Addressing a country that was located for approximately half of the examined time on the
edge of two ideologies, of two different concepts of Weltanschauung, it is likely to give rise
to interesting outcomes. Hence, Finland which for a long timeframe after the Second World
War was indeed cornered between the “free” West and the communist Soviet bloc was
chosen deliberately by the author. In this essay, he seeks to explore and to analyze in brief
the development of the level of democracy of this particular nation covering the period
between 1974 and 2006.
Hereby, two different types of measurement are applied and, subsequently, their results are
compared. Concretely, the data coming from Freedom House, respectively from Inglehart &
Welzel’s measure of “effective democracy”, are the main actors both exerting for preferably
appropriate findings. Freedom House measures the degree of democracy of a state by
assessing a two-part set of categories, namely political rights and civil liberties following the
definition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, countries are ranked on
a scale from 1 (highest amount) to 7 (least amount) which implies their level of democracy
(Freedom House 2005).
On the other hand, the concept of “effective democracy” argues that a democratic system of
government is mainly inspired by the idea to empower people. Inglehart and Welzel also
evaluate prevailing political and liberal rights. However, one has to familiarize oneself with
their thesis that rule of law is an additional crucial factor of a state determining whether it is
effective or not. By combining rule of law and democratic rights an index is compiled on a 0-
100 scale classifying the countries as non-democracies, ineffective democracies, and
effective democracies (Welzel 2007a).
Ultimately, it is to mention that a comparison between the two types of measures is only
possible from 1996 to 2006 due to limited data concerning the “effective democracy”.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Finland: The Freedom House Report
- Finland's Performance Relating to an "Effective" Democracy
- The Comparison and Criticism
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay aims to analyze the development of democracy in Finland between 1974 and 2006 using two different measurement approaches: Freedom House's assessment of political rights and civil liberties, and Inglehart & Welzel's concept of "effective democracy." The essay compares the results of these two methods and critically evaluates their strengths and weaknesses.
- The evolution of democracy in Finland during the Cold War and post-Cold War periods.
- A comparative analysis of two distinct methodologies for measuring democracy.
- The strengths and limitations of Freedom House's and Inglehart & Welzel's approaches.
- The impact of geopolitical factors on Finland's democratic development.
- Finland's high ranking in both democracy measures and the nuances revealed by each.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This introductory section sets the stage for the essay by highlighting Finland's unique geopolitical position during the Cold War, situated between the West and the Soviet Union. It introduces the two key methods of measuring democracy that will be used – Freedom House's assessment and Inglehart & Welzel's "effective democracy" – and outlines the essay's goal of comparing their application to Finland's case.
Finland: The Freedom House Report: This section analyzes Finland's democratic performance as measured by Freedom House over a 30-year period. It highlights Finland's consistent ranking as "free," but notes an initial score of 2 (out of 7) between 1974 and 1986 due to geopolitical constraints and censorship related to the Cold War and its relationship with the Soviet Union. The essay explains how Finland's score improved to 1 after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, reflecting the removal of external pressures and an improvement in its democratic performance.
Finland's Performance Relating to an "Effective" Democracy: This section examines Finland's democratic performance through the lens of Inglehart & Welzel's "effective democracy" measure, focusing on data from 1996 to 2006. It showcases Finland's consistently high scores, indicating an almost perfect status of democracy, highlighting the exceptional level of democracy achieved in combination with rule of law. The analysis points to a minor dip in 2005, before a slight overall improvement.
The Comparison and Criticism: This chapter compares the findings of the Freedom House and "effective democracy" approaches, noting that both identify Finland as a strong democracy. However, it delves into the critical evaluation of both methodologies. It acknowledges the differences in analytical procedures, highlighting criticisms of Inglehart & Welzel's "effective democracy" model regarding conceptual and empirical flaws, and potential bias related to model specification. The essay then contrasts this with Freedom House's more comprehensive approach, including a broader assessment which encompasses rule of law as a component of civil liberties and the advantage of data extending back to 1974, enabling a comprehensive view of Finland’s democratic development. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the unique strength of the "effective democracy" approach, its capability to distinguish subtle differences among high-ranking countries. This is exemplified by contrasting Finland and the USA, both achieving the top score on the Freedom House scale, yet exhibiting a considerable difference in the "effective democracy" scores, thereby emphasizing the greater precision offered by the latter method. The comparatively low level of corruption in Finland is also highlighted as a contributing factor to its high performance in the "effective democracy" measure, in contrast to the limited consideration given to corruption by Freedom House.
Keywords
Finland, democracy, Freedom House, effective democracy, Inglehart & Welzel, Cold War, political rights, civil liberties, rule of law, comparative analysis, geopolitical factors, censorship, European Union.
Frequently Asked Questions: Analysis of Finnish Democracy (1974-2006)
What is the main topic of this analysis?
This analysis examines the development of democracy in Finland between 1974 and 2006, using two different measurement approaches: Freedom House's assessment of political rights and civil liberties, and Inglehart & Welzel's concept of "effective democracy." It compares the results of these methods and critically evaluates their strengths and weaknesses.
What methodologies are used to assess Finnish democracy?
The analysis utilizes two distinct methodologies: Freedom House's assessment, focusing on political rights and civil liberties, and Inglehart & Welzel's "effective democracy" measure, which incorporates factors beyond basic freedoms.
What were the findings of the Freedom House assessment?
Freedom House consistently ranked Finland as "free." However, initial scores (2 out of 7) between 1974 and 1986 reflected geopolitical constraints and censorship during the Cold War. After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the score improved to 1, reflecting reduced external pressures and enhanced democratic performance.
What were the findings of the Inglehart & Welzel "effective democracy" assessment?
Inglehart & Welzel's measure showed Finland consistently achieving high scores, indicating an almost perfect status of democracy, especially combining this with the rule of law. A minor dip in 2005 was followed by a slight improvement. The assessment highlighted Finland's exceptionally high level of democracy.
How do the two methodologies compare?
Both methodologies identify Finland as a strong democracy. However, the analysis critically evaluates each approach. Freedom House offers a broader assessment encompassing rule of law and has a longer data span (back to 1974), providing a comprehensive view of Finland's democratic development. Inglehart & Welzel's method, while potentially biased due to model specification, offers greater precision, capable of distinguishing subtle differences between high-ranking countries like Finland and the USA, particularly highlighting the impact of factors like corruption.
What are the key strengths and weaknesses of each methodology?
Freedom House provides a broader, long-term perspective, incorporating rule of law. However, it may lack the precision to differentiate between high-performing democracies. Inglehart & Welzel's "effective democracy" offers greater nuance and precision, but its reliance on specific model parameters introduces potential bias.
What role did geopolitical factors play in Finland's democratic development?
Finland's Cold War location between the West and the Soviet Union significantly impacted its early democratic scores. Geopolitical constraints and censorship affected Freedom House's initial assessment, improving significantly post-Cold War.
What key factors contribute to Finland's high ranking in both assessments?
Factors contributing to Finland's high ranking include the absence of significant corruption, a strong rule of law, and the absence of significant external pressures after the Cold War. The combination of these factors resulted in consistently high scores across both methodologies.
What are the key takeaways from this analysis?
The analysis demonstrates Finland's consistent strength as a democracy, highlighting the strengths and limitations of different measurement approaches. It underscores the importance of considering multiple methodologies for a comprehensive understanding of democratic development and the unique contributions of each method.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2007, Level of Democracy in Finland: Two Measures of Democracy in Competition, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/175292
