Addressing a country that was located for approximately half of the examined time on the
edge of two ideologies, of two different concepts of Weltanschauung, it is likely to give rise
to interesting outcomes. Hence, Finland which for a long timeframe after the Second World
War was indeed cornered between the “free” West and the communist Soviet bloc was
chosen deliberately by the author. In this essay, he seeks to explore and to analyze in brief
the development of the level of democracy of this particular nation covering the period
between 1974 and 2006.
Hereby, two different types of measurement are applied and, subsequently, their results are
compared. Concretely, the data coming from Freedom House, respectively from Inglehart &
Welzel’s measure of “effective democracy”, are the main actors both exerting for preferably
appropriate findings. Freedom House measures the degree of democracy of a state by
assessing a two-part set of categories, namely political rights and civil liberties following the
definition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, countries are ranked on
a scale from 1 (highest amount) to 7 (least amount) which implies their level of democracy
(Freedom House 2005).
On the other hand, the concept of “effective democracy” argues that a democratic system of
government is mainly inspired by the idea to empower people. Inglehart and Welzel also
evaluate prevailing political and liberal rights. However, one has to familiarize oneself with
their thesis that rule of law is an additional crucial factor of a state determining whether it is
effective or not. By combining rule of law and democratic rights an index is compiled on a 0-
100 scale classifying the countries as non-democracies, ineffective democracies, and
effective democracies (Welzel 2007a).
Ultimately, it is to mention that a comparison between the two types of measures is only
possible from 1996 to 2006 due to limited data concerning the “effective democracy”.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Finland: The Freedom House Report
3. Finland’s Performance Relating to an “Effective” Democracy
4. The Comparison and Criticism
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This assignment aims to analyze and compare the development of democracy in Finland between 1974 and 2006 by applying two distinct measurement frameworks: the Freedom House report and the "effective democracy" concept by Inglehart and Welzel.
- Evolution of Finland's democratic status during and after the Cold War.
- Methodological differences between Freedom House and "effective democracy" metrics.
- Impact of the rule of law on democratic quality assessments.
- Comparative analysis of Finland's performance relative to other nations, such as the USA.
- Critical evaluation of the reliability and scope of current democratic measurement tools.
Excerpt from the Book
The Comparison and Criticism
Both Freedom House and the concept of an “effective” democracy categorize Finland as a clear democracy. However, that could have been expected. Being a member of the European Union, for example, presumes the status of a high level of democracy, so one could argue that even with a lack of a profound expertise, one is still able to rank the country correctly. Nevertheless, such a statement would simplify the outcomes and the sophisticated methods of the competing approaches. Here, both are examined more in detail with respect to Finland.
In general, the various analytic procedures applied in order to determine the democratic level of a country differ widely and, hence, their outcomes are usually not congruent (Bogaards 2007).
Critics argue that Inglehart & Welzel’s newly invented construct "effective democracy" seems to be conceptually and empirically flawed. Additionally, the results are claimed suspicious as they are likely to conform to model specification (Teorell & Hadenius 2006). What is indeed true is the fact that the questioned model occupies the idea of consideration of rule and law, in contrary to other concepts. However, Freedom House does include the item “rule of law” as an independent subsection of “civil liberties”. This observation is important as it revalues the Freedom House methodology in general. According to that, Finland is also assessed more comprehensively by taking into account broader factors which gives the result more credibility.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the study, focusing on Finland's democratic trajectory from 1974 to 2006 and introducing the two measurement models used for comparison.
2. Finland: The Freedom House Report: The chapter examines Finland's democratic progression through the lens of Freedom House data, highlighting the impact of its Cold War neutrality and subsequent improvement after the collapse of the Eastern bloc.
3. Finland’s Performance Relating to an “Effective” Democracy: This section evaluates Finland's democratic status using the "effective democracy" index, noting its exceptionally high scores and consistent performance on the 0-100 scale.
4. The Comparison and Criticism: This chapter critically compares both models, discussing their methodological differences, data limitations, and how each interprets factors like the rule of law and corruption.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes that both methods complement each other, affirming Finland's status as a high-performing democracy while emphasizing the need for continued vigilance.
Keywords
Finland, Democracy, Freedom House, Effective Democracy, Inglehart, Welzel, Cold War, Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, Comparative Politics, Democratic Measurement, Neutrality, Governance, Corruption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this assignment?
The assignment examines the democratic development of Finland between 1974 and 2006 by applying and comparing two different analytical frameworks.
What are the primary themes addressed in the paper?
Key themes include the historical geopolitical context of Finland, the measurement of democratic quality, and the critical evaluation of institutional democratic indices.
What is the main research objective of this work?
The objective is to test how two competing measures of democracy—Freedom House and "effective democracy"—evaluate Finland's political maturity and to determine if one approach provides a more precise outcome than the other.
Which scientific methodologies are utilized?
The author utilizes a comparative method, contrasting the Freedom House reporting system with the "effective democracy" index developed by Inglehart and Welzel.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the historical constraints on Finnish democracy during the Cold War, the shift in its post-1989 democratic status, and a critique of the methodologies used to assess these changes.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Finland, Democracy, Freedom House, Effective Democracy, Rule of Law, and Comparative Politics.
How did Finland's Cold War status influence its Freedom House score?
Due to its policy of neutrality and organized censorship regarding Soviet relations, Finland maintained an imperfect score of 2 during the 1974–1986 period.
Why does the "effective democracy" model provide a different perspective than Freedom House?
The "effective democracy" model incorporates the "rule of law" as a critical factor and attempts to measure "empowerment" of the people, allowing for more nuanced distinctions between countries that receive identical Freedom House rankings.
What is the limitation regarding data in this comparison?
A direct comparison of the two models is restricted to the period between 1996 and 2006, as reliable data for the "effective democracy" index is not available prior to 1996.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2007, Level of Democracy in Finland: Two Measures of Democracy in Competition, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/175292
