Across 168 countries, Ease of forming a party and Political rights (FH) rise and fall together at r = -0.78 (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 = -0.80, q = 0.0097, allowing for the many pairs tested).
Comparing countries across the middle half of political rights (FH), 2 to 6 points, ease of forming a party is worse by 2.04 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 2.36 points.
Link before adjusting (r)-0.783p = 4.7e-36 · 168 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.804p = 5.2e-39 · likely range [-0.85, -0.74]
p, allowing for regions6.6e-5standard error 0.082 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.010across 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
Political rights (FH) · rating (1-7, 1 = most free)link with income -0.48 · moderate
“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.
Every country as a dot
best-fit line line after adjusting
Four ways to measure the link
Method
r
p
Countries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted
-0.783
4.7e-36
168
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted
-0.824
8.8e-43
168
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income
-0.804
5.2e-39
168
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income
-0.795
1.1e-37
168
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: -0.021 (a minus sign means it grew).
How solid is it?
Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.812 (without VUT) to -0.796 (without ARE). 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: VUT (-0.009).
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.
n
r
East Asia & Pacific
21
-0.83
Europe & Central Asia
49
-0.86
Latin America & Caribbean
23
-0.57
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan
21
-0.75
Sub-Saharan Africa
46
-0.76
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.
n
r
Poorest third
56
-0.73
Middle third
56
-0.77
Richest third
56
-0.88
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.
n
r
Christians
99
-0.73
Muslims
48
-0.72
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.
n
r
France
25
-0.54
Never a European colony
21
-0.78
Spain
19
-0.74
United Kingdom
49
-0.79
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.
n
r
Nationalist
25
-0.72
No strong official ideology
116
-0.70
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.
n
r
A few parties banned
26
-0.75
No parties banned
121
-0.64
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 = -0.799 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 = -0.493). It holds even when looking only at changes from one year to the next (r = -0.289). 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)-0.804for comparison
Within countries-0.508each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.493q = 0.000 · 176 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.289q = 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.
6,249 country-years (one country in one year), 176 countries, 1990–2025, about 36 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 14% for Ease of forming a party, 14% for Political rights (FH). 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
Same year (lag 0): -0.493. 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)
rating (1-7, 1 = most free)
Years
United States USA
2.95
2
2025
Costa Rica CRI
2.81
1
2025
Sweden SWE
2.76
1
2025
Argentina ARG
2.75
2
2025
Belgium BEL
2.72
1
2025
Austria AUT
2.68
1
2025
Italy ITA
2.66
2
2025
United Kingdom GBR
2.65
1
2025
Switzerland CHE
2.63
1
2025
South Africa ZAF
2.6
2
2025
Trinidad and Tobago TTO
2.57
2
2025
Denmark DNK
2.53
1
2025
Cyprus CYP
2.51
1
2025
Sri Lanka LKA
2.5
3
2025
Japan JPN
2.48
1
2025
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. Freedom House, Freedom in the World
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.
Freedom House · via Our World in Data · Free to use with attribution · updated annual
Scored 1 to 7, where 1 is most free. That is the reverse of most measures on this site. Covers elections, the freedom to form competing parties, and how government works. Freedom House changed its method in 2003, adding scores for smaller categories. But the 1-7 ratings are still the published series that runs through all the years.
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 Political rights (FH)
This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Ease of forming a party changes Political rights (FH), or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.
More links with Ease of forming a party or Political rights (FH)