Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Varieties of Religious RepressionWhy Governments Restrict Religion$

Ani Sarkissian

Print publication date: 2015

Print ISBN-13: 9780199348084

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199348084.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 25 February 2017

(p.194) (p.195) Appendix A Measuring Regimes and Religious Divisions in Societies

(p.194) (p.195) Appendix A Measuring Regimes and Religious Divisions in Societies

Source:
The Varieties of Religious Repression
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

States included in this study were nondemocratic at any point between 1990 and 2010. They include countries that range from the most entrenched dictatorships (e.g., Saudi Arabia) to hybrid regimes that combine elements of both democracy and authoritarianism (e.g., Russia). Some of the included countries were nondemocratic for the entire 20-year period; others experienced transition to or from democracy during the period. I consulted four commonly used data sources (Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeman 2009; Freedom House 2013; Geddes, Wright, and Franz 2012; Marshall and Jaggers 2011) to select the states. The sources are in agreement on dates of authoritarian rule for 39 of the countries.

José Antonio Cheibub, Jennifer Gandhi, and James Vreeland (hereafter CGV) developed a dichotomous variable that measures the presence or absence of democracy, based on whether governmental offices are filled by means of contested elections. Barbara Geddes, Joseph Wright, and Erica Franz (hereafter GWF) coded autocratic regimes exclusively, dividing them into a number of subtypes, an extension of data from Geddes’s previous work (Geddes 2003). The two sources agree on which states had authoritarian regimes for many of the countries. Exceptions include disagreements on dates of authoritarianism. Moreover, GWF code the following countries as authoritarian for a number of years during which CGV code them as democratic: Armenia, Guatemala, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. CGV code Ecuador as authoritarian in 2000 and 2001, and GWF code it as authoritarian those years. GWF exclude Bahrain, Qatar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Lebanon from their coding. Finally, both sources code Colombia, Croatia, Honduras, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine as democratic during the entire 1990–2010 period. (p.196)

Freedom House and Polity are two additional sources for regime scores. Andreas Schedler and Larry Diamond use Freedom House scores to classify countries into a range of categories, with an average Freedom House political rights and civil liberties score of 4 (of 7) as the cutoff between electoral democracy and electoral authoritarianism in most cases (Diamond 2002; Schedler 2002, 2006). Philip Roessler and Marc Morje Howard (2009) use a combination of Freedom House and Polity scores to classify regimes, with countries scoring 5 or lower on the combined Polity index classified as authoritarian. Taking into account these sources, the seven countries excluded by CGV and GWF for having democratic regimes can be included among the nondemocratic countries examined in this study. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia are not included because of missing data on regime type due to warfare or state failure during the period under study.

The Polity dataset was consulted for data on authoritarian regime characteristics and to measure differences in levels of competitiveness across the 101 states in this study. The Revised Combined Polity Score (POLITY2) ranges from −10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (consolidated democracy) and measures the institutionalized authority patterns characterizing each state. It combines separate scores on institutionalized democracy and institutionalized autocracy, taking into account the competitiveness and openness of executive recruitment, constraints on the chief executive, and the regulation and competitiveness of participation (Marshall and Jaggers 2011). The authors of the dataset recommend the following conversions for regime scores to categories: “autocracies” (−10 to −6), “anocracies” (−5 to +5), and “democracies” (+6 to +10). Three special values (−66, −77, −88) code countries that are administered by transitional governments, countries where central authority has collapsed or lost control over a majority of its territory, and countries where foreign authorities maintain local authority. These countries are included in the category of anocracies.

The Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life compiled a Social Hostilities Index (SHI) to measure the level of social hostilities involving religion around the world. The SHI combines a number of questions measuring the behavior of societal (not state) actors, including the existence and level of crimes, malicious acts, and violence motivated by religious hatred or bias; violence between groups; and attempts by religious groups and individuals to enforce religious norms. Their report, “Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion,” lists SHI scores for 197 countries for the years 2007, 2009, and 2010 (Pew Research Center 2012b). Scores range from 0 to 10. I use an average of scores for the three years in my analyses. The Pew Forum suggests the following score conversions for categories of social hostilities: low (0–1.4), moderate (1.5–3.5), high (3.6–7.1), and very high (7.2–10). I use the SHI score as an approximate quantitative measure of the level of religious division in a society. Table A.1 presents POLITY2 scores for 2010 and average SHI scores for each country included in the study. (p.197) (p.198) (p.199)

Table A.1 Regime and religious divisions scores for 101 countries

Country

Polity2 (2010)

Average SHI

Albania

9

0.1

Algeria

2

4.8

Angola

−2

2.4

Armenia

5

3.4

Azerbaijan

−7

2.6

Bahrain

−5

3.3

Bangladesh

5

8.3

Belarus

−7

2.0

Benin

7

0.1

Bosnia-Herzegovina

−66

2.7

Botswana

8

0.0

Burkina Faso

0

1.4

Burma

−6

5.2

Burundi

6

1.3

Cambodia

2

1.0

Cameroon

−4

0.7

Central African Republic

−1

3.4

Chad

−2

2.1

China

−7

2.1

Colombia

7

3.2

Congo, Democratic Republic

5

2.9

Congo, Republic

−4

0.2

Côte d’Ivoire

0

2.5

Croatia

9

1.9

Cuba

−7

0.7

Ecuador

5

0.2

Egypt

−3

7.0

Eritrea

−7

0.5

Ethiopia

−3

5.1

Gabon

3

0.4

Gambia

−5

0.5

Georgia

6

3.8

Ghana

8

3.7

Guatemala

8

0.8

Guinea

1

1.2

Guinea-Bissau

6

0.4

Haiti

0

1.1

Honduras

7

0.5

Indonesia

8

7.9

Iran

−7

5.9

Jordan

−3

4.5

Kazakhstan

−6

2.1

Kenya

8

4.0

Kuwait

−7

1.3

Kyrgyzstan

4

4.4

Laos

−7

1.6

Lebanon

7

4.2

Lesotho

8

0.1

Liberia

6

2.0

Libya

−7

2.0

Madagascar

0

0.2

Malawi

6

0.2

Malaysia

6

1.5

Mali

7

0.7

Mauritania

−2

1.1

Mexico

8

4.7

Moldova

8

3.6

Mongolia

10

1.6

Morocco

−6

2.5

Mozambique

5

0.5

Namibia

6

0.0

Nepal

6

5.0

Nicaragua

9

0.4

Niger

3

1.0

Nigeria

4

6.7

North Korea

−10

n/a

Oman

−8

0.3

Pakistan

6

9.2

Paraguay

8

0.5

Peru

9

0.0

Qatar

−10

0.4

Romania

9

4.5

Russia

4

5.5

Rwanda

−4

0.3

Saudi Arabia

−10

6.9

Senegal

7

0.2

Serbia

8

3.1

Sierra Leone

7

0.5

Singapore

−2

0.2

South Africa

9

2.4

Sri Lanka

4

7.4

Sudan

−2

5.7

Swaziland

−9

0.8

Syria

−7

4.6

Taiwan

10

0.0

Tajikistan

−3

2.2

Tanzania

−1

3.2

Thailand

4

4.2

Togo

−2

0.1

Tunisia

−4

2.1

Turkey

7

4.7

Turkmenistan

−9

1.3

Uganda

−1

2.2

Ukraine

6

2.7

United Arab Emirates

−8

0.6

Uzbekistan

−9

2.4

Venezuela

−3

0.9

Vietnam

−7

3.4

Yemen

−2

7.1

Zambia

7

1.4

Zimbabwe

1

1.6