Democracy-Dictatorship Index

Democracy-Dictatorship (DD),^[1] index of democracy and dictatorship^[2] or simply the DD index^[3] or the DD datasets was the binary measure of democracy and dictatorship first proposed by Adam Przeworski et al. (2010), and further developed and maintained by Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2009).^[4] Note that the most recent dataset was updated 2008.

Based on the regime binary classification idea proposed by Alvarez in 1996,^[5] and the Democracy and Development (or DD measure, ACLP dataset) proposed by Przeworski et al. (2010), Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland developed a six-fold regime classification scheme, resulting what the authors called as the DD datasets.^[1]^: 68

The DD dataset covers the annual data points of 199 countries from 1946 (or date of independence) to 2008.^[1]^: 68 The figures at the left show the results in 1988 and 2008.

Six-fold regime classification scheme and its rules

The DD index first classifies the regimes into two types: democracies and dictatorships. For democracies, it categorizes them into three types: parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential democracies. For dictatorships, monarchic, military and civilian dictatorship.^[1] " Based on a "minimalist" theory of democracy, the index relies on rules regarding the existence of competitive elections.^[1]^[3] Resorting to democratic concepts by Karl Popper and Joseph Schumpeter, Przeworski defended the minimalist approach, citing Popper that "the only system in which citizens can get rid of governments without bloodshed."^[6]

Four rules

For a regime to be considered as a democracy by the DD scheme, it must meet the requirement of four rules below:^[1]^: 69^[3]

The chief executive must be chosen by popular election or by a body that was itself popularly elected.

The legislature must be popularly elected.

There must be more than one party competing in the elections.

An alternation in power under electoral rules identical to the ones that brought the incumbent to office must have taken place.

Some regimes may meet the first three rules, but lack an alternation in power in its historical past; these regimes are classified as dictatorships because of cases where the incumbent only allows elections as long as they keep winning, and would refuse to step down if they lost. However, since they might also give up power willingly, the regime is marked with a type II value to signal potential classification errors where a democratic regime may be falsely classified as dictatorship.^[1]^: 70. This does not indicate cases of semi-democracy or semi-dictatorship.^[1]^: 71. The authors acknowledged that the last rule is more complicated to implement, but stated that it helps researchers to control potential errors and removes subjective judgement from the classification.^[1]^: 70

Countries

The Democracy-Dictatorship Index has the main regime types of "democracy" and "dictatorship" and three sub-types for each as well. Democracies can be either parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential and dictatorships can be civilian, military, or royal. Many countries which are seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alternation in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election. Therefore, it is impossible to know if the regime is a democracy or a dictatorship, so DD Index considers them dictatorships until an alternation in power occurs.

Countries by regime type (2008)^[7]^{[needs update]}
Regime	Type	Subtype	Reason for Dictatorship^[7]
Afghanistan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Albania	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Algeria	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Andorra	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Angola	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Antigua and Barbuda	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Argentina	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Armenia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Australia	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Austria	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Azerbaijan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Bahamas	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Bahrain	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No parties
Bangladesh	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No Legislature 3. No legislative parties
Barbados	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Belarus	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Belgium	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Belize	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Benin	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Bhutan	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Bolivia	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Botswana	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Brazil	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Brunei	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected 3. One party
Bulgaria	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Burkina Faso	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Burundi	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Cambodia	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 3. No legislative parties
Cameroon	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Canada	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Cape Verde	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Central African Republic	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Chad	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Chile	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
China	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. All parties are in regime
Colombia	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Comoros	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Congo	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Costa Rica	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Ivory Coast	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship
Croatia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Cuba	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Cyprus	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Czech Republic	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
DR Congo	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Denmark	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Djibouti	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. One legislative party
Dominica	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Dominican Republic	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
East Timor	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Ecuador	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Egypt	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
El Salvador	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Equatorial Guinea	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Eritrea	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected 3. All parties banned 4. No alternation in power
Estonia	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Ethiopia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. All parties are in regime 4. No alternation in power
Fiji	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No Legislature 3. No Legislative parties
Finland	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
France	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Gabon	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Gambia	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Georgia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Germany	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Ghana	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Greece	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Grenada	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Guatemala	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Guinea	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Guinea-Bissau	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Guyana	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Haiti	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Honduras	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Hungary	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Iceland	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
India	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Indonesia	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Iran	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship
Iraq	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	All parties in regime
Ireland	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Israel	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Italy	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Jamaica	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Japan	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Jordan	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Kazakhstan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Kenya	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Kiribati	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Kuwait	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 3. All parties legally banned
Kyrgyzstan	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Laos	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	3. Legally single party state
Latvia	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Lebanon	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Lesotho	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Liberia	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Libya	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature is appointed 3. No parties
Liechtenstein	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Lithuania	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Luxembourg	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Macedonia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Madagascar	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Malawi	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Malaysia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. All parties in regime 4. No alternation in power
Maldives	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Mali	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Malta	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Marshall Islands	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Mauritania	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No Legislature 3. No Legislative parties
Mauritius	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Mexico	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Micronesia	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Moldova	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Mongolia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Montenegro	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship^{[clarification needed]}	4. No alternation in power
Morocco	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Mozambique	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Myanmar	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No Legislature 3. No Legislative parties
Namibia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Nauru	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Nepal	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Netherlands	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
New Zealand	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Nicaragua	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship
Niger	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Nigeria	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
North Korea	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected
Norway	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Oman	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature is closed 3. No Legislative parties
Pakistan	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Palau	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Panama	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Papua New Guinea	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Paraguay	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Peru	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Philippines	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Poland	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Portugal	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Qatar	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected 3. No Legislative parties
Romania	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Russia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Rwanda	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Samoa	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
San Marino	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
São Tomé and Príncipe	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Saudi Arabia	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected 3. No Legislative parties
Senegal	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Serbia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Seychelles	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Sierra Leone	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Singapore	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Slovakia	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Slovenia	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Solomon Islands	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Somalia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	2. Legislature not elected 3. No Legislative parties
South Africa	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
South Korea	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Spain	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Sri Lanka	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Saint Lucia	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Sudan	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected
Suriname	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Swaziland	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 3. Legally single party state
Sweden	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Switzerland	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Syria	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	3. All parties in regime
Taiwan	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
Tajikistan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Tanzania	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Thailand	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Togo	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Tonga	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. Legislature not elected 3. All parties legally banned 4. No alternation in power
Trinidad and Tobago	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Tunisia	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Turkey	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Turkmenistan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. Legally one party state
Tuvalu	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Uganda	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Ukraine	Democracy	Semi-Presidential Democracy
United Arab Emirates	Dictatorship	Royal Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 2. No Legislature 3. No Legislative parties
United Kingdom	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
United States	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Uruguay	Democracy	Presidential Democracy
Uzbekistan	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	3. One party 4. No alternation in power
Vanuatu	Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Venezuela	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 4. No alternation in power
Vietnam	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	1. Executive not elected 3. One party
Yemen	Dictatorship	Military Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Zambia	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power
Zimbabwe	Dictatorship	Civilian Dictatorship	4. No alternation in power

Democracy classification

Democracies are classified by the rules in which executives can be appointed or removed and can be either presidential, mixed or semi-presidential, or parliamentary.^[1]^[8]^: 454 It is important to note that these names do not have to correspond to the official or colloquial titles of any of the countries offices. For example, DD could classify a country which has a legislative assembly whose official name is "the parliament" but still classify it in any of the three categories. The classification depends on the rules outlining the relationship between a country's government, legislative assembly (often called the legislature), and head of state.^[8]^: 454 The government composes the chief executive and the heads of the executive departments. The chief executive can take many titles including chancellor, prime minister, or premier and the heads of the executive departments can bear different titles and be called different things. In the United Kingdom, for example, the chief executive is the prime minister, and the ministers are the heads of the executive departments, which together compose the government.

Legislative responsibility

The first distinction made is whether a country has a government has legislative responsibility, i.e. whether a majority vote in the legislature can remove the sitting government without cause. The required majority needed to remove the sitting government varies between countries but is termed a vote of no confidence.^[8]^: 455 Some countries (such as Spain, Belgium, Germany, and Israel) require that the vote of no confidence also specify who is going to replace the sitting government to minimize the time without an interim government, essentially replacing one government with another. This type of vote is termed a constructive vote of no confidence.^[8]^: 455 Sometimes sitting governments will attach a vote of no confidence clause to a piece of legislation they want passed, effectively tying the survival of the government on the piece of legislation.^[8]^: 456

Head of state

The second distinction made is whether the head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term. The head of state may be unelected and still be classified as a democracy.^[1] Popularly elected means that the head of state is directly elected by the citizens or elected by an assembly which then elects them (an example being the electoral college in the United States). In Germany, the head of state is elected by regional legislatures and not popularly elected.^[8]^: 457 Elected heads of state are usually referred to as "president." The phrase "fixed term" indicates the once the head of state is chosen, they serve a known and a limited number of years before another election is held, and they cannot be removed from the office in the meantime via a vote of no confidence.^[8]^: 456

The head of state in most parliamentary democracies formally appoint the head of government.^[8]^: 465 Some countries, such as Greece and Bulgaria, stipulate who the head of state chooses as head of government. In the former, for example, the President must appoint as Prime Minister the leader of the largest party in parliament, who has three days to gain the confidence of a majority thereof.

Some countries, such as Sweden, instead charge another person entirely with choosing the head of government, such as the presiding officer of the legislative assembly.

Classification

The first distinction made is whether a democracy's government is responsible to the legislature. If it is not responsible, it is a presidential democracy. If it is, then a further distinction is made between democracies where the head of state is popularly elected and those where the head of state is not popularly elected. If the head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term then, the democracy is mixed or semi-presidential. If the head of state serves for life or is not popularly elected or a fixed term, then the democracy is parliamentary.^[1]

The table below offers a full list of which countries are what type of democracy. Keep note that the head of state, chief executive, government, and legislatures can have their official names be seemingly contradictory to this classification. The name a democracy gives itself or its office does not indicate what type of democracy it is.

Definitions

A presidential democracy has a government that does not need the majority support of a legislature to stay in power. A semi-presidential (mixed) democracy has a government that needs the majority of support from a legislature to exist and whose head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term. Parliamentary democracy is the same as semi-presidential but has heads of state which are not popularly elected for a fixed term, typically either monarchs or officials not chosen by popular elections. ^[8]^: 457

Comparison with other democracy-measuring data sets

The DD dataset is limited to 199 countries after 1946, whereas Boix, Miller, & Rosato, 2013 proposed a data set from 1800 to 2007, covering 219 countries. The 2010 version of Polity data series covers 189 countries from 1800 to 2009.^[9]

Gugiu & Centellas developed the Democracy Cluster Classification Index that integrates five democracy indicators (including the DD dataset, Polity dataset), clustering 24 American and 39 European regimes over 30 years.^[2]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (April 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. JSTOR 40661005. S2CID 45234838.
^ ^a ^b Ristei, Mihaiela; Centellas, Miguel (Summer 2013). "The Democracy Cluster Classification Index". Political Analysis. 21 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt004.
^ ^a ^b ^c Keech, William R. (14 October 2013). Economic Politics in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-107-00414-6. Retrieved 24 March 2014. Specifically, the DD index (for Democracy and Dictatorship) assesses the United States as a democracy from 1946, the first measured, through 2008, the last year of measurement. ... My definition of a democracy is minimalist, like the DD definition of Cheibub, Gadhi, and Vreeland (2010), but it adds a dimension. Like DD, it considers the presence of contested elections a necessary condition of ....
^ Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert R. (August 2012). "Inequality and regime change: democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule". American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 495–516. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000287. S2CID 28273700.
^ Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. A.; Limongi, F.; Przeworski, A. (1996). "Classifying political regimes". Studies in Comparative International Development. 31 (2): 3–36. doi:10.1007/bf02719326. S2CID 154376266.
^ Przeworski, Adam (2003). "Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense". In Robert Alan Dahl, Ian Shapiro& José Antônio Cheibub (ed.). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
^ ^a ^b "DD - José Antonio Cheibub". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2022-09-05.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Clark, Robert Williams; Golder, Matt; Golder, Nadenichek (2018). Principles of Comparative Politics (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. pp. 454–467. ISBN 978-1506318127.
^ Boix, Carles; Miller, Michael; Rosato, Sebastian (December 2013). "A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007". Comparative Political Studies. 46 (12): 1523–1554. doi:10.1177/0010414012463905. S2CID 45833659.

External links

DD dataset and citations Archived 2014-02-23 at the Wayback Machine
ACLP datsset and citations Archived 2014-03-15 at the Wayback Machine
Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, and Limongi: Democracy and development Archived 2014-03-24 at the Wayback Machine From WikiSummary, the Free Social Science Summary Database

[Cheibub2010-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (April 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. JSTOR 40661005. S2CID 45234838.

[GugiuCentellas_2013-2] Ristei, Mihaiela; Centellas, Miguel (Summer 2013). "The Democracy Cluster Classification Index". Political Analysis. 21 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt004.

[Keech2013-3] Keech, William R. (14 October 2013). Economic Politics in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-107-00414-6. Retrieved 24 March 2014. Specifically, the DD index (for Democracy and Dictatorship) assesses the United States as a democracy from 1946, the first measured, through 2008, the last year of measurement. ... My definition of a democracy is minimalist, like the DD definition of Cheibub, Gadhi, and Vreeland (2010), but it adds a dimension. Like DD, it considers the presence of contested elections a necessary condition of ....

[Haggard&Kaufman2013-4] Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert R. (August 2012). "Inequality and regime change: democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule". American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 495–516. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000287. S2CID 28273700.

[Alvarez1996-5] Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. A.; Limongi, F.; Przeworski, A. (1996). "Classifying political regimes". Studies in Comparative International Development. 31 (2): 3–36. doi:10.1007/bf02719326. S2CID 154376266.

[Przeworski_2003-6] Przeworski, Adam (2003). "Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense". In Robert Alan Dahl, Ian Shapiro& José Antônio Cheibub (ed.). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Retrieved 24 March 2014.

[DDdata-7] "DD - José Antonio Cheibub". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2022-09-05.

[CGG-8] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Clark, Robert Williams; Golder, Matt; Golder, Nadenichek (2018). Principles of Comparative Politics (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. pp. 454–467. ISBN 978-1506318127.

[Boix,_Miller,_&_Rosato,_2013-9] Boix, Carles; Miller, Michael; Rosato, Sebastian (December 2013). "A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007". Comparative Political Studies. 46 (12): 1523–1554. doi:10.1177/0010414012463905. S2CID 45833659.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]