In 2021, Venezuela was the country that had the lowest economic freedom score, scoring 3.01 and ranking 165/165 out of all countries analyzed. Zimbabwe and Syria followed, scoring 3.81 and 3.9 respectively. Out of the lowest scoring 20 countries, Guyana had the highest score at 5.43, ranking at 146 out of 165 countries analyzed.

Singapore led the Index of Economic Freedom in 2024, with an index score of 83.5 out of 100. Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan, and Luxembourg rounded out the top five. Economic Freedom Index In order to calculate the Economic Freedom Index, the source takes 12 different factors into account, including the rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. All 12 factors are rated on a scale of zero to 100 and are weighted equally. Every country is rated within the Index in order to provide insight into the health and freedom of the global economy. Singapore's economy Singapore is one of the four so-called Asian Tigers, a term used to describe four countries in Asia that saw a booming economic development from the 1950s to the early 1990. Today, the City-State is known for its many skyscrapers, and its economy continue to boom. It has one of the lowest tax-rates in the Asia-Pacific region, and continues to be open towards foreign direct investment (FDI). Moreover, Singapore has one of the highest trade-to-GDP ratios worldwide, underlining its export-oriented economy. Finally, its geographic location has given it a strategic position as a center connecting other countries in the region with the outside world. However, the economic boom has come at a cost, with the city now ranked among the world's most expensive.

In 2021, Iran was the country with the lowest degree of freedom to trade internationally, scoring 2.39 out of 10. Burundi and Argentina followed, with scores of 3.22 and 3.32 respectively. Out of the 20 lowest scores, Tanzania had the highest at 5.39.

The average for 2024 based on 27 countries was 70 index points. The highest value was in Ireland: 83 index points and the lowest value was in Greece: 55 index points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The average for 2024 based on 46 countries was 62 points. The highest value was in Mauritius: 87 points and the lowest value was in Sudan: 30 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2024, Iceland was the worldwide leader in terms of internet freedom. The country ranked first with 94 index points in the Freedom House Index, where each country received a numerical score from 100 (the freest) to 0 (the least free). Estonia ranked second with a 92 index points, followed by Canada, with a score of 86 index points. Internet restrictions worldwide The decline of internet freedom in 2022 is mainly linked to political conflicts in different parts of the world. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government intensified its attempts to control the online content in the country. The government placed restrictions on three different U.S.-based social media platforms at the same time, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These restrictions made it to the top of the longest-lasting limitations on the web in 2022. Social protests rose in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. The Iranian government decided to shut down the internet and various social media platforms in an attempt to minimize the communication between the protesters. In 2022, 11 new internet restrictions were recorded in Iran. However, residents in the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir saw the highest number of new internet restrictions, which amounted to more than double than the ones in Iran. The impact of internet shutdowns In 2022, the economic impact of internet restrictions worldwide reached an estimated 23.79 billion U.S. dollars. Meanwhile, the highest financial losses due to internet shutdowns were caused by limitations in Russia, and more than seven thousand hours of restricted various online services had an economic impact of 21.59 billion U.S. dollars. The restrictions impacted around 113 million people in the country. Myanmar placed the most extended restriction on internet services, lasting 17,520 hours in total. Similar restrictions in India affected over 120 million people. 

As of 2024, Eritrea and Egypt had the least freedom of the press in Africa, with 16.64 and 25.1 points in the press freedom index, respectively. On the other hand, Mauritania and Namibia obtained the highest scores on the continent, showing a satisfactory situation. The press freedom index determines the levels of media freedom in each country, evaluating the political, economic, and sociocultural context, as well as legal framework and safety of journalists. The index ranks from zero, a very serious situation, to 100, a good situation regarding press freedom. Low levels of press freedom on the continent As the index shows, some African countries lack press freedom. For instance, Eritrea and Djibouti do not have any privately-owned media, which is why they obtained the least-performing index scores on the continent. According to the index, Egypt ranked second in Africa for having the least press freedom and presented the most critical situation in North Africa. On the other hand, Tunisia had by far the highest levels of press freedom in the northern region. A survey conducted in 2020 showed that almost half of Tunisia’s population believed that the media should be free from government control. Limited safety of journalists in Africa Especially in the world regions with poor press freedom, journalists are often in danger due to their work. Worldwide, the number of imprisoned journalists has generally risen in recent years, growing from 145 in 2010 to over 360 in 2022. Egypt ranked among the countries with the most journalists in jail. Moreover, cases of murdered journalists are also reported every year in different parts of the world.

Abstract

The Freedom in the World 1972-2010 dataset, produced by a US based organisation, Freedom House, contains data on political rights and civil liberties for countries. Numerical ratings of between 1 and 7 are allocated to each country or territory, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The status designation of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, which is determined by the combination of the political rights and civil liberties ratings, indicates the general state of freedom in a country or territory.

The total number of points awarded to the political rights and civil liberties checklists determines the political rights and civil liberties ratings for each country in the Freedom House dataset. Each point total corresponds to a rating of 1 through 7, with 1 representing the highest and 7 the lowest level of freedom. Each pair of political rights and civil liberties ratings is averaged to determine an overall status of "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Those whose ratings average 1.0 to 2.5 are considered Free, 3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free, and 5.5 to 7.0 Not Free . The designations of Free, Partly Free, and Not Free each cover a broad third of the available raw points. Therefore, countries and territories within any one category, especially those at either end of the category, can have quite different human rights situations. In order to see the distinctions within each category, a country or territory's political rights and civil liberties ratings should be examined. For example, countries at the lowest end of the Free category (2 in political rights and 3 in civil liberties, or 3 in political rights and 2 in civil liberties) differ from those at the upper end of the Free group (1 for both political rights and civil liberties). Also, a designation of Free does not mean that a country enjoys perfect freedom or lacks serious problems, only that it enjoys comparably more freedom than Partly Free or Not Free (or some other Free) countries.

General Characteristics of Each Political Rights and Civil Liberties Rating: Political Rights Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to ensuring the freedoms embodied in the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus. Rating of 2 -- Countries and territories rated 2 in political rights are less free than those rated 1. Such factors as political corruption, violence, political discrimination against minorities, and foreign or military influence on politics may be present and weaken the quality of freedom. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- The same conditions that undermine freedom in countries and territories with a rating of 2 may also weaken political rights in those with a rating of 3, 4, or 5. Other damaging elements can include civil war, heavy military involvement in politics, lingering royal power, unfair elections, and one-party dominance. However, states and territories in these categories may still enjoy some elements of political rights, including the freedom to organize quasi-political groups, reasonably free referendums, or other significant means of popular influence on government. Rating of 6 -- Countries and territories with political rights rated 6 have systems ruled by military juntas, one-party dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. These regimes may allow only a minimal manifestation of political rights, such as some degree of representation or autonomy for minorities. A few states are traditional monarchies that mitigate their relative lack of political rights through the use of consultation with their subjects, tolerance of political discussion, and acceptance of public petitions. Rating of 7 -- For countries and territories with a rating of 7, political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government. Civil Liberties Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to ensuring the freedoms expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity. Rating of 2 -- States and territories with a rating of 2 have deficiencies in a few aspects of civil liberties, but are still relatively free. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- Countries and territories that have received a rating of 3, 4, or 5 range from those that are in at least partial compliance with virtually all checklist standards to those with a combination of high or medium scores for some questions and low or very low scores on other questions. The level of oppression increases at each successive rating level, including in the areas of censorship, political terror, and the prevention of free association. There are also many cases in which groups opposed to the state engage in political terror that undermines other freedoms. Therefore, a poor rating for a country is not necessarily a comment on the intentions of the government, but may reflect real restrictions on liberty caused by nongovernmental actors. Rating of 6 -- People in countries and territories with a rating of 6 experience severely restricted rights of expression and association, and there are almost always political prisoners and other manifestations of political terror. These countries may be characterized by a few partial rights, such as some religious and social freedoms, some highly restricted private business activity, and relatively free private discussion. Rating of 7 -- States and territories with a rating of 7 have virtually no freedom. An overwhelming and justified fear of repression characterizes these societies. Countries and territories generally have ratings in political rights and civil liberties that are within two ratings numbers of each other. Without a well-developed civil society, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an atmosphere supportive of political rights. Consequently, there is no country in the survey with a rating of 6 or 7 for civil liberties and, at the same time, a rating of 1 or 2 for political rights.

Analysis unit

The units of analysis in the survey arel countries

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

The average for 2023 based on 171 countries was 0.623 index points. The highest value was in Denmark: 0.987 index points and the lowest value was in North Korea: 0.014 index points. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

This study investigates the relationship between democracy and innovation across 61 developing countries from 2013 to 2020, utilizing data from Global Innovation Index. Employing the Freedom House Index and Polity2 indicators as proxies for democracy, research employs Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Fixed Effects and SystemGMM techniques to analyze their impact on innovation. The findings of the study reveal no statistically significant relationships between democracy and innovation in developing nations within specified timeframe. Through empirical analysis, including various econometric approaches, it is observed that the level of democracy as measured by these indicators, does not appear to exert a discernable impact on the innovation landscape of these countries. These results carry important implications for public policy. While the promotion of democracy remains a crucial goal, especially for societal development and political stability, this study suggests that solely focusing on enhancing democratic institutions might not necessarily yield immediate direct improvements in the innovation capacities of developing nations. Policymakers and stakeholders involved in fostering innovation ecosystems in these regions may need to consider a more nuanced approach, encompassing factors beyond the scope of democratic governance to effectively spur innovation. Understanding the nuanced relationship between democracy and innovation in developing countries has significant implications for designing targeted policies aimed at enhancing innovation capacities, economic growth and overall societal development in these regions.

The average for 2024 based on 180 countries was 44 points. The highest value was in Denmark: 97 points and the lowest value was in North Korea: 4 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The average for 2024 based on 40 countries was 59 points. The highest value was in Denmark: 98 points and the lowest value was in Italy: 0 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The average for 2024 based on 41 countries was 78 points. The highest value was in Denmark: 93 points and the lowest value was in Belarus: 53 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Analysis of ‘World Happiness Report’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/unsdsn/world-happiness on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness. The first report was published in 2012, the second in 2013, the third in 2015, and the fourth in the 2016 Update. The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

Content

The happiness scores and rankings use data from the Gallup World Poll. The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for the years 2013-2016 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

Inspiration

What countries or regions rank the highest in overall happiness and each of the six factors contributing to happiness? How did country ranks or scores change between the 2015 and 2016 as well as the 2016 and 2017 reports? Did any country experience a significant increase or decrease in happiness?

What is Dystopia?

Dystopia is an imaginary country that has the world’s least-happy people. The purpose in establishing Dystopia is to have a benchmark against which all countries can be favorably compared (no country performs more poorly than Dystopia) in terms of each of the six key variables, thus allowing each sub-bar to be of positive width. The lowest scores observed for the six key variables, therefore, characterize Dystopia. Since life would be very unpleasant in a country with the world’s lowest incomes, lowest life expectancy, lowest generosity, most corruption, least freedom and least social support, it is referred to as “Dystopia,” in contrast to Utopia.

What are the residuals?

The residuals, or unexplained components, differ for each country, reflecting the extent to which the six variables either over- or under-explain average 2014-2016 life evaluations. These residuals have an average value of approximately zero over the whole set of countries. Figure 2.2 shows the average residual for each country when the equation in Table 2.1 is applied to average 2014- 2016 data for the six variables in that country. We combine these residuals with the estimate for life evaluations in Dystopia so that the combined bar will always have positive values. As can be seen in Figure 2.2, although some life evaluation residuals are quite large, occasionally exceeding one point on the scale from 0 to 10, they are always much smaller than the calculated value in Dystopia, where the average life is rated at 1.85 on the 0 to 10 scale.

What do the columns succeeding the Happiness Score(like Family, Generosity, etc.) describe?

The following columns: GDP per Capita, Family, Life Expectancy, Freedom, Generosity, Trust Government Corruption describe the extent to which these factors contribute in evaluating the happiness in each country. The Dystopia Residual metric actually is the Dystopia Happiness Score(1.85) + the Residual value or the unexplained value for each country as stated in the previous answer.

If you add all these factors up, you get the happiness score so it might be un-reliable to model them to predict Happiness Scores.

Start a new kernel

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Following a declining trend that emerged in 2017, India's press freedom rank dropped further to 159 out of 180 countries surveyed in the World Press Freedom Index released by Reporters Without Borders in 2024. With a score of 31.28 the South Asian democracy was among regions where the freedom of the press was seriously threatened. The Press Freedom Index score in 2024 was evaluated based on the political, economic, and sociocultural contexts as well as the legal framework and level of safety in a country. Perils of pursuing journalism in India  Despite constitutional guarantees such as the freedom of speech and expression, journalists and media organizations in India continue to face challenges in reporting issues crucial to upholding democratic values. In the last two decades, over 50 journalists were killed in the country while several others were imprisoned under anti-state charges.  Press freedom in APAC region The press freedom index varies widely in the Asia-Pacific region, with New Zealand being one of the highest-ranking countries globally. In contrast, the regimes in China and North Korea continue to exercise strict control over the media. Press freedom remains under threat due to censorship, violence against journalists, and government pressure on media outlets not just in the Asia-Pacific region, but around the world.

Quality of life, national level data

Quality of life indicator Re/De Constructed Compiled by Gene Shackman, Ph.D. Director of The Global Social Change Research Project http://gsociology.icaap.org

This file, quality of life, country data, is here http://gsociology.icaap.org/dataupload.html

I reconstructed a human development index as follows:

I took the scores of each variable (GDP per Capita, Infant Mortality Rate, Education, Freedom, Happiness) and calculated the mean and standard deviation. Then I calculated how many standard deviations away each country was from the mean. The Standard Deviations (SD) away is the new score. Thus, all variables could be averaged for a simple version of the “human development index”

I reversed the signs for Infant Mortality Rate, so high would be good, which was comparable to education and GDP per capita. Freedom originally is scored so low = more freedom. Thus, I also reversed the signs for freedom too.

Data sources:

Region and Area definition United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Economic Prospects, 2015 Edition. Documentation. Other data http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Other/Documentation/

Population data Total population, both sexes combined World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, United Nations Population Division http://data.un.org/

Infant mortality rate Source: World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision | United Nations Population Division data.un.org

According to the UN site, http://data.un.org/Host.aspx?Content=UNdataUse All data and metadata provided on UNdata’s website are available free of charge and may be copied freely, duplicated and further distributed provided that UNdata is cited as the reference.

Real 2005 Per Capita ($) GDP Historical Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP per cap) for Baseline Countries/Regions (in 2005 dollars) 1969-2013 Updated:12/08/2013 Source: ERS International Macroeconomic Data Set

Contact: Dr, Mathew Shane (202-694-5282, mshane@ers.usda.gov) Information important for using this table. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-macroeconomic-data-set.aspx

I use ERS as the data source because the UN does not have entries for the former USSR countries before 1995, while the ERS data does.

Average years of schooling

worldbank data http://databank.worldbank.org/Data/Views/VariableSelection/SelectVariables.aspx?source=Education%20Statistics#s_b The WorldBank says: You are encouraged to use the Datasets to benefit yourself and others in creative ways. You may extract, download, and make copies of the information contained in the Datasets, and you may share that information with third parties. http://go.worldbank.org/OJC02YMLA0

NOTE: average years of schooling correlates .7 to .9 with percent of people with no education It also generally correlates highly with percent who finished primary, secondary and tertiary schools

The worldbank data does not provide "world" estimates

World happiness report http://worldhappiness.report/ I used 2015 data. The website says, about the 2016 report: This publication may be reproduced using the following reference: Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2016). World Happiness Report 2016, Update (Vol. I). New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. World Happiness Report management by Sharon Paculor and Anthony Annett, copy edit by Jill Hamburg Coplan, Aditi Shah and Saloni Jain, design by John Stislow and Stephanie Stislow, cover design by Sunghee Kim. Full text and supporting documentation can be downloaded from the website: http://worldhappiness.report/#happiness2016 ISBN 978-0-9968513-3-6 Volume I

According to the World Happiness FAQ page http://worldhappiness.report/faq/ the scores are based on responses to questions from the Gallup World Poll.

UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) From the UNDP Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2014-report/download According to the terms of use page, we are free to share, redistribute, etc, as long as we give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/copyright-and-terms-use

Freedom in the World (PR and CL) http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world Data copyright by the Freedom House, included here by permission Any use of these data should include citation to the Freedom House 1972 data for South Africa is from 1973 Data are included for 1990 and 1995 because former USSR data only start after 1990. No data before that. However, there is data for USSR up through 1990.

"PR" stands for "Political Rights," "CL" stands for "Civil Liberties," and "Status" is the Freedom Status. Political Rights and Civil Liberties are measured on a one-to-seven scale, with one representing the highest degree of Freedom and seven the lowest. “F,” “PF,” and “NF,” respectively, stand for “Free,” “Partly Free,” and “Not Free.” Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for Political Rights and for Civil Liberties fell between 1.0 and 2.5 were designated "Free"; between 3.0 and 5.5 “Partly Free," and between 5.5 and 7.0 “Not Free.” Beginning with the ratings for 2003, countries whose combined average ratings fall between 3.0 and 5.0 are "Partly Free," and those between 5.5 and 7.0 are "Not Free." Ratings for territories are not included in this table. Several countries became independent, split into two or more countries, or merged with a neighboring state. Scores for these countries are given only for the period of their existence as independent states. *These refer to the various editions ofFreedom in the World, except for Jan.-Feb. 1973 through Jan.-Feb. 1977, which are from the bimonthly journalFreedom at Issue. The firstFreedom in the Worldbook-length survey was the 1978 edition. For 1972, South Africa was rated as “White” (2,3 Free) and “Black” (5,6 Not Free). For Yugoslavia, ratings from 1999 to 2002 were for the country that remained following the departures between 1991 and 1992 of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In February 2003, the Yugoslav parliament adopted a constitutional charter establishing the state of Serbia and Montenegro. Thus, beginning in 2003, Yugoslavia is listed as "Serbia and Montenegro." The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro dissolved when Montenegro withdrew in June 2006, making Serbia an independent state. Thus, the ratings for Serbia and Montenegro are listed separately beginning in 2006. Kosovo was first listed as a territory beginning in 1992. Since 2009, it is listed as an independent country. South Sudan was first listed as an independent country in 2011 after officially separating from Sudan in July 2011. The former Zaire is listed under Congo (Kinshasa), and the former Western Samoa is listed under Samoa.

The average for 2024 based on 49 countries was 64.8 points. The highest value was in Malaysia: 79.1 points and the lowest value was in Venezuela: 0 points. The indicator is available from 1995 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Information communication (media use) in general. Restrictions on information communication in general. Sociopolitical attitudes. Communication motives. Online access. Restrictions interpersonal and participatory communication. Quality assessments. 2002 federal election. information communication on September 11, 2001. Iraq. Anti-Americanism. Hartz IV. State elections. Climate change. Crises. Citizens´ initiatives.

Subjects: 1. The following subjects were asked identical questions repeatedly at each survey time point: Information communication (media use) in general: television set in the household; reception frequency of news programs on television; most frequently watched news program; reception frequency of political TV magazines; number of days per week with daily newspaper use; interest in the topics of politics, economics, local affairs; reading of news magazines or weekly newspapers; query on news magazines or weekly newspapers read (Spiegel, Focus, Die Zeit); assessment of the economic situation in the country; interest in politics; online access: General online access; online access at home; most frequently used online access; time of first Internet use; duration of use per week; memberships (trade union, party and name of party, citizens´ initiative, environmental organization or animal protection organization, other organizations, name of other organizations); active or passive membership; Internet activities related to active participation; political participation: participation in a demonstration and in a public meeting and frequency of participation in the past year; frequency of own speaking at a public meeting; contacts with politicians (online, in person, by phone, or by mail) and frequency of contact; online letters to the editor in the past year and frequency of online letters to the editor; traditional letters to the editor in the past year and frequency of traditional letters to the editor on political issues; participation in online signature gathering and frequency of participation; participation in traditional signature gathering and frequency of participation; political donations.

Demography: highest educational attainment; vocational training attainment; employment; age (year of birth); nationality; net household income; income group; party affiliation; party identification; occupational status; household size; sex; federal state.

1. In at least one or more waves, the following questions were asked: Duration of daily television use in minutes; daily newspapers read; interest in the topics of culture, sports and advertisements; use of the weekly newspaper Die Woche; recognition among friends for personal information about politics; political information from the newspaper enables participation and commitment to others (altruism); recognition among friends for personal information about politics in the media as well as personal benefit; restrictions Information conventional (foregoing newspaper for reasons of cost and lack of time, political reports in the newspaper are difficult to understand (political competence), too much effort); assessment of personal economic situation; general trust in persons; trust in institutions (Bundestag, authorities, federal government, courts, police, parties); opinion of media coverage (frequent reports on political scandals, negativism with regard to parties and politicians, support for democracy); satisfaction with democracy (school grades); value orientation (personal freedom versus security, personal freedom versus equality, security versus equality); value orientation (scale: respecting law and order, acknowledging others´ opinions, doing what others do, environmental awareness, Christian norms and values, pleasure, success, being technically up-to-date, thriftiness, doing nice things, having own children); psychological self-characterization based on pairs of opposites (Big 5); self-ranking left-right (split: right-left); media influence: Assessment of the political influence of the media and its development; media versus citizens have more influence on politics; political attitude (low responsiveness of politicians, low political influence conviction as citizens); restriction political effort and political competence; importance of selected communication motives: personal benefit, politics must pay off, altruism: personal commitment to others and social commitment, recognition: having a say in political discussions, political expertise is valued, participation: Knowing what´s happening in the country and where you live, not being surprised by political developments); online access at work, school, university, or other location; most used online access; Internet use in the last four weeks; type of online access at home; Internet use on the previous day and duration of use in minutes; restriction of Internet use (cost, poorly developed Internet technology, lack of skills, disruptions during Internet use (social pressure), Internet...

Most refugees face significant legal and practical barriers to full economic inclusion in the labor markets of their host countries. While these barriers are widely discussed in general terms, a systematic, public documentation of these barriers is important to advance the efforts toward economic inclusion. In the 2022 Global Refugee Work Rights Report, we examine different dimensions of work rights both in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto) across 51 countries that were collectively hosting 87 percent of the world’s refugee population at the end of 2021. Our de facto findings are based on a survey of practitioners in the 51 refugee-hosting countries, as well as supplemental desk research. We find that at least 62 percent of refugees live in countries where the legal framework for work rights is adequate or better. Yet many of these laws are not widely implemented: at least 55 percent of refugees live in a country that significantly restricts their work rights in practice. Countries were also scored on 17 specific questions regarding wage employment, self-employment, mobility, and access to services, in most cases relative to citizens’ access. All of these variables are included in the dataset, and additional findings are documented in the report. The methodology section of the report contains a detailed description of the scoring and definitions. Annex 3 of the report contains the full questionnaire. Please see https://www.refugeeworkrights.org/ to download a .csv file of the dataset.

The average for 2023 based on 45 countries was 0.36 index points. The highest value was in Taiwan: 0.87 index points and the lowest value was in North Korea: 0.014 index points. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.