placestats

Ease of forming a party vs. Free and fair elections

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 168 countries, Ease of forming a party and Free and fair elections rise and fall together at r = +0.69 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = +0.71, q = 0.017, allowing for the many pairs tested).

Comparing countries across the middle half of free and fair elections, 0.233 to 0.872 points, ease of forming a party is better by 1.92 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 2.38 points.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.686p = 9.9e-25 · 168 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.712p = 4.0e-27 · likely range [+0.63, +0.78]
p, allowing for regions5.4e-6standard error 0.047 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.017across 17,292 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Ease of forming a party · score (higher = fewer barriers)link with income +0.38 · moderate
Free and fair elections · index (0-1)link with income +0.61 · high

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Ease of forming a party · score (higher = fewer barriers) →Free and fair elections · index (0-1) →-3.832.9500.968Afghanistan: -2.68 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Angola: 0.203 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.293 index (0-1)Albania: 2.27 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.467 index (0-1)United Arab Emirates: -3.19 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.543 index (0-1)Argentina: 2.75 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.878 index (0-1)Armenia: 2.12 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.673 index (0-1)Australia: 2.08 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.962 index (0-1)Austria: 2.68 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.938 index (0-1)Azerbaijan: -0.865 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.111 index (0-1)Burundi: 0.437 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.107 index (0-1)Belgium: 2.72 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.968 index (0-1)Benin: 0.373 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.638 index (0-1)Burkina Faso: 0.206 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Bangladesh: 1.43 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Bulgaria: 2.16 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.64 index (0-1)Bahrain: -1.39 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.274 index (0-1)Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1.72 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.511 index (0-1)Belarus: -1 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.194 index (0-1)Bolivia: 2.01 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.765 index (0-1)Brazil: 1.85 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.838 index (0-1)Barbados: 1.99 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.875 index (0-1)Bhutan: 0.466 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.865 index (0-1)Botswana: 2.17 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.803 index (0-1)Central African Republic: 0.091 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.123 index (0-1)Canada: 1.51 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.944 index (0-1)Switzerland: 2.63 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.942 index (0-1)Chile: 1.41 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.956 index (0-1)China: -2.15 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Cote d'Ivoire: 0.97 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.333 index (0-1)Cameroon: 0.399 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.12 index (0-1)Congo, Dem. Rep.: 0.336 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.18 index (0-1)Congo, Rep.: 0.638 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.076 index (0-1)Colombia: 2.28 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.756 index (0-1)Comoros: 0.077 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.183 index (0-1)Cabo Verde: 1.9 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.836 index (0-1)Costa Rica: 2.81 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.944 index (0-1)Cyprus: 2.51 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.909 index (0-1)Czechia: 2.44 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.94 index (0-1)Germany: 2.07 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.957 index (0-1)Djibouti: -0.201 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.167 index (0-1)Denmark: 2.53 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.961 index (0-1)Dominican Republic: 2.05 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.768 index (0-1)Algeria: 0.068 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.307 index (0-1)Ecuador: 1.02 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.827 index (0-1)Egypt, Arab Rep.: -0.608 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.137 index (0-1)Spain: 2.26 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.956 index (0-1)Estonia: 1.83 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.952 index (0-1)Ethiopia: 0.123 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.324 index (0-1)Finland: 2.09 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.961 index (0-1)Fiji: 0.734 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.54 index (0-1)France: 2.39 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.941 index (0-1)Gabon: 0.958 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.186 index (0-1)United Kingdom: 2.65 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.924 index (0-1)Georgia: 0.756 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.32 index (0-1)Ghana: 2.4 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.709 index (0-1)Guinea: 1.2 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.002 index (0-1)Gambia, The: 1.03 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.777 index (0-1)Guinea-Bissau: 0.846 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Equatorial Guinea: -0.334 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.078 index (0-1)Greece: 1.67 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.944 index (0-1)Guatemala: 1.65 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.666 index (0-1)Guyana: 2 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.489 index (0-1)Hong Kong SAR, China: -0.351 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.286 index (0-1)Honduras: 1.68 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.351 index (0-1)Croatia: 2.24 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.875 index (0-1)Haiti: 1.67 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Hungary: 0.843 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.597 index (0-1)Indonesia: 1.57 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.518 index (0-1)India: 0.841 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.495 index (0-1)Ireland: 2.04 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.945 index (0-1)Iran, Islamic Rep.: -1.19 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.235 index (0-1)Iraq: 0.461 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.372 index (0-1)Iceland: 2.11 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.929 index (0-1)Israel: 1.41 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.873 index (0-1)Italy: 2.66 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.945 index (0-1)Jamaica: 1.59 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.884 index (0-1)Jordan: 1.47 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.592 index (0-1)Japan: 2.48 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.937 index (0-1)Kazakhstan: -0.133 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.339 index (0-1)Kenya: 0.925 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.493 index (0-1)Kyrgyz Republic: 0.273 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.426 index (0-1)Cambodia: -0.468 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.092 index (0-1)Korea, Rep.: 1.59 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.935 index (0-1)Kuwait: -2.95 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Lao PDR: -1.37 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.236 index (0-1)Lebanon: 1.46 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.307 index (0-1)Liberia: 2.21 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.592 index (0-1)Libya: 0.705 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Sri Lanka: 2.5 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.914 index (0-1)Lesotho: 2.02 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.785 index (0-1)Lithuania: 2.12 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.882 index (0-1)Luxembourg: 1.5 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.944 index (0-1)Latvia: 2.25 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.92 index (0-1)Morocco: 1.03 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.455 index (0-1)Moldova: 2.38 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.662 index (0-1)Madagascar: 1.67 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.183 index (0-1)Maldives: 1.18 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.643 index (0-1)Mexico: 1.18 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.545 index (0-1)North Macedonia: 0.957 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.701 index (0-1)Mali: -1.46 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Malta: 2.37 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.903 index (0-1)Myanmar: -1.11 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Montenegro: 2.03 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.608 index (0-1)Mongolia: 0.779 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.586 index (0-1)Mozambique: 0.635 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.089 index (0-1)Mauritania: -0.372 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.288 index (0-1)Mauritius: 2.24 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.865 index (0-1)Malawi: 2.07 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.596 index (0-1)Malaysia: 1.93 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.598 index (0-1)Namibia: 2.19 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.604 index (0-1)Niger: 0.246 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Nigeria: 2.41 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.355 index (0-1)Nicaragua: -1.84 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.137 index (0-1)Netherlands: 2.18 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.954 index (0-1)Norway: 2.24 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.966 index (0-1)Nepal: 1.98 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.693 index (0-1)New Zealand: 2.28 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.954 index (0-1)Oman: -2.88 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.689 index (0-1)Pakistan: -0.151 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.174 index (0-1)Panama: 2.33 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.84 index (0-1)Peru: 2.21 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.861 index (0-1)Philippines: 1.15 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.271 index (0-1)Papua New Guinea: 1.99 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.27 index (0-1)Poland: 1.98 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.825 index (0-1)Portugal: 2.14 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.94 index (0-1)Paraguay: 1.34 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.633 index (0-1)Qatar: -3.69 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Romania: 1.95 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.658 index (0-1)Russian Federation: -0.688 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.135 index (0-1)Rwanda: -0.686 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.227 index (0-1)Saudi Arabia: -3.83 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Sudan: 0.02 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Senegal: 2.27 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.701 index (0-1)Singapore: 0.645 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.782 index (0-1)Solomon Islands: 1.75 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.748 index (0-1)Sierra Leone: 1.62 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.319 index (0-1)El Salvador: 1.02 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.307 index (0-1)Somalia, Fed. Rep.: 0.916 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Serbia: 0.852 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.212 index (0-1)Sao Tome and Principe: 1.94 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.753 index (0-1)Suriname: 2.19 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.864 index (0-1)Slovak Republic: 2.31 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.938 index (0-1)Slovenia: 2.44 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.916 index (0-1)Sweden: 2.76 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.945 index (0-1)Eswatini: -3.23 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.376 index (0-1)Seychelles: 1.65 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.884 index (0-1)Syrian Arab Republic: -0.68 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0 index (0-1)Chad: -0.191 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.079 index (0-1)Togo: 0.982 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.309 index (0-1)Thailand: 0.334 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.457 index (0-1)Tajikistan: -1.43 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.094 index (0-1)Turkmenistan: -1.27 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.071 index (0-1)Timor-Leste: 1.78 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.857 index (0-1)Trinidad and Tobago: 2.57 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.872 index (0-1)Tunisia: 0.69 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.445 index (0-1)Turkiye: 0.418 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.417 index (0-1)Tanzania: 0.471 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.364 index (0-1)Uganda: 0.283 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.129 index (0-1)Ukraine: 0.779 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.604 index (0-1)Uruguay: 2.18 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.947 index (0-1)United States: 2.95 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.902 index (0-1)Uzbekistan: -0.777 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.304 index (0-1)Viet Nam: -2.93 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.527 index (0-1)Vanuatu: 0.367 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.853 index (0-1)Kosovo: 1.86 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.699 index (0-1)South Africa: 2.6 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.849 index (0-1)Zambia: 1.75 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.461 index (0-1)Zimbabwe: 0.812 score (higher = fewer barriers), 0.171 index (0-1)AREBELBGDCRIGINHTIKWTOMNQATSAUUSAVNM

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.6869.9e-25168
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.7633.1e-33168
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.7124.0e-27168
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.7278.6e-29168

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 168 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: -0.026 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.691 (without QAT) to +0.731 (without OMN). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: QAT (-0.021).

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific21+0.65
Europe & Central Asia49+0.82
Latin America & Caribbean23+0.47
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan21+0.65
Sub-Saharan Africa46+0.59

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third56+0.57
Middle third56+0.68
Richest third56+0.84

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians99+0.62
Muslims48+0.57

By last European coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
France25+0.19
Never a European colony21+0.79
Spain19+0.66
United Kingdom49+0.69

By official ideology

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Nationalist25+0.65
No strong official ideology116+0.66

By party system

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
A few parties banned26+0.61
No parties banned121+0.58

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = +0.734 after dropping 8 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 36years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

The link also shows up within countries over time (r = +0.503). It holds even when looking only at changes from one year to the next (r = +0.220). This is the strongest kind of evidence available here: it holds when each country is compared only with itself, and it is not just a product of shared trends.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.712for comparison
Within countries+0.533each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.503q = 0.000 · 175 countries
Year-on-year changes+0.220q = 0.000
Read with care.
  • The association is much weaker in year-on-year changes than in levels, which points to shared country-specific trends.

6,253 country-years (one country in one year), 175 countries, 1990–2025, about 36 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 16% for Ease of forming a party, 15% for Free and fair elections. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.

Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.

With one measure years behind the other

0.60−0.6-100+10years Free and fair elections trails Ease of forming a party →lag -10: r = 0.027 (n = 4,520)lag -9: r = 0.067 (n = 4,694)lag -8: r = 0.114 (n = 4,868)lag -7: r = 0.153 (n = 5,042)lag -6: r = 0.186 (n = 5,216)lag -5: r = 0.228 (n = 5,390)lag -4: r = 0.284 (n = 5,564)lag -3: r = 0.348 (n = 5,738)lag -2: r = 0.410 (n = 5,911)lag -1: r = 0.465 (n = 6,083)lag +0: r = 0.503 (n = 6,253)lag +1: r = 0.495 (n = 6,080)lag +2: r = 0.450 (n = 5,905)lag +3: r = 0.405 (n = 5,730)lag +4: r = 0.357 (n = 5,555)lag +5: r = 0.308 (n = 5,380)lag +6: r = 0.263 (n = 5,205)lag +7: r = 0.224 (n = 5,030)lag +8: r = 0.180 (n = 4,855)lag +9: r = 0.144 (n = 4,680)lag +10: r = 0.109 (n = 4,505)

Same year (lag 0): +0.503. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.

The data


score (higher = fewer barriers)

index (0-1)
Years
United States USA2.950.9022025
Costa Rica CRI2.810.9442025
Sweden SWE2.760.9452025
Argentina ARG2.750.8782025
Belgium BEL2.720.9682025
Austria AUT2.680.9382025
Italy ITA2.660.9452025
United Kingdom GBR2.650.9242025
Switzerland CHE2.630.9422025
South Africa ZAF2.60.8492025
Trinidad and Tobago TTO2.570.8722025
Denmark DNK2.530.9612025
Cyprus CYP2.510.9092025
Sri Lanka LKA2.50.9142025
Japan JPN2.480.9372025

Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset v16, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project; Lindberg, S. I. et al., Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V-Party) Dataset. Read from the V-Dem Institute's vdemdata package.
Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project

Sources

Ease of forming a party

Barriers to forming a party (higher = fewer barriers)

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · CC BY-SA 4.0 · updated annual (V-Dem); V-Party per election, to 2019

How hard is it to start a new party? Experts answer from 0 ("parties are not allowed") to 4 ("no substantial barriers"), counting both legal hurdles such as deposits and membership rules and harassment of party leaders. V-Dem turns the answers into a score of about -4 to +4. A part of V-Dem's freedom of association index.

Free and fair elections

Free and fair elections index

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · via Our World in Data · CC BY-SA 4.0 · updated annual

Whether elections are run without voter-registration fraud, widespread irregularities, government threats against the opposition, vote buying or election violence. This asks a narrower question than whether a country is a democracy, and one that is easier to answer. A state can run clean elections while barring the opposition from standing. It can also run dirty elections and still change government. It is the clean-elections part of the electoral democracy index. So its pair with that index, and with liberal and participatory democracy, is built from the same numbers and flagged as such.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 17,292 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated V-Dem v16; V-Party v2. How the country data works · explore Ease of forming a party and Free and fair elections

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Ease of forming a party changes Free and fair elections, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Ease of forming a party or Free and fair elections