Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:50:55.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Freedom House’s Scarlet Letter

Assessment Power through Transnational Pressure

from Part II - The Normative Influence of Ratings and Rankings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2020

By
Jordan Roberts  and
Juan Tellez
Edited by
Judith G. Kelley  and
Beth A. Simmons
Judith G. Kelley
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Beth A. Simmons
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Global Performance Indicators (GPIs) are a growing phenomenon in international politics, yet their influence remains difficult to measure and the mechanisms at work have been challenging to pin down. How do GPIs exert power over states in the international system and what are the consequences of that power? We argue that one of the pathways of GPI influence is through harnessing transnational pressure against poorly performing states. This article provides empirical evidence of that mechanism at work. We show that when a state receives a negative assessment in Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World report, it is treated systematically worse by other states in a phenomenon we term the “Scarlet Letter effect.” A state branded “Not Free” by Freedom House receives increased verbal criticism from norm-respecting democracies, especially in the months immediately following the annual release of the Freedom in the World report. We separate the effect of Freedom House’s indicator itself from the effect of the underlying factors Freedom House measures by exploiting a discontinuity in the assignment of a country’s freedom status, whereby countries on either side of a bright-line receive different labels even though their level of political and civil liberty is similar. Additionally, our quantitative tests are supported by discussions with senior officials at Freedom House as well as organizations that make use of Freedom House’s scores when making or advising policy. We find that Freedom House’s annual indicator helps shape international discourse and diplomatic relations between states – fundamental aspects of international relations.

Keywords

Freedom Houseverbal conflictassessment power
Type
Chapter
Information
The Power of Global Performance Indicators , pp. 242 - 268
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2004. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International Organization 58 (2):239–75.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David A. 2011. Stability and Change in the Freedom House Political Rights and Civil Liberties Measures. Journal of Peace Research 48(5):653–62.Google Scholar
Bandura, Romina. 2008. A Survey of Composite Indices Measuring Country Performance: 2008 Update. Office of Development Studies. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
Beger, Andreas, Dorff, Cassy L, and Ward, Michael D. 2014. Ensemble Forecasting of Irregular Leadership Change. Research & Politics 1(3):2053168014557511.Google Scholar
Björkdahl, Annika. 2002. Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15(1):9–23.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Paxton, Pamela. 2000. Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33 (1):58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschee, Elizabeth, Lautenschlager, Jennifer, OBrien, Sean, Shellman, Steve, Starz, James, and Ward, Michael. 2015. ICEWS Coded Event Data. Harvard Dataverse Network [Distributor], 1.Google Scholar
Boschee, Elizabeth, Natarajan, Premkumar, and Weischedel, Ralph. 2013. Automatic Extraction of Events from Open Source Text for Predictive Forecasting. In Subrahmanian, V. S., editor, Handbook of Computational Approaches to Counterterrorism, 51–67. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Bradley, Christopher. 2015. International Organizations and the Production of Indicators: The Case of Freedom House. In Merry, Sally Engle, Davis, Kevin E., and Kingsbury, Benedict, editors, The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bush, Sarah Sunn. 2017. The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings. Perspectives on Politics 15 (3):711–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprioli, Mary. 2003. Gender Equality and State Aggression: The Impact of Domestic Gender Equality on State First Use of Force. International Interactions 29 (3):195–214.Google Scholar
Davis, Kevin E., Fisher, Angelina, Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle. 2012. Governance by Indicators: Global Power through Classification and Rankings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kevin E., Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle. 2012. Introduction: Global Governance by Indicators. In Davis, Kevin E, Fisher, Angelina, Kingsbury, Benedict, and Merry, Sally Engle, editors, Governance by Indicators: Global Power through Quantification and Rankings, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Towards Democratic Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, Lindsay R. 2017. Labeling Laggards and Leaders: International Organizations and the Politics of Defining Development. Available at www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PEIO11_paper_16.pdfGoogle Scholar
Donno, Daniela. 2010. Who Is Punished? Regional Intergovernmental Organizations and the Enforcement of Democratic Norms. International Organization 64 (4):593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Orazio, Vito, Yonamine, James E, and Schrodt, Philip A. 2011. Predicting Intra-State Conflict Onset: An Event Data Approach Using Euclidean and Levenshtein Distance Measures. In 69th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Duval, Robert D., and Thompson, William R. 1980. Reconsidering the Aggregate Relationship between Size, Economic Development, and Some Types of Foreign Policy Behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 511–25.Google Scholar
Franklin, James C. 2008. Shame on You: The Impact of Human Rights Criticism on Political Repression in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly 52 (1):187–211.Google Scholar
Freedom House. 2015. Freedom in the World 2015: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Freedom House. 2016. Our history.Google Scholar
Gastil, Raymond Duncan. 1985. The Past, Present and Future of Democracy. Journal of International Affairs 38 (2):161–79.Google Scholar
Gastil, Raymond Duncan. 1990. The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (1):25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerner, Deborah J., Schrodt, Philip A, and Omur, Yilmaz. 2009. Conflict and Mediation Event Observations (CAMEO): An Event Data Framework for a Post-Cold War World. In International Conflict Mediation: New Approaches and Findings, edited by Bercovitcch, Jacob and Sigmund Gartner, Scott, 287–304. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giannone, Diego. 2010. Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of Democracy: The Freedom House Case. Democratization 17 (1):68–97.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2005. Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization 59 (3):593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2008. Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. International Organization 62 (4):689–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Jinyong, Todd, Petra, and Van der Klaauw, Wilbert. 2001. Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design. Econometrica 69 (1):201–09.Google Scholar
Hansen, Hans Krause and Mühlen-Schulte, Arthur. 2012. The Power of Numbers in Global Governance. Journal of International Relations and Development 15 (4):455–65.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. 1850. The Scarlet Letter. Boston, MA: Ticknor, Reed & Fields.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15 (3):199–236.Google Scholar
Honig, Dan and Weaver, Catherine. this volume. A Race to the Top?: The Aid Transparency Index and the Normative Power of Global Performance Assessments. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Høyland, Bjørn, Moene, Karl, and Willumsen, Fredrik. 2012. The Tyranny of International Index Rankings. Journal of Development Economics 97 (1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Lemieux, Thomas. 2008. Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice. Journal of Econometrics 142 (2):615–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, volume 6. Ithaca, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith G. this volume. Introduction: The Power of Global Performance Indicators. Chapter 1 in The Power of Global Performance Indicators.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., Simmons, Beth A, and Doshi, Rush. this volume. The Power of Ranking: The Ease of Doing Business and Global Regulatory Behavior. Chapter 2 in The Power of Global Performance Indicators.Google Scholar
Kijima, Rie and Lipscy, Phillip Y. this volume. International Assessments and Education Policy: Evidence from an Elite Survey. Chapter 6 in The Power of Global Performance Indicators.Google Scholar
Le, Ahn, and Malesky, Edmund. this volume. Do Subnational Performance Assessments (SPAs) Lead to Improved Governance?: Evidence from Field Experiment in Vietnam. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Lee, Melissa M., and Matanock, Aila M. this volume. Third Party Policymakers and the Limits of the Influence of Indicators. Chapter 11 in The Power of Global Performance Indicators.Google Scholar
Linden, Ariel and Adams, John L. 2012. Combining the Regression Discontinuity Design and Propensity Score-Based Weighting to Improve Causal Inference in Program Evaluation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (2):317–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lozovsky, Ilya. 2016. Freedom by the numbers. Foreign Policy. Available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/freedom-by-the-numbers-freedom-house-in-the-world/.Google Scholar
Masaki, Takaaki, Sethi, Tanya, and Custer, Samantha. 2016. In the Eye of the Beholder: When is governance data good enough? AidData at the College of William & Mary and the Governance Data Alliance.Google Scholar
Meernik, James, Aloisi, Rosa, Sowell, Marsha, and Nichols, Angela. 2012. The Impact of Human Rights Organizations on Naming and Shaming Campaigns. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56 (2):233–56.Google Scholar
Metternich, Nils W., Dorff, Cassy, Gallop, Max, Weschle, Simon, and Ward, Michael D. 2013. Antigovernment Networks in Civil Conflicts: How Network Structures Affect Conflictual Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 57 (4):892–911.Google Scholar
Metternich, Nils W., Minhas, Shahryar, and Ward, Michael D. 2015. Firewall? or Wall on Fire? a Unified Framework of Conflict Contagion and the Role of Ethnic Exclusion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 0022002715603452.Google Scholar
Morse, Julia C. 2016. Blacklists, Market Enforcement, and the Global Regime to Combat Terrorist Financing. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sean P. 2010. Crisis Early Warning and Decision Support: Contemporary Approaches and Thoughts on Future Research. International Studies Review 12 (1):87–104.Google Scholar
Parks, Bradley G., and Masaki, Takaaki. 2016. Do Performance Assessment Influence Policy Behavior? Micro-Evidence from the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey. Paper presented at the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Peterson, Timothy M., and Graham, Leah. 2011. Shared Human Rights Norms and Military Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55 (2):248–73.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002. Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization. International Organization 56 (3):515–49.Google Scholar
Ramos, Howard, Ron, James, and Thoms, Oskar N.T.. 2007. Shaping the Northern Media’s Human Rights Coverage, 1986–2000. Journal of Peace Research 44 (4):385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropp, Stephen C., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, volume 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1994. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Philip A. 2012. CAMEO: Conflict and Mediation Event Observations Event and Actor Codebook. Event Data Project, Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Sobek, David, Abouharb, M. Rodwan, and Ingram, Christopher G. 2006. The Human Rights Peace: How the Respect for Human Rights at Home Leads to Peace Abroad. Journal of Politics 68 (3):519–29.Google Scholar
Thistlethwaite, Donald L., and Campbell, Donald T. 1960. Regression-Discontinuity Analysis: An Alternative to the Ex Post Facto Experiment. Journal of Educational psychology 51 (6):309.Google Scholar
Weisiger, Alex and Yarhi-Milo, Keren. 2015. Revisiting Reputation: How Past Actions Matter in International Politics. International Organization 69 (2):473–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weschle, Simon. The Impact of Economic Crises on Political Representation in Public Communication: Evidence from the Eurozone. British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×