AGAIN ON GLOBAL EUROPE OR TODAY’S EUROPEAN WORLD: 2014–2019 CHANGE OF ITS 50 STATES’ POLITICAL-ECONOMIC INDEXES (PART I)

16.05.2020 0 Редакция Steelgrey

The conception of Global Europe, or the today’s European World, is developed. The EIU’s Democracy Index (DI) and two introduced by me statistical indicators – the National Economic Performance Index (NEPI) and the Index of Political Economy Achievements (IPEA) – have attained further substantiation and are implemented. 2014, 2018 and 2019 international political economy rankings for 50 countries of Global Europe with the 2018/2019 population of 0.4 million or more are presented and analyzed.

Yuriy O. CHERNETSKIYЮрій Чернецький

Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Ph.D. in Economics & Management, Professor of the Zhytomyr Economics & the Humanities Institute (The “Ukraine” University)

 

This paper is an attempt to continue, develop and extend my 2016–2019 research work devoted to the sociology, international political economy, science of comparative government and economics matters [Chernetskiy, 2016; Chernetskiy, 2017 (1); Chernetskiy, 2017 (2); Chernetskiy, 2017 (3); Chernetskiy, 2017 (4); Chernetskiy, 2018 (1); Chernetskiy, 2018 (2); Chernetskiy, 2018 (3)]. During my research, among other findings, powerful correlation between the GDP / GNI (PPP) per capita and the Democracy Index has shown that very strong positive (i.e., definite and practical) connection exists between the democracy and the economy development. This fact has provided the additional argument to treat the social institutions of politics, government & law and of the economy whole functioning outcome as inseparably connected, integral political-economic result for each society. Under this context, the concept and conception of Global Europe (or the today’s European World), consisting of 55 sovereign states, has been substantiated and implemented [Chernetskiy, 2019].

Before presenting the data about separate countries of Global Europe (please see the tables below), I have to introduce the very concept of Global Europe, or the today’s – in contrast to its historical concept – European World, developed by me. According to it, first of all, the today’s European World embraces 48 sovereign states, in territorial sense wholly belonging to “physical-geographic” Europe. Then, let me remind: “When the South Caucasus is incorporated into the concept of Europe, as occurs today in many international organisations, the southeastern border of Europe lies on the Aras River opposite Iran” [Jahn, 2015: p. 21]. I rely upon this approach and accordingly include in my Global Europe three countries of this region, namely: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

first map of the world by Anaximander (6th century BC)

Possibly what the lost first map of the world by Anaximander (6th century BC) looked like. Author – User:Bibi Saint-Pol (Wikipedia, 2006).

 

Also it is right from the social theorizing viewpoint to include in today’s European World 6 countries of other continents, namely: Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Cyprus and Israel. In four mentioned countries of the “New World” societies and statehood have developed in a successively or consistently European way for ages. Two states of physical-geographic Asia obviously orient themselves onto resulting distinctively European-styled social values of liberty, democracy and humanism. These values remain (at least, potentially) of crucial importance for societal discourse in all the countries of physical-geographic Europe and define outstanding progressive role of the European World in global social development. Finally, my Global Europe concept embraces three more states that are situated partly in physical-geographic Europe, namely: Turkey (see also, for example, the official NATO website, Russia and Kazakhstan.

 

The map of Earth

The map of Earth, which demonstrated Old and New Worlds; Oceania (often treated as a part of New World) is marked with green colour. Author – Aleksey Shyianov (Wikipedia, 2011).

 

To my ratings I include not 55, but 50 states of Global Europe. It is because the so called Democracy Index (DI) has not been counted up for five European “micro-states” with the least numerous population: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican [Democracy Index 2014 (EIU), 2015; Democracy Index 2018 (EIU), 2019; and other reports of the series]. This index, calculated by specialists of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), became the initial basic indicator for my research. The most recently updated methodology of DI calculation is characterized in the publication “Democracy Index 2019: A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest” which can be found on the EIU site in PDF format. This index, on a 0 to 10 scale, is based on the ratings for 60 main political indicators. “The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regime:

  1. Full democracies: scores greater than 8
  2. Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8
  3. Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6
  4. Authoritarian regimes: scores less than or equal to 4” [Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020: p. 52–53]

 

2014 AND 2019 GLOBAL EUROPE RANKINGS BY THE DEMOCRACY INDEX

(Places of a country in the 2014 DI rating and in the 2014–2019 DI change rating are shown in brackets after the 2014 DI and 2014–2019 DI change’s values accordingly)

 

COUNTRIESDEMOCRACY INDEX (EIU’s DI)
201420192014–2019 change
1. Norway9.93 (01)9.87–0.06 (24)
2. Iceland9.65 (03)9.58–0.07 (26)
3. Sweden9.73 (02)9.39–0.34 (43)
4. New Zealand9.26 (04)9.26=0.00 (21)
5. Finland9.03 (08)9.25+0.22 (08)
6. Ireland8.72 (12)9.24+0.52 (02)
7. Canada9.08 (07)9.22+0.14 (13)
7. Denmark9.11 (05)9.22+0.11 (14)
9. Australia9.01 (09)9.09+0.08 (16)
10. Switzerland9.09 (06)9.03–0.06 (24)
11. Netherlands8.92 (10)9.01+0.09 (15)
12. Luxembourg8.88 (11)8.81–0.07 (26)
13. Germany8.64 (13)8.68+0.04 (19)
14. United Kingdom8.31 (16)8.53+0.22 (08)
15. Austria8.54 (14)8.29–0.25 (34)
15. Spain8.05 (18)8.29+0.24 (05)
17. France8.04 (19)8.12+0.08 (16)
18. Portugal7.79 (23)8.03+0.24 (05)
19. United States8.11 (17)7.96–0.15 (30)
20. Malta8.39 (15)7.95–0.44 (46)
21. Estonia7.74 (24)7.90+0.16 (12)
22. Israel7.63 (25)7.86+0.23 (07)
23. Czech Republic7.94 (20)7.69–0.25 (34)
24. Belgium7.93 (21)7.64–0.29 (39)
25. Cyprus (area controlled by the government of Cyprus)7.40 (31)7.59+0.19 (11)
26. Italy7.85 (22)7.52–0.33 (42)
27. Lithuania7.54 (27)7.50–0.04 (23)
27. Slovenia7.57 (26)7.50–0.07 (26)
29. Latvia7.48 (28)7.49+0.01 (20)
30. Greece7.45 (30)7.43–0.02 (22)
31. Slovakia7.35 (32)7.17–0.18 (31)
32. Bulgaria6.73 (35)7.03+0.30 (04)
33. Hungary6.90 (34)6.63–0.27 (36)
34. Poland7.47 (29)6.62–0.85 (48)
35. Croatia6.93 (33)6.57–0.36 (44)
36. Romania6.68 (37)6.49–0.19 (32)
37. Serbia6.71 (36)6.41–0.30 (41)
38. North Macedonia6.25 (39)5.97–0.28 (37)
39. Ukraine5.42 (43)5.90+0.48 (03)
40. Albania5.67 (42)5.89+0.22 (08)
41. Moldova (Republic of, excl. Transnistria)6.32 (38)5.75–0.57 (47)
42. Montenegro5.94 (40)5.65–0.29 (39)
43. Armenia4.13 (46)5.54+1.41 (01)
44. Georgia (excl. Abkhazia and S. Ossetia)5.82 (41)5.42–0.40 (45)
45. Bosnia and Herzegovina4.78 (45)4.86+0.08 (16)
46. Turkey5.12 (44)4.09–1.03 (49)
47. Russia3.39 (48)3.11–0.28 (37)
48. Kazakhstan3.17 (49)2.94–0.23 (33)
49. Azerbaijan2.83 (50)2.75–0.08 (29)
50. Belarus3.69 (47)2.48–1.21 (50)

 

In 2019, the distribution of 50 ranked Global Europe states between four groups of political regimes has been such (data on the 2014 distribution are presented in brackets):

 

  1. Full democracies – 18 (19)
  2. Flawed democracies – 19 (20)
  3. Hybrid regimes – 9 (7)
  4. Authoritarian regimes – 4 (4)

 

As we see, the groups of full democracies and flawed democracies are the most numerous and almost equal: in 2019 the first embraced 36%, the second – 38% of 50 today’s European World countries. After 2014, Malta and the USA (!!!) have dropped out from the group of full democracies; on the contrary, Portugal has entered this prestigious group. From the group of flawed democracies, Moldova and North Macedonia have dropped out. The group of authoritarian regimes is the least numerous: as we see, it includes only 4 (or 8%) of 50 Global Europe states.

Further, it is useful to differentiate two categories of states: democratic countries (it embraces full and flawed democracies) and non-democratic countries (it includes hybrid and authoritarian regimes). The 2019 (and 2014) distribution of 50 today’s European World states has been such:

 

  • Democratic countries37 (39)
  • Non-democratic countries13 (11)

 

About three quarters of 50 today’s European World states are democratic, about a quarter of Global Europe’s political regimes are non-democratic. As I have already mentioned, after 2014 Moldova and North Macedonia have dropped out from the category of democratic countries; and not a state has entered it…

2014–2019 Democracy Index scores/values’ change demonstrates, that the period has been somewhat unfavourable for democracy development not only in the whole world’s scale but in the today’s European World too: 42% of its 50 states have shown this indicator’s substantial lowering (–0.10 or less) and 28% have attained the indicator substantial growth (+0.10 or more). At the same time, the distribution by groups has varied highly.

During the period DI scores has grown substantially in 7 (39%) of 18 Global Europe’s full democracies. Ireland (+0.52) has been the obvious leader of this group. But, taking into account sizeable basic DI values, progress of the Iberian Peninsula countries – Portugal and Spain (both +0.24), Finland and United Kingdom (both +0.22), Canada (+0.14) and Denmark (+0.11) is significant.

On the contrary, substantial reduction has been typical for the group of flawed democracies – for 11 (58%) of 19 states. Poland (–0.85) has been the anti-leader. But also very bad were results of Malta (–0.44), Sweden (–0.34), Italy (–0.33), Serbia (–0.30) etc. Central Eastern Europe has been the evident anti-leader among the democratic primary regions: Poland is accompanied with Hungary (–0.27), Czech Republic (–0.25) and Slovakia (–0.18).

The situation in the group of hybrid regimes is polarized. On the one hand, 5 of its 9 countries have demonstrated very substantial lowering of the DI scores/values. Turkey (–1.03) has been the anti-leader: now it stays in front of the precipice, on the brink of political disaster. But contradictory trends of Moldova (–0.57), Georgia (–0.40) and Montenegro (–0.29) development also are disturbing. Let us hope that difficult enough period for North Macedonia (–0.28) soon will remain in the past.

On the other hand, the group of hybrid regimes includes the absolute Global Europe’s leader in the sphere of 2014–2019 DI scores/values’ change: it is Armenia (+1.41). As a matter of fact, in this country we have observed the first stage of peaceful democratic revolution. But democratic perspectives are not guaranteed: let us remember about the regression cases, for example, of earlier democratic Moldova, North Macedonia and Ukraine. By the way, Ukrainian progress during the period (+0.48) also is considerable, especially if we take into account that it has been provided under Putin’s Russia war aggression. Let me remind that in 2014 Russia occupied several Ukrainian administrative-territorial units, namely: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the City of Sevastopol, parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (large regions). And the “hot” Donbas war continues; this war, inspired and waged by Russia, is now in its seventh (!) year.

Meanwhile, Putin’s and two other of four Global Europe’s authoritarian regimes has shown substantial lowering of the DI scores. Belarus (–1.21) is the absolute anti-leader, tendencies in Russia (–0.28) and Kazakhstan (–0.23) also are sad.

 

Frontispiece of “Leviathan” (1651) by Thomas Hobbes.

Frontispiece of “Leviathan” (1651) by Thomas Hobbes.

 

Finally, let us analyze the Functioning of Government Index (FGI). 60 Economist Intelligence Unit’s DI main political indicators are “grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Each category… indexes are based on the sum of the indicator scores in the category, converted to a 0 to 10 scale” [Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020: p. 52].

The functioning of government category embraces 14 of 60 mentioned indicators. By the way, let me draw attention to annoying mistake in one of related EIU’s wordings [Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020: p. 57]:

“18. Do special economic, religious or other powerful domestic groups exercise significant political power, parallel to democratic institutions?

1: Yes.

0.5: Exercise some meaningful influence.

0: No.”

The same wording we have seen in 2019 [Democracy Index 2018 (EIU), 2019: p. 53], 2018 [Democracy Index 2017 (EIU), 2018: p. 68], 2017 [Democracy Index 2016 (EIU), 2017: p. 58] and 2016 [Democracy Index 2015 (EIU), 2016: p. 50] years. 2015 has been the last year when the correct wording was published (capitalized J by me. – Y.C.) [Democracy Index 2014 (EIU), 2015: p. 42]: “18. Special economic, religious or other powerful domestic groups do NOT exercise significant political power, parallel to democratic institutions?” I do hope that 2016–2020 mistake has been present only in the book wordings on “The model”, but not at the EIU’s expert evaluations and related DI calculations…

The FGI reflects the effectiveness of national governments from combined political science, science of government and public administration science’s viewpoint. I group 167 countries of the world by ranks in accordance with the EIU’s DI global rating [Democracy Index 2014 (EIU), 2015: p. 3–8; Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020: p. 10–14]. The FGI values are used by me to place countries within one of five levels by government functioning effectiveness:

  1. The most effective governments: scores greater than or equal to 8.21 (ranks I–V)
  2. Governments of high effectiveness: scores greater than or equal to 6.07, and less than or equal to 7.86 (ranks VI–XIII)
  3. Governments of medium effectiveness: scores greater than or equal to 4.29, and less than or equal to 5.71 (ranks XIV–XXI)
  4. Governments of minimally sufficient effectiveness: scores greater than or equal to 2.07, and less than or equal to 4.00 (ranks XXII–XXXII)
  5. Ineffective governments: scores less than or equal to 2.00 (ranks XXXIII and lower)

You are welcome to find below 2019 GLOBAL EUROPE RANKING OF 50 COUNTRIES BY THE FGI (2014 FGI values are presented in brackets):

 

  1. I. Canada (9.29), Norway (9.64), Sweden (9.64) – 9.64
  2. II. Denmark (9.29), Iceland (9.29), Netherlands (8.57), New Zealand (9.29), Switzerland (9.29) – 9.29

III. Australia (8.93), Finland (8.93), Luxembourg (9.29) – 8.93

  1. IV. Germany (8.57) – 8.57
  2. V. Belgium (8.21) – 8.21
  3. VI. Austria (7.86), Estonia (7.86), France (7.14), Ireland (7.50), Israel (7.14), Portugal (6.43) – 7.86

VII. Malta (8.21), United Kingdom (7.14) – 7.50

……………………………………………………………………………………….

  1. IX. Slovakia (7.50), Spain (7.14), United States (7.50) – 7.14
  2. X. Czech Republic (7.14), Slovenia (7.14) – 6.79
  3. XI. Bulgaria (5.71), Cyprus (6.43), Lithuania (6.07) – 6.43

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XIII. Croatia (6.07), Hungary (6.07), Italy (6.43), Latvia (5.71), Poland (5.71) – 6.07

XIV. Romania (5.71) – 5.71

  1. XV. Albania (4.00), Armenia (2.86), Montenegro (5.36), North Macedonia (5.36), Serbia (5.36) – 5.36

XVI. Turkey (5.36) – 5.00

XVII. Greece (5.36) – 4.86

XVIII. Moldova (5.00) – 4.64

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXIV. Azerbaijan (2.14), Georgia (4.64) – 3.21

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXVI. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2.93) – 2.93

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXVIII. Ukraine (3.93) – 2.71

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXXI. Kazakhstan (2.14) – 2.14

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXXIII. Belarus (3.93) – 2.00

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXXV. Russia (2.86) – 1.79

<…>

 

In 2019, the distribution of 50 ranked Global Europe states between five levels of government effectiveness has been such (data on the 2014 distribution are presented in brackets):

 

  1. The most effective governments – 13 (14)

 

  1. Governments of high effectiveness – 21 (17)

 

  1. Governments of medium effectiveness – 9 (11)

 

  1. Governments of minimally sufficient effectiveness – 5 (8)

 

  1. Ineffective governments – 2 (0)

 

Democracy Index 2018

Democracy Index 2018 produced by EIU. Author – BlankMap-World6.svg: Canuckguy (talk) and many others (Wikipedia, 2019).

As we see, the group of the most effective governments in 2019 has embraced about a quarter of 50 today’s European World countries and has been stable enough. After 2014, only Malta has dropped out from this group. And there were no newcomers to it during the period. Within the most prestigious group, the progress of Netherlands (2 ranks up – to the second position) has been noteworthy. But the case of Canada is the most impressive: this large country – already influential and very perspective global actor – is now represented in the small but tremendous group of three most effective governments of the world!

The group of the governments of high effectiveness is the most numerous: in 2019 it has embraced 42% of 50 Global Europe countries. After 2014, Malta from the higher level, Bulgaria (its progress, like in the overall DI case, has been quite impressive – 3 ranks up), Latvia and Poland from the lower level entered this group – prestigious enough. Within this group, the progress of Portugal (5 ranks up!), France (3 ranks up), Israel (also 3 ranks up) and Lithuania (2 ranks up) is noteworthy. On the contrary, substantial regression of Slovakia and again of the USA and Italy (all three – 2 ranks down) should be mentioned.

The group of the governments of medium effectiveness in 2019 has embraced about one fifth of 50 today’s European World countries. After 2014, Georgia has dropped out from this group (6 ranks down…) but instead of it Albania (7 ranks up!) and effectively revolutionary Armenia (12 ranks up!!!) have entered the level.

The group of the governments of minimally sufficient effectiveness in 2019 has included only one tenth of 50 Global Europe countries. After 2014, the progress of Azerbaijan (7 ranks up!) and the regression of Ukraine (6 ranks down…) are noteworthy at this level. During the period observed, Belarus and Russia have dropped out to the just global group of absolutely ineffective governments: so called “sovereign democracy” of Putin’s propaganda in reality means the dusk of cheerless authoritarianism.

 

(To be continued.)

 

Sources

Chernetskiy Y. Democracy and economic development: again about the today’s world and Ukraine’s place in it (Very brief English version) [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2016. – September 24. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. The Index of Political Economy Achievements (IPEA) global ranking: on & to the new conception of societal governance [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2017 (1). – January 26. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. About 30 primary political-economic regions and 8 secondary (enlarged) regions of the world correlation and meaning [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2017 (2). – February 20. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y.O. About the new comparative government and international political economy paradigm / Y.O.Chernetskiy // Aktualni problemy molodi v suchasnykh sotsialno-ekonomichnykh umovakh: Materialy Mizhnarodnoyi naukovo-praktychnoyi konferentsiyi, 23–24 bereznia 2017 roku. – Zhytomyr: FOP Filinskyi H.V., 2017 (3). – P. 135–146.

Chernetskiy Y. From the 30 – to the 40 primary political-economic regions of the world and Global Europe concepts & conceptions [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2017 (4). – June 7. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. On the 160 states and 40 primary political-economic regions of the world under my global ranking. Part I: Countries and the “enlarged or secondary” regions [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2018 (1). – February 22. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. On the 160 states and 40 primary political-economic regions of the world under my global ranking. Part II: Information on the primary global political-economic regions [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2018 (2). – March 3. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. On the 160 states and 40 primary political-economic regions of the world under my global ranking. Part III: The 40 primary global political-economic regions development in 2016 [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2018 (3). – March 12. – Way of access.

Chernetskiy Y. On 55 states and 20 primary political-economic regions of Global Europe: Farewell paper for the series [Electronic resource] / Y.Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2019. – March 23. – Way of access.

Democracy Index 2014: Democracy and its discontents. – London etc. : The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2015.

Democracy Index 2015: Democracy in an age of anxiety. – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2016.

Democracy Index 2016: Revenge of the “deplorables”. – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2017.

Democracy Index 2017: Free speech under attack. – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2018.

Democracy Index 2018: Me too? Political participation, protest and democracy. – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2019.

Democracy Index 2019: A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest. – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2020.

Gross national income per capita 2018, Atlas method and PPP: World Development Indicators database / World Bank. – 2019. – 23 December.

Jahn E. International politics: Political issues under debate. – Vol. 1. – Heidelberg etc.: Springer-Verlag, 2015.

World Development Indicators 2015. – Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2015.

World Development Indicators 2016. – Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2016.


Поделиться статьей:

Подписаться на новости:




В тему: