed based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors grouped into four categories: Rule of Law (i), Government Size (ii), Regulatory Efficiency (iii), and Open Markets (iv). A country’s overall economic freedom score is calculated by averaging these 12 components, each given equal weight, with all scores ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. Each dimension of economic freedom plays a crucial role in promoting and maintaining both personal and national prosperity. They are all complementary in their impact, as progress in one area can reinforce progress in another, just as suppressed economic freedom in one domain can significantly hinder progress in others.	The Trade Freedom indicator is one of the three criteria in the "Open Markets" category (iii), and thus one of the 12 factors used to measure the Economic Freedom index. The Trade Freedom indicator is constructed from two sub-factors: the weighted average tariff rate based on trade (a), and a qualitative assessment of non-tariff barriers (b). The Trade Freedom score for a country ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents a situation in which tariff and non-tariff barriers significantly affect the imports and exports of goods and services.	Trade Freedom	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/about#indexMethodology		Overall Governance (IIAG), Security and Rule of Law (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) et Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Sub-Saharan Africa	2005 to 2022	The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which evaluates in Sub-Saharan African countries the policies and institutional frameworks regarding the implementation of sustainable growth and poverty reduction, was developed by the World Bank in the 1970s. In June 2006, the World Bank published for the first time the scores of national policy and institutional assessments (CPIA). CPIA assessments also help determine which countries are eligible for financing from the International Development Association (IDA). IDA is the World Bank institution responsible for assisting the world’s poorest countries by providing concessional loans, grants, or donations to support programs aimed at stimulating economic growth and improving living conditions. The CPIA measures a country’s performance for a given year, while the results for IDA-eligible countries are published in June of the following year. National teams, chief economists, and experts from the World Bank’s Global Practices are responsible for country ratings. Their assessments are based on diagnostic studies that rely on economic reports, public expenditure reviews, and poverty assessments. The country’s authorities are consulted beforehand to ensure that the evaluations are based on up-to-date information. As a result, the ratings reflect extensive observations based on country expertise and publicly available indicators.	The CPIA is designed to assess the quality of a country’s policies and institutional frameworks, with a focus on key elements under national control. “The ratings reflect a country’s ability to make effective use of development assistance.” The CPIA evaluates countries across 16 criteria grouped into four categories: economic management (i), structural policies (ii), policies for social inclusion and equity (iii), and public sector management and institutions (iv). For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country’s performance and assign a score ranging from 1 (low) to 6 (high). All 16 criteria carry equal weight, and each category accounts for 25% of the overall CPIA score, meaning that the CPIA score is the average of the scores across the four categories. The Social Protection Rating is one of the five criteria within the Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity category (iii). It evaluates policies that support risk prevention through social insurance, protection against deprivation via redistributive programs, promotion of human capital development and income generation, and labor market-related programs.	The CPIA is designed to measure the quality of national policies and institutional frameworks, focusing on key elements that are under the control of the countries. "The ratings reflect the ability to effectively use development assistance." The CPIA evaluates countries based on a set of 16 criteria grouped into four categories: economic management (i), structural policies (ii), social inclusion and equity policies (iii), and public sector management and institutions (iv). For each criterion, World Bank staff assess the country's performance and assign a rating from 1 (low) to 6 (high). The 16 criteria are equally weighted, and each category accounts for 25% of a country's overall score, meaning that the CPIA score is obtained by averaging the ratings across the four categories. The Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector Rating indicator is one of the five criteria in the "Public Sector Management and Institutions" (iv) category of the CPIA. It assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other senior officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and outcomes achieved.	Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in the Public Sector	From 1 to 6	https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ	Corruption Perception Index (TI) and Control of Corruption (WGI)	Overall Governance (IIAG), Security and Rule of Law (IIAG), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) et Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Voice and Accountability (WGI)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1996 to 2022	The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) were developed in 1999 by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay, two researchers at the World Bank. They are designed to help researchers and analysts assess broad patterns of governance perceptions across countries and over time. Governance refers to how a country’s authority is selected, exercised, monitored, and replaced. It also evaluates the extent to which governments respect their citizens, implement public policies, and uphold institutions. The WGI aggregate data from over 30 think tanks, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector firms worldwide. To be included, the data must be produced by credible organizations, be comparable across countries, and be regularly updated. Based on expert assessments and surveys involving tens of thousands of respondents, the data reflect diverse perspectives on governance from various stakeholders around the world.	Governance indicators are evaluated across six dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Once selected, data from individual sources are assigned to each indicator and then rescaled from 0 to 1. An unobserved components model is then used to make these rescaled data comparable across sources and to construct a weighted average of the data from each source for each country. One of the key features of this methodology is that it generates margins of error for each governance estimate, which must be taken into account when making comparisons across countries and over time. The Voice and Accountability indicator evaluates the participation of citizens in choosing their government, as well as the freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of the media.	Political Participation and Liberties of Citizens	Public Policy	From -2.5 to 2.5	https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/	Political Participation (BF) and Political and Social Integration (BF)	Overall Governance (IIAG), Security and Rule of Law (IIAG), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG) et Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
Women, Business and the Law 1.0 (WB)	The World Bank is a group composed of five institutions: (i) the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), (ii) the International Development Association (IDA), (iii) the International Finance Corporation (IFC), (iv) the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and (v) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). With 189 member states, the Group is one of the leading sources of financing and knowledge for developing countries. It works in a unified manner to find sustainable solutions to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity.	Worldwide	1971 to 2020	Women, Business and the Law is a World Bank project that collects data on laws and political mechanisms to assess how they affect women's economic opportunities throughout their careers. The aim is to ensure gender equality under the law and promote and track progress in this area to guarantee equal economic opportunities for both men and women. Since 2009, this indicator has advanced the study of gender equality and informed discussions on women's empowerment. It highlights areas of law where women continue to face obstacles. The evaluation of women's economic opportunities is based on questionnaires administered to 2,400 experts on laws and policies related to family, labor, and violence against women. These experts include a mix of lawyers, judges, academics, and civil society members working locally on gender issues. The World Bank's framework for these questionnaires is based on international legal standards for women's human rights, as defined by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. The 2024 edition of the report introduces new dimensions to assess global progress toward legal equality. Unlike previous years, it now features two datasets: Women, Business and the Law 1.0 and an expanded version, Women, Business and the Law 2.0. The first dataset covers 190 countries and evaluates women’s interactions with the law across eight categories: Mobility (i), Employment (ii), Pay (iii), Marriage (iv), Parenthood (v), Entrepreneurship (vi), Assets (vii), and Retirement (viii). The second version goes beyond just measuring laws, examining the presence of frameworks that support their implementation and evaluating expert opinions on the status of women's rights. It measures three pillars: legal rights (structure), supporting frameworks (process), and expert opinions on the law in practice (outcome). The version 2.0 introduces two new indicators: childcare and security.	The WBL 1.0 indicator is available for the period 1971-2024, enabling comparisons across countries. It measures economic opportunities through 35 binary questions, distributed across the eight categories mentioned earlier. For each question, if the answer is "yes," one point is awarded, and if the answer is "no," no points are given. The index is evaluated based on 35 data points, which are then converted to a scale of 0 to 100, where each point obtained for a question contributes either 20 points or 25 points, depending on whether the category contains 4 or 5 questions. The score for each of the 8 categories is calculated by aggregating the points obtained for each question, and the global score is derived by averaging the scores across the eight categories. A score of 100 means that men and women have equal rights and opportunities in the measured areas. To ensure comparability, the methodology is designed based on certain assumptions to create a reproducible measure of the legal environment for women as entrepreneurs and employees. For example, it assumes that the woman resides in the main business city of her economy, has reached the legal age of majority, is in good health, and has no criminal record.	The impact of law on women's economic opportunities	Economy	From 0 to 100	https://wbl.worldbank.org/en/wbl	Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC), Business Freedom (HF), Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI), Women’s Political Rights (CIRI) et Women’s Social Rights (CIRI) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Overall Governance (IIAG), Security and Rule of Law (IIAG), Participation, Rights and Inclusion (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG) et Human Development (IIAG)
Women’s Economic Rights (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The indicator of women's economic rights is based on internationally recognized rights such as: equal pay for equal work; the free choice of profession or employment without requiring the consent of a husband or male relative; the right to paid employment without needing consent from a husband or male relative; equality in hiring and promotion practices; job security (including maternity leave, unemployment benefits, and protection against arbitrary dismissal); non-discrimination by employers; the right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace; the right to work at night; the right to work in occupations classified as dangerous; and the right to serve in the military and police forces. Experts aim to measure the extent of laws related to women's economic rights and government practices toward women. The CIRI (Cingranelli-Richards) indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less) rather than exact figures. A country receives a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 based on the frequency of the evaluated practice. For women's economic rights, a score of 0 indicates that no economic rights are provided for women, that any potential gender-based discrimination may be embedded in the law, and that the government tolerates a high level of discrimination against women. A score of 1 means that the government provides certain economic rights for women, but these laws are not effectively implemented in practice, with a moderate level of discrimination tolerated by the government. A score of 2 means that some economic rights are provided by law and are effectively enforced, but there is still a low level of discrimination against women. A score of 3 indicates that nearly all economic rights are guaranteed by law and are effectively implemented, with the government tolerating little to no discrimination against women.	Women’s Economic Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 3	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Social protection rating (CPIA), Labor Freedom (HF) , Business Freedom (HF), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG), Foundations for Economic Opportunity (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) and Women, Business and the Law 1.0 (WB)
Women’s Political Rights (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The indicator of women's political rights is based on internationally recognized rights such as: the right to vote; the right to run for political office; the right to hold elected or appointed government positions; the right to join political parties; and the right to petition government representatives. Experts aim to measure the extent of laws related to women's political rights and government practices toward women. The CIRI (Cingranelli-Richards) indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less) rather than exact figures. A country receives a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 based on the frequency of the evaluated practice. For women's political rights, a score of 0 indicates that no political rights are provided for women, and laws exist that completely restrict their political participation. A score of 1 indicates political equality between men and women, but in practice, significant limitations exist. Moreover, women occupy less than 5% of the seats in the national legislature and other high-level government positions. A score of 2 means that political equality is guaranteed by law, but women occupy less than 30% of the seats in the national legislature and other high-level government positions. Finally, a score of 3 indicates that political equality is guaranteed by law and in practice. Women occupy more than 30% of the seats in the national legislature and other high-level government positions.	Women’s Political Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 3	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Political Participation (BF), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG) and Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG)	Global rule of Law and Business Index (U.S. CoC & PC)
Women’s Social Rights (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The indicator of women's social rights is based on internationally recognized rights, including: the right to equality in inheritance; the right to marry on an equal basis with men; the right to travel abroad; the right to obtain a passport; the right to confer citizenship to her children or husband; the right to request a divorce; the right to own, acquire, manage, and retain property brought into marriage; the right to participate in social, cultural, and community activities; the right to education; the freedom to choose a residence; the right not to suffer from female genital mutilation (FGM) on children and adults without their consent; and the right not to be forcibly sterilized. Experts aim to measure the extent of laws related to women's social rights and government practices toward women. The CIRI (Cingranelli-Richards) indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less) rather than exact figures. A country receives a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 based on the frequency of the evaluated practice. For women's social rights, a score of 0 indicates that no social rights are provided for women, and laws exist that institutionalize systemic gender discrimination. The government also tolerates a high level of discrimination against women. A score of 1 means that the law provides some social rights for women, but in practice, the government does not effectively enforce these laws. The government tolerates a moderate level of discrimination against women. A score of 2 means that the law provides some social rights for women, and the government effectively applies these laws. However, the government still tolerates a low level of discrimination against women. Finally, a score of 3 indicates that nearly all women's social rights are guaranteed by law and that the government rigorously applies these laws. The government tolerates no discrimination against women.	Women’s Social Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 3	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Government Effectiveness (WGI), Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Democracy Index (Economist), Social protection rating (CPIA), Labor Freedom (HF), Right to Health (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Housing (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Education (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Health (SERF_High Income), Right to Housing (SERF_High Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Right to Education (SERF_High Income), Egalitarian Democracy Index (V-Dem), Liberal Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG) and Human Development (IIAG)
Worker’s Rights (CIRI)	The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project (CIRI) was established in 1994 by political scientists David Cingranelli (Binghamton University), David L. Richards (University of Connecticut), and K. Chad Clay (University of Georgia). CIRI operates as a U.S.-based non-governmental organization serving an audience composed of academics, think tanks, private sector actors, and, above all, governments. Its primary objective is to encourage states to adopt policies that respect human rights as defined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the project states: “A country’s human rights policies are what a government says it intends to do to ensure the protection of its citizens’ human rights. In other words, practices refer to what governments actually do, not what they claim to do or the consequences that follow from their actions.”	Worldwide	1981 to 2011	The CIRI indicator measures, for each available year, the range of practices and actions implemented by governments around the world to uphold human rights within their respective countries, in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It covers a total of 202 countries and records more than 15 distinct categories of human rights practices: Political and other extrajudicial (arbitrary or unlawful) killings (i); Disappearances (ii); Torture (iii); Political imprisonment (iv); Freedom of speech and press (v); Freedom of religion (vi); Freedom of domestic movement (vii); Freedom of foreign movement (viii); Freedom of assembly and association (ix); Electoral self-determination (x); Workers’ rights (xi); Women’s political rights (xii); Women’s economic rights (xiii); An independent judiciary (xiv); and Women’s social rights (xv). To produce standardized and comparable assessments across countries, researchers primarily rely on the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Additionally, experts use Amnesty International’s annual report as a key source for assessing the Physical Integrity Rights Index.	The Worker’s Rights indicator measures the right of workers to freely associate in the workplace and the right to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. To assess workers' rights, experts refer to the Generalized System of Preferences of the World Trade Organization, which requires that internationally recognized workers' rights include the right to associate, the right to organize and collectively bargain, the prohibition of any form of forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for child employment, and acceptable working conditions regarding minimum wage, working hours, and occupational safety and health. The CIRI indicators are ordinal, meaning they provide information in terms of frequency (more or less) rather than exact figures. A country receives a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on the frequency of the evaluated practice. For workers' rights, a score of 0 indicates that this right is severely restricted, a score of 1 indicates that it is somewhat restricted, and a score of 2 indicates that workers are fully protected.	Worker’s Rights	Fundamental Rights	From 0 to 2	http://www.humanrightsdata.com/	Voice and Accountability (WGI), Global Rights Index (CSI), Freedom in the World (FH), Democracy Status (BF), Social protection rating (CPIA), Labor Freedom (HF) , Right to Work (SERF_Low and Middle Income), Right to Work (SERF_High Income), Participatory Democracy Index (V-Dem), Overall Governance (IIAG), Participation, Rights, and Inclusion (IIAG), Human Development (IIAG) and Public Perception of Overall Governance (IIAG)
World Press Freedom Index (RSF)	Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1985 in Montpellier. Governed by principles of democratic governance, it holds consultative status with the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and the International Organization of La Francophonie (OIF). RSF defends the right of every individual to access free and reliable information. It works to promote freedom, pluralism, and independence in journalism by providing information on the state of press freedom worldwide. In addition to being a producer of information, RSF engages in advocacy campaigns, offers legal recommendations to states and governments, and protects and assists journalists working in high-risk areas.	Worldwide	2002 to 2024	Since 2002, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has published an annual World Press Freedom Index, assessing the state of press freedom in nearly 180 countries. RSF and its panel of experts define press freedom as "the ability of journalists, both individually and collectively, to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest, independently of political, economic, legal, and social interference, and without threats to their physical and mental safety." The indicator is updated with new data collected directly from journalists in the field, offering an overview of the situation during the preceding calendar year (January-December) before its official publication. When there are significant changes in the state of press freedom in a country between the end of the evaluated year and its final publication, the data is updated to reflect the most recent developments.	In 2010, the indicator used to report a score for each country or territory ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the lowest level of press freedom and 0 indicating the best. Since 2013, the scoring system has been reversed, where 100 now represents the highest level of press freedom, and 0 denotes the worst. For the editions from 2013 to 2021, the score was determined by aggregating responses from experts to a questionnaire designed by RSF. This qualitative analysis was then combined with quantitative data on abuses and acts of violence against journalists during the assessed period. The 87 questions focused on seven criteria: (i) pluralism, (ii) media independence, (iii) the environment and self-censorship, (iv) the legislative framework, (v) transparency, (vi) infrastructure, and (vii) abuse. Each of the seven criteria was rated from 0 to 100. RSF then calculated two final scores. The first (ScoA) was based on the first six criteria, and the second (ScoB) combined the first six with the seventh criterion, abuse. The final score for a country would be based on ScoA if the inclusion of abuse in the second score did not lead to a different result; otherwise, in the presence of abuse, RSF would use ScoB. Since 2022, the questionnaire now includes five contextual indicators: (i) the political context, (ii) the legal framework, (iii) the economic context, (iv) the socio-cultural context, and (v) security. A subsidiary score ranging from 0 to 100 is calculated for each of these indicators, where all questions and sub-questions carry equal weight. These subsidiary scores are then aggregated equally to produce the global score.	World Press Freedom	Democracy	From 0 to 100	https://rsf.org/fr/classement	Freedom of the Press (FH)	Rule of Law (WGI), Government Effectiveness (WGI), Regulatory Quality (WGI), Control of Corruption (WGI), Voice and Accountability (WGI), Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (WGI), Doing Business (WB), Property rights and rule-based governance rating (CPIA), Business regulatory environment rating (CPIA), Public sector management and institutions cluster average (CPIA), Social protection rating (CPIA) et Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (CPIA)

For the first time,
an observatory listing the main legal indicators in the world

85 indicators

3 dedicated tools

1500 entries

Mapping

Indicator identity cards

Country performance analysis

Performance analysis by indicator

An initiative of the Fondation pour le Droit Continental (Civil Law Initiative)

Research team

For the first time, an observatory listing the main legal indicators in the world

85 indicators

3 dedicated tools

1500 entries

Mapping

Indicator identity cards

Country performance analysis

Performance analysis by indicator

An initiative of the Fondation pour le Droit Continental (Civil Law Initiative)

Research team

For the first time,
an observatory listing the main legal indicators in the world