Freedom House* Ratings’ Distortion by US Attitude

Although studies have already found Freedom House’s* Freedom in the World rankings to be geopolitically biased, the index remains in use by academia (including Russian academia) with surprising frequency. This article provides detailed and quantitative evidence that Freedom House* is essentially part of the US Government and US political establishment, and is thus in principle liable to issue moral judgements that are distorted by the US’s attitude towards the states under judgement. The article then develops a more accurate formula for calculating a state’s democraticness according to the Polity index, and also develops an improved method, based on arms transfers and UNGA voting, of approximating states’ alignment with the US (and thus presumed US attitude towards states). It then uses these metrics to measure the effect of US attitude on Freedom House’s* evaluations of states’ freedom/democracy. This bias is found to be about half as powerful as the effect of actual regime type, approaching equal size in more recent years. Its magnitude is sufficient to, in some cases, completely transform a state’s regime type, from very democratic to very authoritarian or (less commonly) vice versa. These findings cast grave doubt upon the validity of Freedom House* metrics and confirm the US’s status as a universalistic state whose application of its own Cosmopolitan-Liberal ideology is deeply flawed, and they problematize political science in universalistic states as not only (or at all) a source of knowledge, but also (or instead) an important source of legitimation and motivation for such states’ international behavior.

1. Bailey M., Strezhnev A., Voeten E. (2017). Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 61. No. 2. P. 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715595700

2. Bollen K., Paxton P. (1998). Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 465–478.

3. Bollen K., Paxton P. (2000). Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 58–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033001003

4. Bollen K. (1993). Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 37. No. 4. P. 1207–1230.

5. Bush S. (2017). The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Rankings. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 711–731. doi:10.1017/S1537592717000925

6. Coppedge M., Alvarez A., Maldonado C. (2008). Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 70. No. 3. P. 632–647.

7. Coppedge M. et al. (2025). V-Dem Country-Year Dataset v10. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds20

8. Epley N., Caruso E. (2004). Egocentric Ethics. Social Justice Research. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 171–187.

9. Fearon J., Hansen B. (2018). The Arms Trade, International Alignments, and International Conflict. Working paper. 39 p.

10. Gastil R. (1990). The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions on Measuring Democracy. Studies in Comparative International Development. Vol. 25. P. 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716904

11. Gawronski B. (2007). Fundamental Attribution Error. In: Baumeister R.F., Vohs K.D. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Los Angeles: Sage. P. 367–369.

12. Giannone D. (2010). Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom Housecase.Democratization.Vol.17.No.1.P.68–97.https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340903453716

13. Gleditsch K., Ward M. (1997). Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Polities. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 361–383.

14. Goldstein R. (1992). The limitations of using quantitative data in studying human rights abuses. In: T. Jabine, R. Claude (eds.). Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. P. 35–61.

15. Grundler K., Krieger T. (2021). Using Machine Learning for measuring democracy: A practitioner’s guide and a new updated dataset for 186 countries from 1919 to 2019. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 70. P. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102047

16. Hartman J., Hsiao W. (1988). Inequality and violence: Issues of theory and measurement. American Sociological Review. Vol. 53. No. 5. P. 794–799.

17. Kennedy C. (2013). The Manichean Temptation: Moralising Rhetoric and the Invocation of Evil in US Foreign Policy. International Politics. Vol. 50 No. 5. P. 623–638.

18. Mainwaring S., Brinks D., Perez-Linan A. (2001). Classifying political regimes in Latin America, 1945–1999. Studies in Comparative International Development. Vol. 36. No. 1. P. 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687584

19. Marshall M., Gurr T.R. (2020). Polity5: Dataset Users’ Manual. Version 2018. Center for Systemic Peace. 85 p.

20. Oren I. (1995). The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany. International Security. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 147–184.

21. Oren I. (2005). Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

22. Owen J.M. (1993). Testing the Democratic Peace: American Diplomatic Crises, 1794–1917. Ph.D Dissertation, Harvard University.

23. Peceny M. (1997). A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 34 No. 4. P. 415–430.

24. Royce D.P. (2025). The Behavior of Particularistic and Universalistic States. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 70–99. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2025-23-1-70-99

25. Samuels R.J. (1991). Japanese Political Studies and the Myth of the Independent Intellectual. In: Samuels R.J., Weiner M. (eds.). The Political Culture of Foreign Area and International Studies: Essays in Honor of Lucian W Pye. Washington: Brassey’s.

26. Scoble H., Wiseberg L. (2019). Problems of comparative research on human rights. In: V. Nanda, J. Scarritt, G. Shepherd (eds.). Global Human Rights: Public Policies, Comparative Measures, and NGO Strategies. London; New York: Routledge. 25 p.

27. Shushpanova I.S. (2022). Sotsiologicheskoe izmerenie urovnya razvitiya demokratii v Rossii kak formy politicheskogo rezhima [Sociological Measurement of the Level of Development of Democracy in Russia as a Form of Political Regime]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. No. 2. P. 149–158. DOI: 10.17805/zpu.2022.2.11

28. Skaaning S.E. (2021). Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy (LIED) dataset v6.0. Harvard Dataverse. V5. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WPKNIT

29. Steiner N. (2014). Comparing Freedom House Democracy Scores to Alternative Indices and Testing for Political Bias: Are US Allies Rated as More Democratic by Freedom House? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.877676