AND AGAIN ON GLOBAL EUROPE OR TODAY’S EUROPEAN WORLD: 2014–2020 CHANGE OF ITS 50 STATES’ POLITICAL-ECONOMIC INDEXES (PART I)

Yuriy O. CHERNETSKIY

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

 

AND AGAIN ON GLOBAL EUROPE OR TODAY’S EUROPEAN WORLD: 2014–2020 CHANGE OF ITS 50 STATES’ POLITICAL-ECONOMIC INDEXES (PART I)

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, 2019 and 2020 international political economy rankings for 50 countries of Global Europe with the 2019/2020 population of 0.4 million or more are presented and analyzed.

This paper is an attempt to continue, develop and extend my 2016–2020 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; Chernetskiy, 2020 (4 articles)].

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.

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 [https://www.nato.int/]), Russia and Kazakhstan.

 

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; Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020; 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 2020: In sickness and in health?” 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 2020 (EIU), 2021: p. 57]

2014 AND 2020 GLOBAL EUROPE RANKINGS BY THE DEMOCRACY INDEX

(Places of a country in the 2014 DI rating and in the 2014–2020 DI change rating are shown in brackets after the 2014 DI and 2014–2020 DI change’s values accordingly)

 

COUNTRIES	DEMOCRACY INDEX (EIU’s DI)
	2014	2020	2014–2020 change
1. Norway	9.93 (01)	9.81	–0.12 (26)
2. Iceland	9.65 (03)	9.37	–0.28 (34)
3. Sweden	9.73 (02)	9.26	–0.47 (43)
4. New Zealand	9.26 (04)	9.25	–0.01 (17)
5. Canada	9.08 (07)	9.24	+0.16 (08)
6. Finland	9.03 (08)	9.20	+0.17 (07)
7. Denmark	9.11 (05)	9.17	+0.04 (14)
8. Ireland	8.72 (12)	9.05	+0.33 (04)
9. Australia	9.01 (09)	8.96	–0.05 (21)
9. Netherlands	8.92 (10)	8.96	+0.04 (14)
11. Switzerland	9.09 (06)	8.83	–0.26 (32)
12. Luxembourg	8.88 (11)	8.68	–0.20 (30)
13. Germany	8.64 (13)	8.67	+0.03 (16)
14. United Kingdom	8.31 (16)	8.54	+0.23 (05)
15. Austria	8.54 (14)	8.16	–0.38 (38)
16. Spain	8.05 (18)	8.12	+0.07 (12)
17. France	8.04 (19)	7.99	–0.05 (21)
18. United States of America	8.11 (17)	7.92	–0.19 (29)
19. Portugal	7.79 (23)	7.90	+0.11 (10)
20. Estonia	7.74 (24)	7.84	+0.10 (11)
20. Israel	7.63 (25)	7.84	+0.21 (06)
22. Italy	7.85 (22)	7.74	–0.11 (25)
23. Malta	8.39 (15)	7.68	–0.71 (49)
24. Czech Republic	7.94 (20)	7.67	–0.27 (33)
25. Cyprus (area controlled by the government of Cyprus)	7.40 (31)	7.56	+0.16 (08)
26. Slovenia	7.57 (26)	7.54	–0.03 (19)
27. Belgium	7.93 (21)	7.51	–0.42 (41)
28. Greece	7.45 (30)	7.39	–0.06 (23)
29. Latvia	7.48 (28)	7.24	–0.24 (31)
30. Lithuania	7.54 (27)	7.13	–0.41 (40)
31. Slovakia	7.35 (32)	6.97	–0.38 (38)
32. Poland	7.47 (29)	6.85	–0.62 (47)
33. Bulgaria	6.73 (35)	6.71	–0.02 (18)
34. Hungary	6.90 (34)	6.56	–0.34 (36)
35. Croatia	6.93 (33)	6.50	–0.43 (42)
36. Romania	6.68 (37)	6.40	–0.28 (34)
37. Serbia	6.71 (36)	6.22	–0.49 (44)
38. Albania	5.67 (42)	6.08	+0.41 (02)
39. North Macedonia	6.25 (39)	5.89	–0.36 (37)
40. Ukraine	5.42 (43)	5.81	+0.39 (03)
41. Moldova (Republic of, excl. Transnistria)	6.32 (38)	5.78	–0.54 (46)
42. Montenegro	5.94 (40)	5.77	–0.17 (28)
43. Armenia	4.13 (46)	5.35	+1.22 (01)
44. Georgia (excl. Abkhazia and S. Ossetia)	5.82 (41)	5.31	–0.51 (45)
45. Bosnia and Herzegovina	4.78 (45)	4.84	+0.06 (13)
46. Turkey	5.12 (44)	4.48	–0.64 (48)
47. Russia	3.39 (48)	3.31	–0.08 (24)
48. Kazakhstan	3.17 (49)	3.14	–0.03 (19)
49. Azerbaijan	2.83 (50)	2.68	–0.15 (27)
50. Belarus	3.69 (47)	2.59	–1.10 (50)

 

In 2020, 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 – 16 (19)

 

2. Flawed democracies – 22 (20)

 

3. Hybrid regimes – 8 (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, the USA (!!!) and France (!) have dropped out from the group of full democracies. From the group of flawed democracies, Moldova and North Macedonia have dropped out; but Albania has joined it. 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 2020 (and 2014) distribution of 50 today’s European World states has been such:

 

• Democratic countries – 38 (39)

 

• Non-democratic countries – 12 (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 Albania has entered it.

2014–2020 Democracy Index scores/values’ change demonstrates, that the period has been unfavourable for democracy development not only in the whole world’s scale but in the today’s European World too: more than a half – 52% – of its 50 states have shown this indicator’s substantial lowering (–0.10 or less) and only less than a quarter – 22% – 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 4 (25%) of 16 today’s Global Europe full democracies. Ireland (+0.33) has been the obvious leader of this group. Taking into account sizeable basic DI values, progress of the United Kingdom(+0.23), Finland (+0.17) and Canada (+0.16) is really significant. But, comparing to the 2014 Global Europe’s full democracies group of 19 states, we see that substantial reduction has been typical for this group: the process embraced 8 – 42% – of its countries. Malta (–0.71) has been the anti-leader. But also very bad were results of Sweden (–0.47), Austria (–0.38), Iceland (–0.28) and Switzerland (–0.26), alarming – for the United States of America (–0.19).

Even in higher degree substantial reduction, beginning from 2014, has been typical for the group of flawed democracies – for 13 (65%) of its 20 states at that time. Poland (–0.62) has been the anti-leader. But also very bad were results of Moldova (–0.54), Serbia (–0.49), Croatia (–0.43) etc. Central Eastern Europe has been the evident anti-leader among the democratic primary regions: Poland is accompanied with Slovakia (–0.38), Hungary (–0.34) and Czech Republic (–0.27).

The situation in the group of hybrid regimes is polarized. On the one hand, 3 of its 7 – as for 2014 – countries have demonstrated very substantial lowering of the DI scores/values. Turkey (–0.64) has been the anti-leader: there is a remaining possibility that now it stays in front of the precipice, on the brink of political disaster. But decline of democracy in Georgia (–0.51) and contradictory trends of Montenegro (–0.17) development also are disturbing. Let’s hope that difficult period for Moldova (–0.54) and North Macedonia (–0.36) 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 2014–2020 DI scores/values’ change: it is Armenia (+1.22). 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… Albania (+0.41) takes here the absolute 2nd rank, Ukraine (+0.39) – the 3 rd. By the way, Ukrainian progress during the period can be treated as 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, two of four Global Europe’s authoritarian regimes have shown substantial lowering of the DI scores. Quite naturally, Belarus (–1.10) is the absolute anti-leader. Tendencies in Azerbaijan (–0.15) also are, at least, disturbing. But Putin’s Russia (with its current DI of 3.31) is in the zone of comfort between Ethiopia (3.38) and Niger (3.29) [Democracy Index 2020 (EIU), 2021: p. 12].

 

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 2020 (EIU), 2021: p. 56].

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 2020 (EIU), 2021: p. 61]:

“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 2020 Democracy Index 2019 (EIU), 2020: p. 57], 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 2016–2021 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 2020 (EIU), 2021: p. 8–13]. 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 2020 GLOBAL EUROPE RANKING OF 50 COUNTRIES BY THE FGI (2014 FGI values are presented in brackets):

9. I. Norway (9.64) – 9.64
10. II. Netherlands (8.57), Sweden (9.64) – 9.29

III. Canada (9.29), Denmark (9.29), Finland (8.93), New Zealand (9.29) – 8.93

8. IV. Australia (8.93), Iceland (9.29), Luxembourg (9.29), Switzerland (9.29) – 8.57
9. V. Germany (8.57) – 8.21
10. VI. Belgium (8.21), Estonia (7.86), Ireland (7.50) – 7.86

VII. Austria (7.86), France (7.14), Israel (7.14), Portugal (6.43), United Kingdom (7.14) – 7.50

……………………………………………………………………………………….

7. IX. Spain (7.14) – 7.14
8. X. Malta (8.21), United States (7.50) – 6.79
9. XI. Hungary (6.07), Italy (6.43), Slovakia (7.50), Slovenia (7.14) – 6.43

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XIII. Croatia (6.07), Czech Republic (7.14), Latvia (5.71), Lithuania (6.07) – 6.07

XIV. Bulgaria (5.71), Montenegro (5.36), North Macedonia (5.36), Poland (5.71) – 5.71

4. XV. Albania (4.00), Cyprus (6.43), Romania (5.71), Serbia (5.36), Turkey (5.36) – 5.36

XVI. Greece (5.36) – 5.21

XVII. Armenia (2.86) – 5.00

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XIX. Moldova (5.00) – 4.64

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXIII. Georgia (4.64) – 3.57

XXIV. Kazakhstan (2.14) – 3.21

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXVI. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2.93) – 2.93

XXVII. Azerbaijan (2.14) – 2.86

XXVIII. Ukraine (3.93) – 2.71

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXXI. Russia (2.86) – 2.14

……………………………………………………………………………………….

XXXIII. Belarus (3.93) – 2.00

<…>

 

In 2020, 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 – 12 (14)

 

2. Governments of high effectiveness – 19 (17)

 

3. Governments of medium effectiveness – 12 (11)

 

4. Governments of minimally sufficient effectiveness – 6 (8)

 

5. Ineffective governments – 1 (0)

 

As we see, the group of the most effective governments in 2020 has embraced about a quarter of 50 today’s European World countries and has been stable enough. After 2014, only Belgium and Malta have 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. On the contrary, substantial regression of Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland (all three – 2 ranks down) should be mentioned.

The group of the governments of high effectiveness is the most numerous: in 2020 it has embraced 38% of 50 Global Europe countries. After 2014, Malta (5 ranks down…) and Belgium from the higher level plus Latvia from the lower level entered the group – prestigious enough. Within this group, the progress of Portugal (4 ranks up!), France, Israel, the United Kingdom and Hungary (all four – 2 ranks up) is noteworthy. On the contrary, substantial regression of the Czech Republic and Slovakia (both – 4 ranks down), the USA (the bulwark of democracy – 3 ranks down…), Slovenia (2 ranks down) should be mentioned. In 2020, Cyprus (4 ranks down), Bulgaria (3 ranks down) and Poland dropped out from this group.

The group of the governments of medium effectiveness in 2020 has embraced about a quarter of 50 today’s European World countries. After 2014, Georgia has dropped out from this group (4 ranks down) but instead of it Albania (7 ranks up!) and effectively revolutionary Armenia (10 ranks up!) have entered the level.

The group of the governments of minimally sufficient effectiveness in 2020 has included only one tenth of 50 Global Europe countries. After 2014, the regression of Ukraine (6 ranks down) and Russia (4 ranks down) is noteworthy at this level.

(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: https://newssky.com.ua/democracy-and-economic-development/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/the-index-of-political-economy/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/political-economic-regions/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/from-the-30-to-the-40-primary-political-economic-regions-of-the-world-and-global-europe-concepts-conceptions/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/countries-and-the-enlarged-or-secondary-regions/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/information-on-the-primary-global-political-economic-regions/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/part-iii-the-40-primary-global-political-economic-regions-development-in-2016/.

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: https://newssky.com.ua/on-55-states-and-20-primary-political-economic-regions-of-global-europe-farewell-paper-for-the-series/.

Чернецький Ю. Про індекс демократії України та інших держав пострадянської Європи [Електронний ресурс] / Ю.Чернецький  // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Інтернет-журнал]. – 2020. – 19 квітня. – Режим доступу: https://newssky.com.ua/pro-indeks-demokrati%D1%97-ukra%D1%97ni-ta-inshih-derzhav-postradyansko%D1%97-%D1%94vropi/.

Чернецький Ю. Про національний індекс економічної продуктивності України та інших держав пострадянської Європи тощо (початок) [Електронний ресурс] / Ю.Чернецький  // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Інтернет-журнал]. – 2020. – 24 квітня. – Режим доступу: https://newssky.com.ua/pro-naczionalnij-indeks-ekonomichno%D1%97-produktivnosti-ukra%D1%97ni-ta-inshih-derzhav-postradyansko%D1%97-%D1%94vropi-toshho-pochatok/.

Чернецький Ю. Про індекс політико-економічних досягнень України та інших держав глобальної Європи (закінчення) [Електронний ресурс] / Ю.Чернецький  // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Інтернет-журнал]. – 2020. – 30 квітня. – Режим доступу: https://newssky.com.ua/pro-indeks-politiko-ekonomichnih-dosyagnen-ukra%D1%97ni-ta-inshih-derzhav-globalno%D1%97-%D1%94vropi-zakinchennya/.

Chernetskiy Y. Again on Global Europe or today’s European World: 2014–2019 change of its 50 states’ political-economic indexes (Part I) [Electronic resource] / Yuriy O. Chernetskiy // NEWSSKY.COM.UA: [Internet Journal]. – 2020. – May 16. – Way of access: https://newssky.com.ua/27925-2/.

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.

Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in health? – London etc.: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2021.

Gross national income per capita 2019, Atlas method and PPP: World Development Indicators database / World Bank. – 2020. – 1 July.

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.

Матеріал підготовлено до XVIII щорічних Академічних читань пам’яті засновника і першого президента Академії наук вищої школи України (АН ВШУ) Віталія Іларіоновича СТРІХИ — визначного вченого-фізика, педагога та громадського діяча. Читання було проведено в Києві (у режимі он-лайн) 6 лютого 2021 року.