Do Regime type and Wellbeing score go together across countries?

Across 103 countries the link before adjusting for anything is r = +0.51, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). A version that uses only each country's rank gives +0.52.

Does the link hold within countries over time, not just across countries?

There are not enough years of data within countries to check this over time.

Does Regime type cause Wellbeing score?

This analysis cannot answer that. It shows only that the two go together. A link between two country measures, adjusted or not, does not show that either one changes the other. Country figures also say nothing about individual people.

Regime type vs. Wellbeing score

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 103 countries, Regime type and Wellbeing score rise and fall together at r = +0.51 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.16, which could easily be chance (q = 0.34, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things. Caution: direction is not consistent across regions.

Comparing countries across the middle half of regime type, 1 to 3 points, wellbeing score is better by 0.775 typical gaps at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.209 typical gaps.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.513p = 3.0e-8 · 103 countries

After adjusting for national income+0.165p = 0.098 · likely range [-0.03, +0.35]

p, allowing for regions0.151standard error 0.100 · 7 regions

Check for luck (q)0.344across 12,497 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.

Regime type · regime category (0-3)link with income +0.49 · moderate

Wellbeing score · typical gaps (standard deviations)link with income +0.80 · high

“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	+0.513	3.0e-8	103
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted	+0.524	1.4e-8	103
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income	+0.165	0.098	103
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income	+0.087	0.387	103

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 103 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: +0.348 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.134 (without HKG) to +0.200 (without CHN). 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: CHN (+0.036).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.

direction is not consistent across regions

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	14	+0.29
Europe & Central Asia	48	+0.28
Latin America & Caribbean	13	-0.31
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan	13	-0.43

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	35	-0.15
Middle third	34	-0.09
Richest third	34	+0.44

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	61	+0.13
Muslims	28	-0.12

By last european coloniser

	n	r
Never a European colony	15	-0.00
Spain	12	-0.03
United Kingdom	25	+0.18

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 = +0.177 after dropping 1 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 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data

	regime category (0-3)	typical gaps (standard deviations)	Years
Uruguay URY	3	0.449	2025, 2022
Trinidad and Tobago TTO	3	0.0637	2025, 2014
Sweden SWE	3	1.7	2025, 2022
New Zealand NZL	3	1.46	2025, 2022
Norway NOR	3	1.82	2025, 2022
Netherlands NLD	3	1.54	2025, 2022
Latvia LVA	3	0.212	2025, 2022
Luxembourg LUX	3	0.652	2025, 2010
Lithuania LTU	3	0.51	2025, 2022
Korea, Rep. KOR	3	0.475	2025, 2022
Japan JPN	3	0.552	2025, 2022
Italy ITA	3	0.438	2025, 2022
Iceland ISL	3	1.78	2025, 2022
Ireland IRL	3	0.894	2025, 2010
France FRA	3	0.717	2025, 2022

Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project
ivs; whr

Sources

Regime type

Regime type, Regimes of the World classification

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

Four ranked categories, not a scale. It is the only such measure on this site. A closed autocracy holds no multiparty elections for its leader. An electoral autocracy holds them, but they are neither free nor fair. An electoral democracy clears that bar. A liberal democracy also has independent courts and protected personal freedoms. The four steps are not equal distances apart. So read the rank-based link, which uses only the order, rather than the ordinary one. Both are shown. The categories are set by cut-off points on the V-Dem indices already on this site. That is why its pairs with them are flagged as built from the same numbers. It is also why it is kept out of the governance score: a grouping of those indices averaged back in beside them would count each twice. Our World in Data extends the categories back to territories before independence. This site starts at 1960, and its single-year snapshot at 2010, so that extension reaches nothing shown here.

Wellbeing score

PlaceStats · via PlaceStats · Derived work; each member keeps its own licence · updated recomputed with the panel

The average of 3 measures from 2 publishers. Each measure is first put on a common scale: 0 is the average country in an average year, and 1 is a typical gap between countries (a standard deviation). Each is turned so that higher is better. Measures are averaged within each publisher first, so a publisher with many measures does not count for more. Members: Self-reported happiness, Interpersonal trust, Life satisfaction.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2010–2025. 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 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Regime type and Wellbeing score

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Regime type changes Wellbeing score, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.