Global democracy indices and Nordic trends

Image: Frame & Work / Visit Denmark

This section reviews four core democracy datasets and indices alongside six complementary sources. The core datasets are treated as the main basis for comparison because they are among the largest, most widely used and most consistent sources in democracy research: they provide broad country and temporal coverage, are regularly used in research and policy, and have transparent, publicly documented methodologies (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022; Knutsen et al., 2024). They are produced by a range of organisations, including NGO or non-profit initiatives such as Freedom House and the Center for Systemic Peace, commercial research and analysis from the Economist Intelligence Unit, and university-based research institutes such as the V-Dem Institute. The complementary sources add further perspectives on democratic performance, public perceptions, government quality, public-sector integrity and national-level measurement, either through their own data collection or by compiling and reorganising data from multiple existing sources. TiNDe is included as a national Norwegian index that illustrates how democracy measurement can be adapted to a high-performing Nordic context and extended across levels of governance.

Acknowledging the limitations of democracy indices

Democracy indices are valuable because they condense complex, multidimensional political realities into tractable summaries that are easier to interpret than extensive batteries of indicators. As composite measures, they enable cross-national comparison, tracking of change over time and benchmarking; they also facilitate communication with general audiences and help to construct coherent narratives. However, composite indices also carry important risks and constraints. If poorly constructed or loosely interpreted, they can send misleading policy messages or invite overly simplistic conclusions. Choices about concepts, indicator selection, weighting and aggregation are inherently contestable and can become politicised, with different methodological decisions often yielding different scores and rankings (OECD, European Union & European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2008). Reliance on expert judgements raises concerns about transparency, consistency and replicability; cultural and geographical biases may be embedded in indicator design and composite scores can obscure within-country variation (Babones, 2026; Coppedge et al., 2011; Högström, 2013; OECD, European Union & European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2008).

Datasets refer to broader collections of data, often combining multiple variables, sources and measurements into a structured system that enables comparative analysis across countries or over time.

Indicators are individual variables or measures within a dataset that capture a specific aspect of a concept, such as voter turnout, trust in institutions or participation rates.

Indices are composite measures that aggregate multiple indicators into a single score, typically using a defined methodology, in order to summarise complex phenomena such as democracy, governance quality or participation.

Core datasets and indices

Freedom in the World by Freedom House, considered a core dataset because it is one of the longest-running and most widely cited global measures of political rights and civil liberties, providing annual country scores and qualitative country assessments that help identify both stability and emerging areas of concern.
Polity V by the Center for Systemic Peace, considered a core dataset because it offers exceptionally long historical coverage of regime characteristics and is widely used for analysing long-term patterns of democratic and autocratic change.
Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, considered a core dataset because it combines electoral, civil liberties, government functioning, participation and political culture dimensions in an accessible framework that captures variation beyond formal institutions.
V-Dem Dataset by the Varieties of Democracy Project, considered a core dataset because it provides the most detailed multidimensional democracy dataset, with extensive indicator-level data on electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian dimensions.

Complementary indices

Democracy Barometer Dataset by Democracy Barometer, included because it offers a multidimensional framework for assessing the quality of democracy, capturing freedom, equality and control using secondary data sources rather than expert assessments.
QoG Dataset by the Quality of Government Institute, included because it provides comparative and subnational data on government quality, corruption, impartiality and public-service performance, which are closely related to democratic governance.
Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD Indices) by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), included because they provide a comprehensive framework for assessing democratic performance and trends by compiling and reorganising data from multiple existing sources, particularly the Varieties of Democracy Project, while complementing these with qualitative assessments.
Democracy Perception Index by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, included because it captures citizens’ subjective perceptions of democracy, governance, trust, political institutions and societal challenges. This provides an important complement to expert-based assessments by revealing how democratic performance is experienced and evaluated by the public.
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) by Transparency International, included because corruption is widely recognised as a key factor influencing democratic quality, institutional trust, accountability and the rule of law. The index offers a globally comparable measure of perceived public-sector corruption.
Tilstandsanalyse av det norske demokratiet (TiNDe), commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development and carried out by scholars at the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, included as an example of national democracy measurement that adapts international frameworks to Norway and extends analysis across levels of governance.

The following approaches are not included:

Regimes of the World classification, as it is embedded within the V-Dem framework
Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy, due to its narrow focus on electoral components

Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of the four core datasets and indices reviewed in this section, including their coverage, conceptualisation of democracy, scoring systems and main components. Its main purpose is to show that these sources differ not only in scope and methodology, but also in how broadly they define democracy, shaping what they can reveal about Nordic democratic performance.

Table 1: Overview of the core democracy datasets and indices.
Organization	Years and countries covered	Conceptualisation of democracy	Dataset	Main index & scoring	Main components / indicators
Freedom House	1972–2026; 229 countries and territories, including microstates	Narrow: electoral or liberal democracy	*Freedom in the World*	Global Freedom Score (0–100 points) Classifications: not free < partly free < free; non-democracy < electoral democracy	Political Rights (0–40): electoral process, political pluralism & participation, functioning of government; Civil Liberties (0–60): freedom of expression & belief, associational rights, rule of law, personal autonomy & individual rights
Center for Systemic Peace	1800–2018; 192 countries	Narrow: electoral and liberal democracy	*Polity V Project*	Polity Score (−10 to +10), Classifications: hereditary monarchy to consolidated democracy; classification: autocracy < anocracy < democracy	Executive recruitment (openness, competitiveness), constraints on executive authority, political participation (regulation, competitiveness)
Economist Intelligence Unit	2006–2025; 167 countries	Broad: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, effective democracy	*Democracy Index*	Overall Democracy Score (0–10) Classifications: highly undemocratic to highly democratic; classification: authoritarian regime < hybrid regime < flawed democracy < full democracy	Electoral process & pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, civil liberties
Varieties of Democracy Institute	1789–2025; 202 countries, including non-independent territories	Broad: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, egalitarian	*V-Dem Dataset*	Several Indices but most relevant for the Nordic Region: Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) On a spectrum: 0 to 1; highly undemocratic to highly democratic; classifies regimes as liberal democracy, electoral democracy, electoral autocracy, closed autocracy, each with multiple subindices (e.g., Liberal, Electoral, Participatory)	Electoral democracy component (free & fair elections, suffrage, freedoms of expression/association); Liberal component (rule of law, judicial constraints, legislative constraints, equality before the law);

Table 1: Overview of the core democracy datasets and indices

Source: Freedom House, 2026; Center for Systemic Peace, 2026; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025; Nord et al., 2026; Graziano and Quaranta, 2022

Table 2 complements the above overview by comparing how the core datasets are produced, including the type of assessment, the sources used, the number of coders or experts involved and the coding approach.

Table 2: Methodological approaches of the core democracy datasets and indices
Index	Assessments	Basis for assessment	Number of coders/researchers	Coding approach
*Freedom in the World*	Primarily through evaluations by country and regional experts and in-house researchers based on different types of sources. Analysts’ proposed scores are reviewed in regional meetings involving staff and expert advisers, with the final ratings representing a consensus among these participants.	Experts know the country or region well; in-house researchers have methodological expertise.	Over 100 experts and researchers participating in total; experts and researchers rely on academic research, news and NGO reports, personal conversations and on-the-ground research.	Experts answer questions about characteristics separately.
*Polity V Project*	Primarily through evaluations by in-house researchers based on academic literature and news reports, followed by weighting and aggregation of scores across characteristics	In-house researchers have methodological expertise.	Small core research team	Experts answer specific questions about characteristics using a detailed, predefined scale.
*Democracy Index*	Primarily through evaluations by in-house country experts, some evaluations by representative surveys of the general population, followed by averaging and minor weighting of scores across (sub-)characteristics	Experts know the country or region well; survey respondents provide information based on their own experiences	One or two experts per country and per year	Experts answer specific questions about sub-characteristics, using a detailed, predefined scale.
*V-Dem Dataset*	Primarily through evaluations by experts; some easy-to-observe characteristics assessed by in-house researchers, followed by weighting, aggregation and multiplication of scores across (sub-)characteristics	Experts (often nationals or residents) know the country and characteristics well; in-house researchers have methodological expertise.	Several experts per country, year and characteristic used (usually 5 or more since 1900, often 25 per country)	Experts answer highly specific questions about sub-characteristics, using a detailed, predefined scale. Experts also code hypothetical countries, with many coding several countries, and report their own uncertainty and personal demographic information. The project investigated expert bias and found it to be limited

Table 2: Methodological approaches of the core democracy datasets and indices

Source: Freedom House, 2026; Center for Systemic Peace, 2026; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025; Nord et al., 2026; Graziano and Quaranta, 2022

Freedom House

Within the broader landscape of measurement approaches, the Freedom House index represents one of the most widely used and longest-standing efforts to assess democracy globally. The scoring process follows a two-step procedure that combines responses to a series of questions, with conversion tables used to determine country status. The assessment focuses on two dimensions—political rights and civil liberties—which broadly correspond to the eight constitutional guarantees identified by Robert Dahl (Freedom House, 2026).

Political rights are measured through 10 indicators covering electoral process, political pluralism and participation and the functioning of government, including the fairness of elections, opportunities for opposition and control of corruption. Civil liberties are measured through 15 indicators addressing freedom of expression and belief, associational rights, rule of law and personal autonomy, including media freedom, judicial independence, equality before the law, property rights and freedom of association. Each question is scored on a scale from 0 to 4 and supported by guiding questions. These assessments often require interpretation, as they combine attitudinal and behavioural elements and are not strictly anchored to quantitative data. The maximum score is 40 points for political rights and 60 points for civil liberties, producing a total of 100 points. Scores from the previous year serve as a benchmark, with changes typically introduced in response to significant developments, although gradual adjustments may also occur (Freedom House, 2026).

Freedom House scores are widely used by both media and academic researchers and are grounded in established understandings of liberal democracy. However, the structure of the questions and scoring system suggests that rankings may remain partly subjective. Another limitation is the absence of a social rights dimension, which may constrain its ability to capture broader aspects of democratic quality (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

Freedom House scores for 2017 and 2026 show that the Nordic countries remained among the world’s highest-performing democracies. Finland maintained a perfect score throughout, Denmark’s score remained unchanged, Norway and Sweden each declined by one point, and Iceland declined by two points while remaining in the highest category of democratic performance. Overall, the limited change suggests either that democratic backsliding has been minimal or that the measure is not well suited to detecting subtle shifts in long-established democracies (Freedom House, 2017; Freedom House, 2026).

Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Table 3: Freedom in the World index: Nordic scores (2017 and 2026)
Country	2017	2026	Change 2017–2026
Denmark	97	97 Political rights: 40/40 Civil liberties: 57/60	0
Finland	100	100 Political rights: 40/40 Civil liberties: 60/60	0
Iceland	97	95 Political rights: 38/40 Civil liberties: 57/60	−2
Norway	100	99 Political rights: 39/40 Civil liberties: 60/60	−1
Sweden	100	99 Political rights: 40/40 Civil liberties: 59/60	−1

Table 3: Freedom in the World index: Nordic scores (2017 and 2026)

Source: Freedom House, 2017; Freedom House, 2026

Beyond the numerical scores, the Freedom House country reports contextualise scores by highlighting both strengths and emerging challenges within countries. Across all five Nordic countries in 2025, the overall picture is one of stable, high-quality democratic systems. Elections are consistently free and fair, political rights are well protected, and judicial independence is firmly established in both law and practice. Multiparty competition functions effectively, corruption is minimal and civil liberties such as freedom of expression, association and religion are broadly respected. At the same time, the qualitative assessments point to specific areas of concern that vary across countries but also reveal common patterns (Freedom House, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d, 2025e).

Denmark stands out as highly democratic but faces persistent challenges in safeguarding the rights of immigrants and newcomers. Finland maintains strong institutional integrity and equality before the law, yet hate speech, harassment and discrimination targeting minority groups remain ongoing issues. Iceland demonstrates long-standing democratic stability, though concerns are raised about close ties between political elites and business interests, as well as concentrated media ownership, which may affect pluralism. Norway is described as one of the world’s most robust democracies, but still experiences discrimination against marginalised groups, including Roma communities. Sweden continues to perform strongly across all core democratic dimensions, though rising violent crime and hate crimes are identified as recent challenges that may affect perceptions of security and social cohesion (Freedom House, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d, 2025e).

Polity

Another widely used dataset in comparative political research is the Polity V index. The Polity V framework conceptualises political regimes through three main dimensions. First, executive recruitment refers to how leaders are selected, including how structured and institutionalised the process is, the extent to which multiple actors can compete for executive power, and how open access to executive office is across society. Second, constraints on executive authority capture the extent to which executive power is limited by institutional checks and balances, such as legislatures, courts and other accountability mechanisms. Third, political competition and participation address how participation is organised and contested, including the degree to which it is regulated or restricted, the ability of opposition groups to compete, and whether political competition is stable, fragmented or conflictual (Center for Systemic Peace, 2026).

Despite being widely used, the Polity dataset has several limitations. The coding process is not always fully transparent. Participation is measured primarily in terms of formal rules rather than substantive inclusion, meaning that high scores may coexist with limited broader participation. In addition, the relatively small number of variables may not fully capture the complexity and nuances of democratic development over time (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

According to the Polity index, democracy in the Nordic Region has remained stable over the period considered. The index is highly valuable for tracking long-term regime changes, particularly because of its extensive historical coverage, but it is less effective at detecting incremental democratic erosion within already consolidated democracies (Marshall & Gurr, 2020).

Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Table 4: Polity index: Nordic scores (2005 and 2018)
Country	2005	2018	Change 2005–2018
Denmark	10	10	0
Finland	10	10	0
Iceland	-	-	-
Norway	10	10	0
Sweden	10	10	0

Table 4: Polity index: Nordic scores (2005 and 2018)

Source: Marshall and Gurr, 2020

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index

The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index represents a different approach, combining a broader conceptualisation of democracy with a relatively accessible scoring system. Since 2006, the index has evaluated countries across five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025).

In addition to standard measures of elections and rights, the index introduces dimensions that are often less explicitly addressed in other datasets. The category on functioning of government focuses on the capacity of the state to implement policies and the level of trust in institutions. Political participation includes both electoral and non-electoral forms of engagement, such as party membership, civic involvement and willingness to participate in demonstrations. Political culture assesses the extent to which societal attitudes support democratic governance and stability (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025; Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

While these additions broaden the scope of measurement, they also introduce methodological challenges. Some questions are difficult to operationalise, sources are not always transparent, and combining different types of data may reduce reliability. Although efforts have been made to improve consistency, the index remains less suited to highly precise academic analysis (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

The index is based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories, with each indicator offering two or three possible responses. It provides a numerical score and ranking and classifies countries into four regime types (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025). The questions are grouped into five categories: Electoral process and pluralism; Functioning of government; Political participation; Political culture; and Civil liberties.

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index covering the period from 2006 to 2025 show that the Nordic countries remain among the highest-performing democracies globally. All five countries consistently score above 9 out of 10, placing them firmly within the category of full democracies. However, developments within the region are not entirely uniform. Finland and Norway record slight improvements, while Denmark, Iceland and Sweden record modest declines (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025). These shifts suggest variation within a generally strong pattern of democratic performance.

Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Table 5: EIU Democracy Index: Nordic scores (2006 and 2025)
Country	2006	2025	Global ranking 2025	Change 2006–2025
Denmark	9.52	9.42	3	-0.10
Finland	9.25	9.37	5	+0.12
Iceland	9.71	9.38	4	-0.33
Norway	9.55	9.81	1	+0.26
Sweden	9.88	9.35	6	-0.53

Table 5: EIU Democracy Index: Nordic scores (2006 and 2025)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025

Table 6: EIU Democracy Index: Nordic Scores per category (2024)
Country	Electoral process and pluralism	Functioning of government	Political participation	Political culture	Civil liberties
Denmark	10.00	9.29	8.33	9.38	9.41
Finland	10.00	9.64	7.78	9.38	9.71
Iceland	10.00	8.93	8.89	9.38	9.71
Norway	10.00	9.64	10.00	10.00	9.41
Sweden	9.58	9.64	8.33	10.00	9.41

Table 6: EIU Democracy Index: Nordic Scores per category (2024)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025

Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index indicate that all Nordic countries maintain very strong democratic foundations, with (near-)perfect scores in electoral process and pluralism, confirming the robustness of their electoral systems. Across most other dimensions—functioning of government, political culture, and civil liberties—scores are consistently high and display only limited variation, reflecting stable and mature democratic institutions. The main differences emerge in political participation, where Norway stands out with a perfect score, while Finland records the lowest level and the remaining countries fall in between. Some minor variation is also visible in specific areas, such as Iceland’s slightly lower score in functioning of government and Sweden’s marginally lower score in electoral process. Overall, the pattern suggests that while the Nordic countries perform uniformly well in core representative institutions, variation is more evident in the extent to which citizens actively participate in democratic processes beyond elections (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025).

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) democracy indices

To address six key measurement challenges—definition, precision, coverage and sources, coding, aggregation, and validity and reliability testing—the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute developed a new measurement model that translates abstract democratic principles into a highly detailed and operational system. This system consists of more than 400 indicators, generated through structured questionnaires completed by nearly 200 country experts, most of whom are academics. In addition, the project classifies political regimes into four main types: liberal democracies, electoral democracies, electoral autocracies and closed autocracies (Nord et al., 2026).

The five core dimensions of democracy in V-Dem are as follows: Electoral democracy; Liberal democracy; Participatory democracy; Deliberative democracy and Egalitarian democracy.

The democracy indices produced by V-Dem are published annually and provide one of the most comprehensive datasets on democracy. They include hundreds of indicators capturing different aspects of governance, particularly the quality of democracy, inclusiveness and related socio-political dimensions (Nord et al., 2026).

The five core indices are:

Electoral Democracy Index
Measures the extent to which regimes achieve free and fair elections, alongside freedoms of expression and media independence. This index forms the foundation of all other V-Dem indices.
Liberal Democracy Index
Builds on electoral democracy by incorporating rule of law, checks and balances, and civil liberties.
Participatory Democracy Index
Assesses the degree of citizen involvement in governance through civil society, local institutions and direct democratic mechanisms.
Deliberative Democracy Index
Evaluates whether political decisions are made through reasoned debate oriented towards the public good, rather than coercion or narrow interests.
Egalitarian Democracy Index
Captures the extent to which all social groups enjoy equal access to political power, resources and freedoms.

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

Across the Nordic countries, V-Dem indices show consistently high levels of democracy, with only moderate variation between countries and components. Iceland records the lowest scores in both the Electoral and Liberal Democracy Indices, though it still performs strongly in egalitarian and deliberative dimensions.

A common pattern across all five countries is that participatory democracy scores are consistently lower than scores for the other components.

Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the dataset.

Table 7: V-Dem democracy indices: Nordic scores (2025)
Country	Electoral Democracy Index	Liberal Democracy Index	Liberal Component	Egalitarian Component	Participatory Component	Deliberative Component
Denmark	0.91	0.88	0.98	0.97	0.71	0.96
Finland	0.85	0.81	0.96	0.81	0.64	0.90
Iceland	0.81	0.72	0.90	0.92	0.65	0.88
Norway	0.89	0.85	0.96	0.96	0.65	0.99
Sweden	0.89	0.85	0.98	0.90	0.65	0.93

Table 7: V-Dem democracy indices: Nordic scores (2025)

Source: Nord et al., 2026

The V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index shows little evidence of clear democratic backsliding among the Nordic countries over the period considered. The trajectories for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are largely stable, with very small, statistically insignificant declines in some cases and no change in others. Overall, the trend lines are relatively flat (Nord et al., 2026).

Table 8: V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index Nordic scores (2017 and 2025)
Country	2017	2025	Global ranking 2025	Change 2017–2025
Denmark	0.84	0.88	1	+0.04
Finland	0.78	0.81	8	+0.03
Iceland	0.73	0.72	25	−0.01
Norway	0.85	0.85	3	0.00
Sweden	0.87	0.85	2	−0.02

Table 8: V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index Nordic scores (2017 and 2025)

Source: Nord et al., 2026; Coppedge et al., 2017

The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project also published country profile reports for Finland and Sweden in 2016. These reports classified both countries among the highest-performing liberal democracies, with very strong scores across electoral, liberal and deliberative dimensions. In both cases, the reports found that democratic institutions were stable, rights were well protected and public decision-making processes were generally transparent and effective. Their lowest scores were in the participatory dimension of democracy. Although still high in absolute terms, this dimension was weaker than others, indicating comparatively fewer opportunities for direct citizen influence beyond elections. Some variation was also visible in egalitarian aspects, particularly in equal access to political influence across social groups, although these differences were relatively limited (Andersson, 2016; Mechkova et al., 2016).

Democracy Barometer Quality of Democracy index

The Democracy Barometer was initiated in 2005 by the Berlin Social Science Center and the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau. It conceptualises democracy through three core principles—freedom, equality and control—which are operationalised through nine functions: individual liberties, rule of law, and public sphere under Freedom; transparency, participation, and representation under Equality; and competition, mutual constraints, and governmental capability under Control (Democracy Barometer, n.d.).

Measurement relies on more than 100 indicators derived from secondary data sources. One distinctive feature of this approach is that it does not use expert assessments, instead drawing on official statistics and representative surveys. This reduces some concerns related to intercoder reliability, although expert assessments can also be valuable where comparable quantitative data are limited or where institutional practices require contextual interpretation (Democracy Barometer, n.d.).

Despite its comprehensive structure, the Democracy Barometer gives limited direct attention to economic equality, even though relatively low inequality is often considered important for democratic consolidation and quality (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

From 2005 to 2017, Nordic countries show minor, mixed changes rather than a clear common trend. Denmark and Finland experienced the most notable declines, while Iceland and Norway show only slight decreases. Sweden is the only country with a small improvement. Overall, the changes are limited in magnitude and indicate relative stability with slight downward movement in most cases (Engler et al., 2020).

Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Table 9: Democracy Barometer (DB) index: Nordic score change (2005 and 2017)
Country	Change 2005–2017
Denmark	−0.3
Finland	−0.2
Iceland	−0.1
Norway	−0.1
Sweden	+0.1

Table 9: Democracy Barometer (DB) index: Nordic score change (2005 and 2017)

Source: Engler et al., 2020

European Quality of Government Index

Alongside research on democratic quality, recent scholarship has also focused on government effectiveness, which can be understood as one component of democratic quality. A major contribution in this area is the Quality of Government (QoG) dataset, hosted by the Quality of Government Institute at the University of Gothenburg. The central concept in its framework is impartiality, defined as the principle that government officials should not consider characteristics of citizens or cases that are not explicitly stipulated in policy or law (University of Gothenburg, n.d.; Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

However, unlike many democracy datasets, QoG does not provide a single global index of government quality. The European Quality of Government Index is based on survey data on regional or subnational governance within the EU. The data were first gathered and published in 2010, with subsequent waves conducted in 2013, 2017, 2021 and 2024. The index is based on a large citizen survey in which respondents are asked about perceptions and experiences of public-sector corruption, as well as whether public services are delivered impartially and with good quality. The dataset currently provides data for up to 206 regions, depending on the year (University of Gothenburg, n.d.; Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

The European Quality of Government Index is based on three main components:

Control of corruption
Measures the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including bribery and misuse of resources.
Government effectiveness / quality of public services
Assesses the quality, impartiality and reliability of public service delivery.
Rule of law
Captures confidence in and compliance with rules, including judicial independence and contract enforcement.

The conceptualisation of government quality is relatively thin and is therefore best understood as a complementary dataset that captures institutional quality rather than democracy itself (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022). Its usefulness for a Nordic framework is further limited by coverage: only Denmark, Finland and Sweden are included, while Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are excluded.

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

Table 10: Quality of Government index Nordic scores (2010 and 2021)
Country	2010	2021	Change 2010–2021
Denmark	1.677	1.475	−0.203
Finland	1.522	1.681	+0.159
Iceland	-	-	-
Norway	-	-	-
Sweden	1.409	1.430	+0.020

Table 10: Quality of Government index Nordic scores (2010 and 2021)

Source: Charron et al., 2014; Charron et al., 2022

Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD Indices)

The International IDEA Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD Indices), launched in 2016, provide data and analysis on democratic performance across more than 150 countries from 1975 to the present. The framework conceptualises democracy as popular control over decision-making combined with political equality and operationalises this conceptualisation through five main attributes, 28 aspects and around 100 indicators. It draws on more than 20 data sources, including Freedom House, Polity V and the Varieties of Democracy Project (International IDEA, 2025f).

Rather than producing a single composite score, GSoD offers a set of mid-level indices, including representation, rights, rule of law and participation. This multidimensional structure provides analytical depth and transparency but makes aggregation and straightforward cross-country comparison more difficult than in indices designed for ranking (International IDEA, 2025f).

Because the framework relies heavily on existing datasets, particularly V-Dem, there is also a degree of conceptual overlap and limited independence in some indicators. For these reasons, GSoD is less commonly considered as a standalone benchmark of democracy. Instead, it is most effectively used as a complementary tool, allowing researchers to examine specific dimensions of democratic governance in greater detail and adding nuance to analyses that rely on more aggregate indices (Graziano & Quaranta, 2022).

Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the indices.

Nordic democracy trends according to the index

Table 11: Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD Indices): Nordic scores (2025)
Country	Representation Index *(and global ranking)*	Rights Index *(and global ranking)*	Rule of Law Index *(and global ranking)*	Participation Index *(and global ranking)*
Denmark	0.89 (1)	0.95 (1)	0.99 (1)	0.96 (1)
Finland	0.86 (7)	0.87 (8)	0.84 (11)	0.86 (7)
Iceland	0.78 (31)	0.79 (23)	0.81 (13)	0.75 (20)
Norway	0.88 (4)	0.91 (4)	0.86 (6)	0.91 (3)
Sweden	0.87 (5)	0.89 (6)	0.85 (9)	0.84 (10)

Table 11: Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD Indices): Nordic scores (2025)

Source: International IDEA, 2025f

Beyond the numerical scores, International IDEA provides brief country descriptions. Across the Nordic countries, the Global State of Democracy framework indicates consistently high overall performance alongside selective, recent changes. All five countries remain in the high range across most categories and within the top quartile globally. However, some countries experienced declines in specific indicators. Sweden shows declines in civil liberties, particularly freedom of association, assembly and the press. Finland shows a decline in freedom of the press, especially related to self-censorship. Iceland shows declines in economic equality and aspects of freedom of expression, particularly academic freedom. Norway shows a decline in judicial independence, specifically in compliance with the judiciary. Denmark shows no significant change over this period. These indicator-level changes add nuance to the overall picture and help identify areas that may warrant closer attention.

Second, there are signs of evolving political dynamics within traditionally consensus-oriented systems. While coalition governance and cross-party cooperation remain central, some countries report more complex coalition formation, particularly Sweden and Iceland. Such complexity may reflect normal adaptation within proportional multiparty systems rather than democratic weakening, although it may still affect government formation, policy continuity and perceptions of political effectiveness. There is also growing prominence of issues such as immigration, environment and security in political competition, alongside increased attention to political violence, disinformation or crime in some cases, particularly in Sweden and Finland.

Third, migration and minority-related issues feature increasingly prominently in political debate and policy across multiple countries. This includes stricter or changing migration policies in some cases, notably Denmark and Finland, as well as ongoing discussions around minority rights and inclusion, such as those concerning Sámi populations and Greenlandic Inuit. Social Group Equality is repeatedly identified as an area to monitor.

Fourth, there are instances where security-related concerns intersect with rights and freedoms. In some countries, responses to crime, extremism or geopolitical pressures are accompanied by legislative or policy changes affecting migration or public order, as well as public debate about potential implications for civil liberties.

Fifth, economic equality shows variation across countries. While overall levels remain comparatively high, Sweden and Norway report increases in income inequality over time and Iceland shows a decline in economic equality, moving into the mid-range of performance. These developments do not indicate a uniform regional trend.

Sixth, gender equality remains a consistently strong area across all five countries, supported by high political representation and recent legal reforms. At the same time, persistent gender income gaps and pension differences are noted, for example in Sweden, alongside ongoing concerns such as gender-based violence in Finland and Iceland.

Finally, the country cases highlight ongoing institutional and policy adjustments in response to emerging challenges. These include legal reforms to strengthen protections for journalists, courts and minorities, policy initiatives addressing discrimination, security or participation, and continued attention to historical injustices and minority rights (International IDEA, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d, 2025e).

Democracy Perception Index (DPI)

The Democracy Perception Index (DPI) is a global survey-based measure designed to capture how citizens perceive democracy and public institutions in their own countries. Produced annually by Nira Data in collaboration with the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, the DPI differs from most democracy indices by focusing on public perceptions rather than expert assessments of political institutions and democratic performance. This approach reflects the assumption that public perceptions constitute an important dimension of democratic legitimacy and provide insights into how citizens understand and evaluate political systems. The 2026 edition covers 98 countries and is based on nationally representative surveys of 94,146 respondents conducted between March and April 2026, making it one of the largest global studies of democratic attitudes currently available (DeVeaux & Jaspers, 2026).

The index is constructed around two broad dimensions: Citizen Participation and Institutional Quality. Citizen Participation captures whether individuals perceive themselves as able to engage meaningfully in political life and includes indicators relating to elections, freedom of speech, political pluralism and civic education. Institutional Quality measures perceptions of the functioning of public institutions and includes assessments of the separation of powers, the rule of law, government transparency and the peaceful transfer of power. Reporting these dimensions separately allows the DPI to distinguish between perceptions of democratic participation and evaluations of institutional performance (DeVeaux & Jaspers, 2026).

Countries are assigned a DPI score ranging from −100 to +100, where positive values indicate that favourable perceptions outweigh negative perceptions among respondents. Based on these scores, countries are grouped into five categories: Very Positive, Positive, Neutral, Negative and Very Negative. Among the Nordic countries included, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland all rank at the top of the index, indicating that public perceptions of democracy and institutional quality remain especially favourable in comparative terms (DeVeaux & Jaspers, 2026).

Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are not included in the index.

Table 12: Nira Data Democracy Perception Index: Nordic scores (2026)
Country	2026	Global ranking 2026
Denmark	20.8	3
Finland	20	4
Iceland	-	-
Norway	23	2
Sweden	29.2	1

Table 12: Nira Data Democracy Perception Index: Nordic scores (2026)

Source: DeVeaux and Jaspers, 2026

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), produced by Transparency International, measures perceived levels of public-sector corruption across countries. The 2025 edition ranks 182 countries and territories on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). It aggregates perceptions from businesspeople and country experts using 13 data sources from 12 independent institutions. The underlying assessments cover bribery, misuse or diversion of public funds, anti-corruption enforcement, public-official integrity, and government accountability. Its consistent methodology since 2012 enables cross-country comparison and long-term tracking (Transparency International, 2026).

Table 13: Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Nordic scores (2012 and 2025)
Country	2012	2025	Global ranking 2025	Change 2012–2025
Denmark	90	89	1	−1
Finland	90	88	2	−2
Iceland	82	77	10	−5
Norway	85	81	4	−4
Sweden	88	80	6	−8

Table 13: Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) Nordic scores (2012 and 2025)

Source: Transparency International, 2012; Transparency International, 2026

The Nordic countries continue to rank among the least corrupt countries in the world, with all five remaining in the global top ten in 2025. Denmark and Finland retain the strongest performance, ranking first and second globally. At the same time, all Nordic countries have experienced some decline since 2012, particularly Sweden (−8 points), Iceland (−5) and Norway (−4). Although the region continues to demonstrate exceptionally high levels of public-sector integrity, the downward trend may point to pressures related to trust, accountability, transparency or perceptions of government performance (Transparency International, 2012; Transparency International, 2026).

TiNDe: a national democracy assessment for Norway

The Norwegian Tilstandsanalyse av det norske demokratiet (TiNDe) provides a national example of democracy measurement adapted to a high-performing Nordic democracy. It assesses Norwegian democracy across five dimensions—electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian—and across three levels of governance: national, regional and local (Dahlum et al., 2023).

TiNDe does not produce a single overall score. Instead, it constructs separate indices for each democratic dimension and level of governance, generating 15 indices in total. This design is intended to avoid obscuring variation across dimensions and between national, regional and local levels of democracy. The framework combines cross-national datasets, Norwegian administrative and survey data, coded sources and a dedicated expert survey, bringing together evidence that was previously dispersed and filling gaps, particularly below the national level (Dahlum et al., 2023).

The framework uses V-Dem’s main democracy indices as a starting point but adapts and expands them to capture finer distinctions within a high-quality democratic setting. Candidate indicators were identified by reviewing existing democracy datasets and related thematic sources, then refined by removing indicators with insufficient coverage, combining overlapping measures, organising them into a coherent hierarchy, and identifying gaps to be filled through the expert survey (Dahlum et al., 2023).

In total, TiNDe uses 568 existing indicators or indices and 142 expert-survey indicators, generating 710 inputs for its 15 indices. V-Dem is the main cross-national source, complemented by EIU data, the European Social Survey, thematic datasets on digital society and political parties, and Norwegian sources on elections, citizens, municipal organisation and local democracy. National data and the expert survey are especially important for measuring regional and local democracy in greater depth (Dahlum et al., 2023).

Norwegian democracy trends according to the index

The TiNDe findings indicate that Norwegian democracy remained highly stable during the period assessed, while also identifying several areas requiring attention. These include participation rights, regional variation in representation, limited use of direct-democracy instruments, perceptions of corruption and abuse of power, unequal political influence across social groups, and transparency around lobbying (Dahlum et al., 2023):

TiNDe highlights limited voting rights in national parliamentary elections for long-term residents, due to citizenship criteria for voting.
The votes of voters in some counties carry significantly less weight, in terms of the number of voters per parliamentary representative, than the votes of voters in other counties.
The Norwegian system scores low on the use of direct-democracy instruments, such as referendums.
Residents perceive abuse of power and corruption as widespread, perhaps especially at the local level.
Political influence is unevenly distributed between different ethnic groups and between Norwegians with and without immigrant backgrounds.
The influence of resource-rich lobby groups is perceived by experts as significant at several levels of governance, including national politics, where transparency around links between interest groups and politicians could be increased. One possible measure would be the introduction of a lobby register, which the Norwegian Parliament currently lacks.