Hubbry Logo
V-Dem InstituteV-Dem InstituteMain
Open search
V-Dem Institute
Community hub
V-Dem Institute
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
V-Dem Institute
V-Dem Institute
V-Dem Institute
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The V-Dem Institute (an abbreviation of Varieties of Democracy Institute), founded by Staffan I. Lindberg in 2014, is an independent research institute that serves as the headquarters of the V-Dem Project, a database that seeks to conceptualize and measure democracy. V-Dem defines democracy using seven key principles (electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, egalitarian, majoritarian, and consensual) that emphasize the concept of "rule of the people."[1] As part of its work, it publishes a dataset known as the V-Dem Democracy Indices that is based on its key principles.

The headquarters of the project is based at the department of political science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.[2]

Democracy indices

[edit]
Main article: V-Dem Democracy Indices
V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index for 2024

The V-Dem Institute publishes a number of high-profile datasets that describe qualities of different governments, annually published and publicly available for free.[3] These datasets are used by political scientists, due to information on hundreds of indicator variables describing all aspects of government, especially on the quality of democracy, inclusivity, and other economic indicators.[4] Compared to other measures of democracy (such as the Polity data series and Freedom House's Freedom in the World), the V-Dem Institute's measures of democracy are more granular[5] and 2020 included "more than 470 indicators, 82 mid-level indices, and 5 high-level indices covering 202 polities from the period of 1789–2019".[5] Political scientist Daniel Hegedus describes V-Dem as "the most important provider of quantitative democracy data for scholarly research".[5]

The V-Dem institute also republishes 59 other indicators[6] and several other indices which are created, in part, with the assistance of V-Dem indices. The Digital Society Project is a subset of indicators on V-Dem's survey which asks questions about the political status of social media and the internet.[7]

Democracy Report

[edit]

The V-Dem Institute publishes the Democracy Report that describes the state of democracy in the world, with a focus on democratization and autocratization.[8] The Democracy Report is published annually in March. The Democracy Report, the dataset, scientific articles, and working papers are free to download on the institute’s website, which also provides interactive graphic tools.[9]

ERT dataset

[edit]

The Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) dataset identifies and collects data on episodes of democratization (liberalizing autocracy, democratic deepening) and autocratization (democratic regression, autocratic regression) within the V-Dem dataset. They conceptualize episodes of regime transformation as "periods when a country undergoes sustained and substantial changes along a democracy-autocracy continuum."[10]

V-Party dataset

[edit]

The Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V-Party) dataset is a database maintained by the V-Dem Institute that tracks the political positions and structures of political parties around the world[11] The database includes parties around the world with over 5% of the vote in their respective systems in the period between 1970 and 2019. [12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

V-Dem Institute

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The V-Dem Institute is an independent research institute affiliated with the Department of Political Science at the in , serving as the headquarters for the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) , which produces extensive expert-coded datasets evaluating diverse aspects of democratic institutions and practices worldwide from 1789 to the present. Led by Professor Staffan I. Lindberg, the institute coordinates a global network of over 4,000 country experts who code more than 600 indicators, aggregated through Bayesian item-response theory models to generate multidimensional indices encompassing electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian principles of . The V-Dem project distinguishes itself by disaggregating into specific components rather than relying on aggregate scores, enabling nuanced analysis of causal mechanisms behind and autocratization trends, and its data has become a foundational resource for scholars studying variations across time and regimes. Funded primarily by foundations such as the alongside university support, the institute publishes annual Democracy Reports documenting global declines in democratic quality, including rising autocratization in over 40 countries since the early . While praised for its scale and granularity, V-Dem's reliance on subjective expert assessments has prompted methodological critiques regarding inter-coder reliability and potential ideological influences in classifications, particularly evident in contentious labels like "" applied to populous democracies with competitive elections but policy divergences from liberal orthodoxies. Such evaluations, drawn from scholarly networks, may reflect prevailing academic priors that systematically undervalue majoritarian or egalitarian emphases in favor of liberal components, leading to debates over the project's empirical robustness in politically polarized contexts.

History and Founding

Origins of the V-Dem Project

The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project originated from the recognition among political scientists that existing , such as and scores, suffered from unidimensional aggregation that obscured variations in democratic attributes across electoral processes, , participation, and other components. This approach stemmed from empirical needs in research, where scholars sought granular, disaggregated indicators to better analyze causal mechanisms in , , and institutional performance, rather than relying on composite scores prone to oversimplification. The project's intellectual foundation emphasized measuring multiple conceptions of —initially encompassing up to seven principles including electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian dimensions—to enable more precise testing and cross-national comparisons. Initial collaborations formed around 2010, led by principal investigators Michael Coppedge at the University of Notre Dame's Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Staffan I. Lindberg at the , John Gerring at the , Jan Teorell at (formerly Stockholm), and Carl Henrik Knutsen at the . Seed funding from the Kellogg Institute and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs supported early planning and infrastructure development, with Notre Dame hosting key software tools for starting in 2011. These partnerships drew on expertise from North American and European universities to address data scarcity in historical and contemporary regimes, prioritizing expert-coded variables for over 400 attributes traceable to 1900 or earlier in select cases. By 2011–2013, pilot datasets emerged through working papers and preliminary releases, testing aggregation techniques for multidimensional indices and validating indicators against historical benchmarks, which laid the empirical groundwork for broader without yet formalizing an . These efforts highlighted the project's commitment to , involving early country coordinators to refine coding protocols for diverse global contexts.

Establishment of the Institute

The V-Dem Institute was formally established in 2014 at the in under the leadership of Staffan I. Lindberg, who served as its founding director from 2014 to 2025. This creation marked the institutionalization of the V-Dem project, shifting it from a decentralized academic collaboration to a centralized operational hub hosted by the Department of . The institute's formation addressed the need for coordinated management of expanding data collection and analysis, enabling systematic oversight of a growing international network of country experts. Initial resources for the institute's setup were provided through internal co-funding from the , specifically the College of Social Sciences and the Department of , which supported and early administrative functions. This foundational backing facilitated the institute's role in curating and validating expert-coded datasets, laying the groundwork for independent research outputs. By centralizing operations in , the entity gained autonomy to pursue long-term projects on measurement without reliance on ad hoc partnerships.

Key Milestones and Expansion

The V-Dem project initiated annual dataset releases starting in the mid-2010s, progressively expanding temporal and spatial coverage to encompass over 200 polities worldwide. By 2018, version 8 integrated the Historical V-Dem extension, pushing data for nearly 200 indicators back to across approximately 80 polities, including major European states and others from the era of the onward. Subsequent versions maintained this historical depth while updating contemporary through 2024, with version 15 released on March 13, 2025, compiling over 31 million points for 202 countries using refined Bayesian models for aggregation. These updates incorporated methodological enhancements, such as improved handling of coder disagreement and new evaluative indicators, to address evolving global democratic trends. Parallel to dataset evolution, the expert coder network scaled to more than 4,000 contributors born across 185 countries by 2025, with 76% holding PhDs and averaging 30 years of in-country experience per coded unit, enabling consistent annual revisions and finer disaggregation of institutional variations. This growth supported extensions into subnational-level coding in select regions via affiliated centers by the mid-2020s, broadening applicability beyond national aggregates.

Organizational Structure and Funding

Leadership and Personnel

The V-Dem Institute is directed by Staffan I. Lindberg, a Swedish political scientist and professor at the , who founded the organization in 2014 and serves as one of its principal investigators with a focus on autocratization processes and democratic backsliding. Lindberg's research emphasizes empirical analysis of regime changes, including publications on how electoral manipulations contribute to authoritarian consolidation, shaping the institute's emphasis on disaggregated indicators. The institute maintains a core staff of approximately 14 personnel at its headquarters, including program managers responsible for coordinating expert quotas, training protocols, and data oversight to ensure consistency in contributions. These managers facilitate the aggregation of inputs from a exceeding 3,000 country experts, primarily recruited from academia and professional fields with documented regional expertise. Expert selection prioritizes individuals with specialized knowledge in specific countries and domains, such as elections or , to code targeted indicators, with a structural goal of securing at least five coders per metric to average out individual variances through statistical weighting. This approach aims to mitigate subjective biases via volume and cross-verification, though reliance on academic-heavy —predominantly from institutions prone to ideological homogeneity—raises causal questions about systemic influences on interpretive judgments, as evidenced by director Lindberg's public assessments of figures like as existential threats to U.S. democracy.

Funding Sources and Governance

The V-Dem Institute's funding primarily derives from competitive academic grants and philanthropic contributions, with key supporters including the Swedish Research Council (via grants such as 2021-00162 for DEMSCORE infrastructure), the (e.g., Consolidator Grant 724191 awarded to principal investigator Staffan I. Lindberg), and the (e.g., grant SES-1423944). Additional funding comes from foundations such as the (grant 2018.0144) and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (grant M13-0559:1), as well as international organizations like International IDEA and Denmark's . These sources have enabled the project's expansion, supporting across over 200 countries and involving thousands of experts, with total grant values reaching multimillion euros over project phases since 2010. Governance of the V-Dem Institute is anchored in its affiliation with the University of Gothenburg's Department of , where it operates as a unit under university oversight, including ethical review boards and academic standards. The institute maintains an internal organizational structure with a director (Staffan I. Lindberg since ) and program-specific , but on priorities and remains insulated from direct donor influence through contractual clauses in grants. No formal governmental control extends to content production, as funding agencies like the Swedish emphasize arm's-length support for . Transparency in funding is facilitated by the institute's public disclosure of donors on its website, allowing scrutiny of potential alignments, particularly given the concentration of support from Western public and private entities that may share liberal democratic priors. This reliance on such sources—predominantly European and North American—supports operational scale but underscores the need for users to evaluate independence in assessments of non-Western regimes. The absence of diversified global funding streams, such as from non-Western governments, reflects the project's academic ecosystem but limits broader financial pluralism.

Institutional Affiliations

The V-Dem Institute maintains its primary institutional affiliation with the in , where it operates as an independent research entity and serves as the central headquarters for coordinating the V-Dem project's global activities, including and methodological oversight. This hosting arrangement, established alongside the project's formalization in the early , provides academic infrastructure and facilitates integration with university-based research networks. Key collaborations include a longstanding partnership with the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the , which hosts V-Dem's North American regional center and has contributed to expanding data coverage through expert recruitment and validation since the project's inception around 2010. Additional ties involve the Peace Research Institute (PRIO) for aspects of historical data extension, broadening temporal scope beyond contemporary metrics. Internationally, V-Dem engages with entities such as the World Bank, including contributions to the 2017 that incorporated V-Dem indicators into governance analysis, and International IDEA, supporting cross-institutional data harmonization for policy applications. These networks, active by the mid-2010s, enable expanded access to diverse expertise and resources, though reliance on aligned academic and multilateral partners may shape interpretive frameworks within shared outputs. Data-sharing initiatives, such as integration with the Demscore e-infrastructure launched in with other data providers, enhance dissemination by linking V-Dem metrics to broader datasets on and . By the 2020s, V-Dem data appeared in platforms like , amplifying global reach through open-access visualizations and analyses without formal exclusivity restrictions.

Methodology

Core Measurement Principles

The V-Dem framework conceptualizes democracy as encompassing five high-level principles: electoral, which focuses on free and fair elections as the mechanism for popular control; liberal, emphasizing protections for individual and minority rights against state abuses; participatory, highlighting broad citizen inclusion in decision-making beyond voting; deliberative, prioritizing reasoned public debate and discourse in policy formation; and egalitarian, addressing power distribution to mitigate socioeconomic inequalities in political influence. These principles disaggregate democracy into distinct components, moving beyond binary classifications such as democracy versus autocracy to capture variations within regimes and avoid conflating unrelated attributes into a single metric. This approach shifts from traditional additive indices, which sum disparate elements into a composite score potentially masking trade-offs or causal complexities, to multidimensional indices that separately track each principle's realization. By treating democracy's varieties as analytically independent yet interrelated, V-Dem enables assessment of and trajectories driven by specific causal mechanisms, such as electoral manipulations eroding liberal safeguards without immediately dismantling participatory elements. Such granularity reveals assumptions in competing emphases, like electoral-centric views prioritizing contestation over egalitarian redistribution, fostering empirical scrutiny of how these dimensions interact under real-world constraints rather than normative hierarchies. Measurement employs continuous scales normalized to a 0-1 interval for latent variables representing these principles, derived from probabilistic models that estimate unobserved democratic qualities from observable indicators. This scaling privileges fine-grained empirical variation—allowing, for instance, a score of 0.73 to reflect partial institutionalization—over dichotomous or ordinal categorizations that impose artificial thresholds and obscure incremental changes or . The framework thus underscores causal realism by modeling as a spectrum of attributes subject to contextual contingencies, rather than an idealized endpoint.

Expert Coding and Data Collection

The V-Dem Institute relies on expert-coded surveys to collect data on latent political traits, such as the quality of deliberation in legislatures or judicial independence, which are challenging to observe empirically and thus prone to subjective interpretation. Country experts, typically academics or practitioners with specialized knowledge, provide ordinal assessments (e.g., on scales from "not at all" to "to a very high extent") via an online platform, enabling detailed scrutiny of interpersonal variations in judgments that could reflect differing priors or contextual understandings. This human-input approach contrasts with automated or archival data collection, highlighting the interpretive element in quantifying abstract democratic components. Invitations to code are managed by program managers at the V-Dem Institute, who consult regional managers and country coordinators to nominate candidates based on expertise criteria, prioritizing those ranked highest (1-3 scale) until a quota of at least five experts per country-indicator-year is met, with typically seven recruited to buffer dropouts. Experts receive standardized instructions through the survey interface, available in English, French, , Russian, and Spanish, to promote consistent application of coding guidelines, though no separate formal modules are detailed. The process covers over 500 indicators grouped into clusters (e.g., elections, ) across approximately 182 countries from 1900 to 2024, with historical extensions to 1789 for select cases, and involves 1,200–1,700 active coders annually from a cumulative pool exceeding 3,700. Annual updates incorporate new recruitments to offset attrition (e.g., ~1,700 added since 2013) and require select coders to revise prior entries for temporal consistency, while systematic screening flags implausible patterns like flat-line or erratic codings in under 1% of cases. Disagreements among experts are addressed through cross-calibration mechanisms prior to aggregation, employing Bayesian item-response theory (IRT) models to estimate individual reliability and adjust for —such as varying thresholds for scale interpretation—via techniques like anchoring vignettes and overlapping "bridge" codings between experts. This weights more reliable contributions higher, mitigating the influence of outliers while preserving the signal from substantive discord, which may indicate genuine uncertainty in hard-to-measure traits. Overlapping assignments and posterior-prediction checks further validate coder performance, ensuring the dataset's robustness despite inherent subjectivity.

Aggregation and Validation Techniques

The V-Dem Institute employs Bayesian (IRT) models to aggregate ordinal assessments from multiple country experts into continuous latent trait estimates for indicators, accounting for coder reliability, item difficulty, and through posterior distributions. This approach scales expert codes—typically on a 0-4 —into probabilistic estimates that incorporate disagreement among coders as a measure of epistemic , rather than resolving it via simple averaging. The Bayesian framework allows for hierarchical modeling, where parameters for individual coders (e.g., accuracy and bias) are drawn from hyperpriors informed by cross-coder correlations and over-time stability within countries. Higher-level indices, such as the Liberal Democracy Index, are constructed using Bayesian on the IRT-derived latent variables, weighting components like electoral and liberal principle scores based on their empirical factor loadings and uniqueness estimates to capture multidimensional democratic concepts. This confirmatory factor model assumes an underlying structure derived from theoretical disaggregation (e.g., electoral vs. ), with loadings estimated via sampling to propagate uncertainty into index confidence intervals. Validation of these aggregates involves checks, such as correlating indices with observable events like reported incidents from ancillary sources, though such external benchmarks are limited by their own measurement errors. Time-series comparability is addressed through dynamic IRT parameters that adjust for evolving expert measurement norms—e.g., recalibrating historical codes against contemporary anchors—but this process risks , as retrospective adjustments may incorporate post-hoc knowledge unavailable to original coders. V-Dem documentation notes that dataset revisions for methodological refinements can alter past scores, potentially introducing non-stationarity despite efforts to minimize it via stability priors in the models. Overall, while these techniques enhance reliability over naive aggregation, their precision depends on the assumption of informed expert priors, which empirical tests of inter-coder agreement (e.g., >0.7 for most variables) suggest is variable across indicators and contexts.

Datasets

V-Dem Core Dataset

The V-Dem Core Dataset constitutes the primary aggregated output of the Varieties of Democracy project, focusing on five high-level —electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian—along with 92 sub-indices and 167 underlying indicators designed to capture multifaceted aspects of democratic . This structure enables detailed empirical by disaggregating into measurable components, such as electoral fairness, , and inclusive participation, facilitating causal inquiries into specific institutional mechanisms rather than holistic regime scores. are organized in country-year format, spanning up to 202 countries from 1789 to 2024, with coverage intensifying post-1900. Version 15 of the dataset, released in March 2025, incorporates refined models for indicator aggregation, accounting for through point estimates and intervals. While primarily at the national level, the dataset's temporal granularity supports within-country variation studies over time, complemented by associated tools like the Country Graph for visualizing trends in selected indicators or indices. The Core Dataset excludes specialized extensions, concentrating on core metrics to provide a foundational resource for cross-national and longitudinal research. Access to the V-Dem Core Dataset is provided free of charge through direct downloads in formats including , CSV, data files, and , with an institutional citation requirement for users. Archival versions of prior releases are maintained to allow researchers to track methodological updates and ensure reproducibility in analyses affected by revisions, such as indicator recalibrations or expanded historical coverage. This underscores the dataset's commitment to transparency in evolving measurement approaches.

V-Party Dataset

The V-Party Dataset, formally known as the Varieties of Party Identity and Organization Dataset, compiles expert-coded assessments of ' policy positions, internal structures, and operational behaviors to examine their role in democratic processes. It encompasses data on 3,467 parties across 178 countries, spanning factual records from 1900 to 2019 and expert evaluations primarily from 1970 to 2019. This granular, party-year level aggregation draws factual elements from sources like PartyFacts and election outcomes, enabling longitudinal tracking of party evolution. Coding focuses on ideological orientations, such as economic left-right positioning (v2pariglef) and welfare stances (v2pawelf); origins via metrics like party continuation (v2paelcont); organizational attributes including branch presence (v2palocoff), candidate selection methods (v2panom), and internal discipline (v2padisa); and behaviors encompassing (v2xpa_popul index) and (v2paclient). These indicators are derived from inputs by 711 experts applying V-Dem's Bayesian model, which aggregates multiple coders (minimum five per observation) to generate probabilistic estimates and mitigate individual biases. Factual variables supplement expert data for robustness. Distinct from aggregate country-level metrics, V-Party facilitates micro-level analysis of how party traits—such as populist appeals or clientelist strategies—affect broader democratic varieties, including participatory elements through decentralized structures or elite-driven ideologies. It integrates directly with the V-Dem Core Dataset, allowing researchers to link party-level variables to regime outcomes like electoral integrity or polyarchy indices, as supported by unified access tools in V-Dem's data packages. Updates follow V-Dem's annual revision cycle, with version 2 (2022) refining indices (e.g., anti-pluralism measures) and correcting prior entries for enhanced validity.

Electoral Risk Tracker (ERT) Dataset

The Electoral Risk Tracker (ERT) Dataset offers probabilistic forecasts of electoral risks, particularly and manipulation, for upcoming election cycles worldwide. Unlike retrospective measures, it emphasizes predictive modeling to identify vulnerabilities in real time, drawing on V-Dem's granular indicators of electoral processes alongside event-based data on past incidents. This forward-looking approach supports interventions by quantifying risks such as , , or post-election unrest before they materialize. The methodology combines historical patterns from V-Dem's expert-coded data—covering factors like electoral authority independence and opposition suppression—with ensembles incorporating economic stressors, political instability metrics, and digital threat indicators. Models are trained to output levels ranging from negligible to severe , validated through true out-of-sample testing to mitigate . Current expert assessments refine inputs for near-term events, yielding country-specific probabilities rather than deterministic outcomes. Applied to 2024-2025 elections, the ERT highlights elevated risks in nations with recurrent histories or acute , such as those in and parts of , where ensemble predictions exceed baseline thresholds for severe incidents. For instance, forecasts prioritize countries exhibiting combined high and socioeconomic volatility, informing policy responses like observer deployments or dialogue facilitation. Outputs remain probabilistic, acknowledging model uncertainties from data gaps in autocratic contexts.

Historical V-Dem Dataset

The Historical V-Dem Dataset extends the V-Dem project's coverage to enable analyses of democracy's long-term causal drivers, reaching back to 1789 for approximately 80 polities through the adaptation of around 130 core indicators. These indicators, drawn from the broader V-Dem framework, measure dimensions such as electoral processes, political participation, and institutional accountability, repurposed for pre-20th-century contexts using archival records like constitutional texts, legislative debates, and contemporary accounts. Specialist coders with expertise in historical political institutions contribute assessments, ensuring consistency with V-Dem's expert-coding methodology while addressing era-specific evidence limitations. Initial releases began in , progressively integrating historical data into the main V-Dem to fill gaps in pre-1900 coverage, which previously constrained comparative studies of patterns across centuries. By 2025, this extension supports over 31 million data points spanning 1789 to 2024 for up to 202 countries, though historical portions prioritize polities with sufficient archival depth, such as European states and early American republics. The 's design facilitates empirical tests of factors like , warfare, and colonial legacies on regime trajectories, drawing on disaggregated indicators for over extended periods. Coding historical periods encounters challenges from sparser and more fragmented , leading to elevated intervals in aggregated indices compared to modern . V-Dem's Bayesian model incorporates coder disagreement and source reliability to quantify this , producing bounds that widen for earlier years where primary documents are scarcer or biased toward perspectives. Despite these hurdles, validation against qualitative historical confirms the dataset's utility for robust, long-run regressions on democracy's determinants.

Publications and Reports

Annual Democracy Reports

The V-Dem Institute has published an annual Democracy Report each March since approximately , providing a yearly assessment of global and regional trends in democratic based on its expert-coded indicators. These reports synthesize data from the latest V-Dem dataset version to track changes in types, highlighting shifts such as the proportion of autocracies versus and patterns of autocratization or across countries. Each report follows a consistent structure, beginning with global overviews of , followed by country-specific and regional analyses, and concluding with thematic essays on issues like and institutional erosion. Visualizations, including and time-series graphs derived from V-Dem metrics, illustrate key trends, such as declines in quality in specific regions. To enhance accessibility, recent editions offer multilingual versions in languages including English, , and Spanish. The 2025 Democracy Report, titled "25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped?", analyzes regime transformations from 2000 to 2024 using V-Dem Dataset v15, documenting that autocracies now comprise 91 countries compared to 88 democracies—the first such reversal in over two decades. It identifies 45 countries in autocratization episodes against 19 undergoing , attributing these shifts to factors like weakened electoral processes and executive aggrandizement in thematic sections.

Key Thematic Outputs

The V-Dem Institute issues working papers that provide specialized analyses beyond annual reports, often employing advanced methodologies to explore regime dynamics. Working Paper No. 150, "Forecasting Electoral Violence," published in November 2024 by David Randahl and colleagues, introduces an ensemble machine learning model to predict risks of electoral violence in global elections from 2024 to 2025, integrating V-Dem indicators with economic data and historical violence records to achieve high predictive accuracy for medium-term forecasts. This output supports proactive policy interventions by identifying high-risk contexts where violence by non-state actors or government intimidation disrupts electoral processes. Another thematic focus involves sequencing in regime transformations, as detailed in Working Paper No. 141, "Chains in Episodes of Democratization," from June 2023 by Kelly Morrison and co-authors, which applies chain analysis to V-Dem data across episodes since 1900, revealing that electoral reforms typically initiate sequences but correlate weakly with overall success rates. Complementary analyses extend this to autocratization reversals, with Working Paper No. 147, "When Autocratization is Reversed: Episodes of Democratic Turnarounds since 1900," published in January 2024, documenting that 48% of autocratization episodes since 1900 lead to democratic recoveries, rising to 70% in recent decades, often restoring prior democratic levels through targeted institutional reforms. V-Dem's disaggregated indices facilitate nuanced thematic insights into democratic components, as elaborated in Working Paper No. 135, "V-Dem’s Conceptions of Democracy and Their Consequences," by Michael Coppedge in February 2023, which delineates five varieties—electoral, liberal, participatory, egalitarian, and deliberative—enabling differentiation of declines, such as steeper erosions in liberal principles (e.g., ) compared to egalitarian components (e.g., power alternations) in specific historical periods. The Deliberative Democracy Index, measuring inclusive public reasoning oriented toward the common good, has been integrated into external analytical platforms for comparative studies, highlighting variances where deliberative practices lag behind electoral metrics in consolidating democracies. Thematic reports further these outputs, exemplified by the March 2024 report "’s Core Institution – Clean Elections Across the World" by Marina Nord, Juraj Medzihorsky, and Staffan I. Lindberg, which uses V-Dem's election integrity indicators to assess global cleanliness trends, identifying persistent deficits in vote-buying and prevention despite formal electoral frameworks. These publications underscore V-Dem's emphasis on granular, evidence-based dissections of democratic attributes to inform targeted research and policy.

Data Accessibility and Updates

The V-Dem datasets are provided free of charge for public download directly from the institute's website, supporting replicability through to raw and processed data files. Available formats include , CSV, , and , with options for country-year, country-date, and coder-level aggregates to facilitate analysis across different granularity levels. Supplementary tools for data visualization and graphing are integrated into the platform, enabling users to generate custom outputs without dependencies. Versioned releases ensure traceability and allow researchers to reference specific iterations for reproducible studies, with the latest being version 15 released in March 2025. Previous versions, dating back through annual updates, are archived on the V-Dem site alongside external repositories such as the Swedish National Data Service (SND) and , which host additional files including full posterior distributions for uncertainty estimation. These distributions, derived from Bayesian models, provide probabilistic bounds on indicator estimates, encouraging users to incorporate measurement error in validations rather than treating point estimates as definitive. Major dataset updates occur annually in March, aligning with the release of the institute's Democracy Report and incorporating coder revisions based on emerging evidence or methodological refinements. Minor interim adjustments, such as patches for identified errors, may be issued between major versions, with backward revisions to historical ratings permitted when coders access superior information, though these are reflected in subsequent full releases rather than standalone patches. This schedule balances timeliness with rigor, as evidenced by consistent yearly increments from version 12 in 2022 to version 15 in 2025, prioritizing comprehensive expert recoding over ad hoc updates.

Reception and Impact

Academic and Policy Influence

The V-Dem datasets have facilitated extensive empirical analysis in , particularly through their provision of high-frequency, country-year spanning over two centuries, which supports advanced techniques such as difference-in-differences and instrumental variable approaches to examine democratic and regime transitions. Scholars have leveraged these disaggregated indicators to test causal mechanisms of autocratization, including the role of executive aggrandizement and electoral manipulation, yielding insights into how institutional erosion precedes electoral declines. The project's methodological innovations, such as Bayesian for aggregating expert-coded indicators, have enhanced the reliability of time-series cross-sectional models, enabling robust identification of within-country variation in democratic qualities. In terms of scholarly adoption, the V-Dem dataset has been downloaded more than 400,000 times by users in over 200 countries since 2016, reflecting broad integration into academic workflows for on and political institutions. This uptake has influenced thousands of studies annually, as evidenced by the frequent citation of V-Dem-derived indices in peer-reviewed journals on topics like the effects of democratic qualities on economic outcomes and conflict prevention, where the data's allows for nuanced causal claims beyond binary regime classifications. On the policy front, V-Dem data have been incorporated into World Bank resources, including the V-Dem Core dataset, which underpins analyses of democratic governance for development programming and fragility assessments. The Electoral Risk Tracker (ERT) dataset, in particular, has informed efforts through collaborations such as the one with the Foundation, which developed Electoral Vulnerability Indexes to forecast violence risks and guide preventive interventions in at-risk polities. These tools have been referenced in international policy discussions on , aiding organizations in prioritizing resources for observation and support in high-risk elections as of 2023.

Applications in Research and Journalism

V-Dem datasets enable researchers to conduct time-series analyses of democratic by providing granular, annual indicators spanning centuries, allowing for econometric models that link democratic quality to economic variables. For example, studies have utilized V-Dem's and electoral democracy indices to estimate the impact of democratic levels on GDP growth, finding positive associations in panel regressions across developing and advanced economies from onward. Similarly, analyses of periods employ V-Dem to assess how variations in institutional accountability mitigate or exacerbate economic downturns, with findings indicating that higher scores correlate with shallower recessions and faster recoveries in post-2008 . These applications leverage V-Dem's disaggregated variables, such as electoral fairness and executive constraints, to isolate causal pathways beyond aggregate indices. In , V-Dem reports and metrics inform coverage of global and national democratic trends, with outlets citing the institute's autocratization classifications to frame stories on and institutional decline. Annual Democracy Reports, which track episodes of democratic regression in over 70 countries since 1994, have been referenced in analyses of events like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, where V-Dem indicators highlighted deteriorations in voter suppression and media freedom sub-indices. Journalists draw on these for narratives emphasizing rapid shifts, such as the reclassification of 42 countries as electoral autocracies by 2023, though coverage often focuses on headline aggregates rather than underlying coder variances. V-Dem data extends to public-facing tools, integrating into platforms like for interactive visualizations that democratize access to time-series trends. There, the electoral democracy index is charted alongside economic and social metrics, enabling users to explore correlations between democratic scores and outcomes like human development from 1789 to the present, with over 30 million graphs generated via V-Dem tools since 2016. This facilitates broader journalistic and research synthesis, though it underscores the need for contextual interpretation of expert-coded estimates.

Criticisms and Controversies

Methodological Challenges

The V-Dem dataset relies on expert coders to provide ordinal assessments of latent concepts such as institutional components of , which are inherently subjective and not directly observable. These assessments use scales prone to interpersonal differences in interpretation, even after calibration efforts like item-response theory (IRT) modeling to account for coder traits. Empirical analyses of coder-level data reveal significant disagreements on specific country-year observations, particularly for corruption-related indicators, undermining the reliability of disaggregated measures despite aggregation techniques. Retrospective coding of historical periods introduces risks of time-inconsistency, as experts may adjust past evaluations influenced by contemporary events or . V-Dem's iterative updates to historical data, aimed at refining estimates, can lead to score revisions that reflect evolving interpretive norms rather than new evidence, potentially distorting longitudinal trends. Studies on expert surveys indicate that democratic crises in recent years systematically alter judgments, with coders exhibiting availability bias toward current conditions when reassessing prior eras. Validation of V-Dem's high-level indices faces limits due to their dependence on constructs, complicating external corroboration against objective benchmarks like electoral or institutional records. While the measurement model generates confidence intervals, critiques highlight potential over-precision in aggregated scores, as IRT assumptions about coder and scale comparability may underestimate in latent variable estimates. checks by project coordinators provide but do not fully address aggregation artifacts or the challenges of scaling ordinal inputs to continuous indices without empirical anchors for many variables.

Allegations of Political Bias

Critics have alleged that the V-Dem Institute exhibits an ideological skew toward liberal democratic norms, particularly in its assessments of regimes led by conservative or nationalist leaders. For instance, Hungary's democracy score has declined sharply since Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party consolidated power in 2010, with V-Dem highlighting rises in anti-pluralism and media control under metrics emphasizing deliberative and egalitarian principles over purely electoral outcomes. Similarly, India was reclassified as an "electoral autocracy" in V-Dem's 2021 report, citing erosion in freedom of expression and civil liberties under Narendra Modi's BJP government since 2014, a designation that Indian officials dismissed as reflecting Western ideological bias rather than empirical electoral integrity. These downgrades are said to prioritize non-electoral dimensions, such as egalitarian participation and liberal protections, which allegedly penalize policies restricting migration or cultural pluralism in conservative contexts while applying less scrutiny to comparable restrictions in left-leaning autocracies like Venezuela or Nicaragua. The composition of V-Dem's expert coder pool has fueled claims of embedded liberal hegemony, as the majority hail from Western academic institutions where surveys indicate predominant left-leaning ideological orientations. Political scientist Jonas Wolff argues that V-Dem has shifted from a pluralistic conceptualization of —encompassing diverse types—to a decontested defense of liberal norms amid perceived global threats, effectively reconstituting ideological consensus around egalitarian and deliberative ideals at the expense of electoral-focused metrics. This convergence, per analyses, risks systematic skew in coding conservative-led regimes as autocratizing, as coders' socialization in environments favoring liberal hegemony may undervalue alternative democratic forms emphasizing national or . V-Dem has countered these allegations by emphasizing coder diversity, with 61% of experts born or residing in the countries they assess, and by incorporating statistical models to account for and potential biases. Internal studies, such as those examining selection into the coder pool, report no evidence of systematic pessimism or ideological bias driving global assessments. However, critics note the absence of fully independent external audits of coder selection or ideological balance, relying instead on self-reported validations within an academic ecosystem known for left-leaning skews.

Discrepancies with Alternative Indices

V-Dem's multidimensional approach, incorporating over 400 indicators across various democracy components, frequently yields steeper declines in scores for Western democracies compared to indices like Freedom House's and the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Democracy Index. For the , V-Dem's fell from 0.85 in 2016 to approximately 0.73 by 2020, reclassifying the country from a to an electoral democracy due to deteriorations in executive oversight, media impartiality, and sub-indices. In contrast, Freedom House's aggregate score for the declined more modestly from 90/100 in 2016 to 83/100 in 2023, retaining its "free" status, while the EIU downgraded the to a "flawed democracy" in 2016 (score 7.98/10) with subsequent dips to 7.85/10 by 2023 but without the categorical shift V-Dem recorded. These divergences stem from V-Dem's granular sub-indices, which capture nuanced erosions in liberal components—such as constraints on executive power and egalitarian treatment—that coarser aggregates in (focused on and ) or EIU (emphasizing electoral process and pluralism) may underweight. Empirical analyses indicate V-Dem detects autocratization episodes—defined as sustained declines in electoral democracy scores—in more countries and years than Polity IV, which relies on a narrower spectrum and institutional , resulting in fewer flagged events overall. For instance, Polity IV operationalizations identify substantially fewer autocratization cases globally, including minimal change in high-scoring polities like the (stable at +10 on its -10 to +10 scale since the early ), highlighting V-Dem's heightened sensitivity to incremental shifts in sub-dimensions. , conversely, registers more autocratization events than V-Dem in some contexts due to its binary-leaning thresholds for violations. Such discrepancies underscore the trade-offs in measurement design: V-Dem's disaggregation enhances detection of causal mechanisms like partisan media influence or erosion but risks amplifying measurement noise or coder subjectivity in contested areas, potentially exaggerating trends in polarized settings. Researchers and policymakers are advised to cross-validate V-Dem with alternatives, as reliance on any single index may distort assessments of regime trajectories, particularly where multidimensionality interacts with varying coder expertise or interpretive frames across datasets.

References

  1. https://www.v-dem.net/about/v-dem-institute/
  2. https://www.v-dem.net/about/v-dem-project/
  3. https://www.v-dem.net/about/funders/
  4. https://www.v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports/
  5. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/Working_Paper_21_z5BldB1.pdf
  6. https://www.v-dem.net/wp.html
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569775.2022.2096191
  8. https://kellogg.nd.edu/research/major-research-initiatives/varieties-democracy-project
  9. https://v-dem.net/documents/58/Organization_v15.pdf
  10. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr__2025_lowres.pdf
  11. https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/pop_assets/9829fd48-37fb-4348-9905-2926c4db64c7-resume.pdf
  12. https://www.v-dem.net/about/historical-v-dem/
  13. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343318823866
  14. https://v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
  15. https://curate.nd.edu/articles/dataset/Varieties_of_Democracy_V-Dem_Data_v_15_2025_/28719470
  16. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/55/codebook.pdf
  17. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/58/Organization_v15.pdf
  18. https://www.v-dem.net/about/v-dem-project/global-team/staffan-i-lindberg/
  19. https://www.gu.se/en/about/find-staff/staffanilindberg
  20. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/v-dem-a-new-way-to-measure-democracy/
  21. https://www.v-dem.net/news/call-for-country-experts/
  22. https://www.ipsa.org/na/job-offer/v-dem-institute-seeking-country-experts
  23. https://v-dem.net/documents/39/v-dem_methodology_v14.pdf
  24. https://www.populismstudies.org/v-dems-professor-lindberg-if-trump-is-reelected-democracy-in-the-us-might-not-survive/
  25. https://v-dem.net/static/website/img/refs/wp113.pdf
  26. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/67993/gupea_2077_67993_4.pdf?sequence=4
  27. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/70498/gupea_2077_70498_1.pdf?sequence=1
  28. https://kellogg.nd.edu/news/varieties-democracy-dataset-released-public
  29. https://ourworldindata.org/vdem-electoral-democracy-data
  30. https://www.v-dem.net/static/website/img/refs/orgmanv111.pdf
  31. https://www.v-dem.net/about/regional-centers/north-america/
  32. https://www.v-dem.net/static/website/img/refs/orgmanv12.pdf
  33. https://www.v-dem.net/our-work/collaborations/
  34. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/varieties-democracy-vdem
  35. https://www.v-dem.net/about/
  36. https://v-dem.net/documents/56/methodology.pdf
  37. https://sites.nd.edu/michael-coppedge/files/2019/07/LindbergEtalBMS2019.pdf
  38. https://www.v-dem.net/static/website/img/refs/methodologyv111.pdf
  39. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_135.pdf
  40. https://www.v-dem.net/about/v-dem-project/methodology/
  41. https://v-dem.net/documents/26/methodology_v13.pdf
  42. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_working_paper_2017_41.pdf
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/varieties-of-democracy/data-validation/E87CCFBF56E5DDF2FB135758B59886DC
  44. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340290856_Hindsight_bias_in_expert_surveys_How_democratic_crises_influence_retrospective_evaluations
  46. https://v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/country-year-v-dem-core-v15/
  47. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/39/v-dem_methodology_v14.pdf
  48. https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/
  49. https://v-dem.net/data/dataset-archive/
  50. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/6/vparty_codebook_v2.pdf
  51. https://github.com/vdeminstitute/vdemdata
  52. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/WP_150.pdf
  53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2025.09.003
  54. https://www.prio.org/publications/13560
  55. https://demofinland.org/en/two-decades-of-decline-in-the-global-state-of-democracy/
  56. https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/36317/autocracies-outnumber-democracies-for-the-first-time-in-20-years-v-dem/
  57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2448742
  58. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/Elections_Report.pdf
  59. https://www.v-dem.net/thematic_reports.html
  60. https://v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr__2025_lowres.pdf
  61. https://www.v-dem.net/data/dataset-archive/
  62. https://www.gu.se/en/research/varieties-of-democracy-v-dem
  63. https://www.v-dem.net/about/faq/
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/why-democracies-develop-and-decline/vdem-reconsiders-democratization/0D6FF694640E3526953B05278976BF9F
  65. https://arxiv.org/html/2309.15983v4
  66. https://v-dem.net/documents/29/V-dem_democracyreport2023_lowres.pdf
  67. https://v-dem.net/documents/38/V-Dem_Codebook_v14.pdf
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901121003646
  69. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/UWP_51.pdf
  70. https://data360.worldbank.org/en/dataset/VDEM_CORE
  71. https://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/publication/electoral-vulnerability-index/
  72. https://v-dem.net/wp.html
  73. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_working_paper_2016_39.pdf
  74. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/users_working_paper_2.pdf
  75. https://www.v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
  76. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/54/v-dem_dr_2025_lowres_v1.pdf
  77. https://www.gu.se/en/news/democratic-backslide-a-threat-to-free-elections-globally
  78. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3595962
  79. https://bseim.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9932/2016/08/5-McMann-et-al_A.pdf
  80. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00104140231193006
  81. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/varieties-of-democracy/measurement-model-and-reliability/09C75724063CF143B4F5F1172289124F
  82. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_working_paper_2017_53.pdf
  83. https://v-dem.net/weekly_graph/rising-anti-pluralism-in-hungarys-fidesz-party
  84. https://v-dem.net/weekly_graph/parliamentary-elections-in-hungary-and-its-autocra
  85. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944
  86. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-one-of-the-worst-autocratisers-v-dem-report-on-democracy/article67939573.ece
  87. https://www.indiancentury.org/research-papers/inside-the-v-dem-rankings
  88. https://www.external-democracy-promotion.eu/the-reconstitution-of-liberal-hegemony-in-comparative-regime-research-v-dems-discursive-turn-from-the-contestation-to-the-decontestation-of-democracy/
  89. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/expert-bias-and-democratic-erosion-assessing-expert-perceptions-of-contemporary-american-democracy/0620719DD8C8A4FE1055AF268A3732E0
  90. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/WP_154_NJsg5UN.pdf
  91. https://ourworldindata.org/democracies-measurement
  92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00108367251364170
  93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41304-021-00328-8
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.