DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy Index 2020 in Sickness and in Health?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy Index 2020 in Sickness and in Health? Democracy Index 2020 In sickness and in health? A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit www.eiu.com The world leader in global business intelligence The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU) is the research and analysis division of The Economist Group, the sister company to The Economist newspaper. Created in 1946, we have over 70 years’ experience in helping businesses, financial firms and governments to understand how the world is changing and how that creates opportunities to be seized and risks to be managed. Given that many of the issues facing the world have an international (if not global) dimension, The EIU is ideally positioned to be commentator, interpreter and forecaster on the phenomenon of globalisation as it gathers pace and impact. EIU subscription services The world’s leading organisations rely on our subscription services for data, analysis and forecasts to keep them informed about what is happening around the world. We specialise in: • Country Analysis: Access to regular, detailed country-specific economic and political forecasts, as well as assessments of the business and regulatory environments in different markets. • Risk Analysis: Our risk services identify actual and potential threats around the world and help our clients understand the implications for their organisations. • Industry Analysis: Five year forecasts, analysis of key themes and news analysis for six key industries in 60 major economies. These forecasts are based on the latest data and in-depth analysis of industry trends. EIU Consulting EIU Consulting is a bespoke service designed to provide solutions specific to our customers’ needs. We specialise in these key sectors: • Healthcare: Together with our two specialised consultancies, Bazian and Clearstate, The EIU helps healthcare organisations build and maintain successful and sustainable businesses across the healthcare ecosystem. Find out more at: eiu.com/ healthcare • Public Policy: Trusted by the sector’s most influential stakeholders, our global public policy practice provides evidence- based research for policy-makers and stakeholders seeking clear and measurable outcomes. Find out more at: eiu.com/ publicpolicy The Economist Corporate Network The Economist Corporate Network (ECN) is The Economist Group’s advisory service for organisational leaders seeking to better understand the economic and business environments of global markets. Delivering independent, thought-provoking content, ECN provides clients with the knowledge, insight, and interaction that support better-informed strategies and decisions. The Network is part of The Economist Intelligence Unit and is led by experts with in-depth understanding of the geographies and markets they oversee. The Network’s membership-based operations cover Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa. Through a distinctive blend of interactive conferences, specially designed events, C-suite discussions, member briefings, and high-calibre research, The Economist Corporate Network delivers a range of macro (global, regional, national, and territorial) as well as industry-focused analysis on prevailing conditions and forecast trends. DEMOCRACY INDEX 2020 IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH? Contents List of tables and charts 2 Introduction 3 Democracy Index 2020 highlights 6 Democracy: in sickness and in health? 14 Democracy around the regions in 2020 26 Asia and Australasia 28 Eastern Europe 32 Latin America 36 Middle East and North Africa 40 North America 42 Sub-Saharan Africa 47 Western Europe 50 Appendix 54 Defining and measuring democracy 54 Methodology 56 The Economist Intelligence Unit model 59 References and bibliography 69 1 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021 DEMOCRACY INDEX 2020 IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH? List of tables and charts Table 1. Democracy Index 2020, by regime type Chart 1. Democracy Index 2020, global map by regime type Table 2. Democracy Index 2020 Chart 2. Downgrades to Q57: “Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms” Chart 3. Downgrades to Q24: “Perceptions of the extent to which citizens have free choice and control over their lives” Chart 4. Evolution of democracy by category, 2008-20 Table 3. Democracy Index 2006-20 Table 4. Democracy across the regions Table 5. Democracy Index 2006-20 by region Table 6. Asia & Australasia 2020 Chart 5. Asia & Australasia: Democracy Index 2020 by category Table 7. Eastern Europe 2020 Chart 6. Eastern Europe: Democracy Index 2020 by category Chart 7. Latin America: Democracy Index 2020 by category Table 8. Latin America and the Caribbean 2020 Chart 8. Middle East and North Africa: Democracy Index 2020 by category Table 9. Middle East and North Africa 2020 Table 10. North America 2020 Chart 9. US & Canada: Democracy Index 2020 by category Chart 10. Sub-Saharan Africa: Democracy Index 2020 by category Table 11. Sub-Saharan Africa 2020 Table 12. Western Europe 2020 Chart 11. Western Europe: Democracy Index 2020 by category 2 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021 DEMOCRACY INDEX 2020 IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH? Introduction The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide in 165 independent states and two territories. This covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s states (microstates are excluded). The Democracy Index is based on five categories:electoral process and pluralism, the functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. Based on its scores on a range of indicators within these categories, each country is then itself classified as one of four types of regime: “full democracy”, “flawed democracy”, “hybrid regime” or “authoritarian regime”. A full methodology and explanations can be found in the Appendix. This is the 13th edition of the Democracy Index, which began in 2006, and it records how global democracy fared in 2020. The main focus of the report is the impact of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic on democracy and freedom around the world. It looks at how the pandemic resulted in the withdrawal of civil liberties on a massive scale and fuelled an existing trend of intolerance and censorship of dissenting opinion (see page 14). The report also examines the state of US democracy after a tumultuous year dominated by the coronavirus pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement and a hotly contested presidential election (see page 42). The results by region are analysed in greater detail in the section entitled “Democracy around the regions in 2020” (see page 26). Table 1. Democracy Index 2020, by regime type No. of countries % of countries % of world population Full democracies 23 13.8 8.4 Flawed democracies 52 31.1 41.0 Hybrid regimes 35 21.0 15.0 Authoritarian regimes 57 34.1 35.6 Note. “World” population refers to the total population of the 167 countries covered by the Index. Since this excludes only micro states, this is nearly equal to the entire estimated world population. Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit. According to our measure of democracy, only about half (49.4%) of the world’s population live in a democracy of some sort, and even fewer (8.4%) reside in a “full democracy”; this level is up from 5.7% in 2019, as several Asian countries have been upgraded. More than one-third of the world’s population live under authoritarian rule, with a large share being in China. In the 2020 Democracy Index, 75 of the 167 countries and territories covered by the model, or 44.9% of the total, are considered to be democracies. The number of “full democracies” increased to 23 in 2020, up from 22 in 2019. The number of “flawed democracies” fell by two, to 52. Of the remaining 92 countries in our index, 57 are “authoritarian regimes”, up from 54 in 2019, and 35 are classified as “hybrid regimes”, down from 37 in 2019. (For a full explanation of the index methodology and categories, see page 56.) 3 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2021 DEMOCRACY INDEX 2020 IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH? The global average score hit an all-time low As recorded in the Democracy Index in recent years, democracy has not been in robust health for some time. In 2020 its strength was further tested by the outbreak of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. The average global score in the 2020 Democracy Index fell from 5.44 in 2019 to 5.37. This is by far the worst global score since the index was first produced in 2006. The 2020 result represents a significant deterioration and came about largely—but not solely—because of government-imposed restrictions on individual freedoms and civil liberties that occurred across the globe in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Chart 1. Democracy Index 2020, global map by regime type Hong Kong Full democracies 9.0 – 10.0 8.0 – 9.0 Flawed democracies 7.0 – 8.0 Singapore 6.0 – 7.0 Hybrid regimes 5.0 – 6.0 4.0 – 5.0 Authoritarian regimes 3.0 – 4.0 2.0 – 3.0 0 – 2.0 No data Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit. The deterioration in the global score in 2020 was driven by a decline in the average regional score everywhere in the world, but by especially large falls in the “authoritarian regime”-dominated regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa. Their scores declined by 0.10 and 0.09, respectively, between 2019 and 2020. Western Europe and eastern Europe both recorded a fall in their average regional scores of 0.06. The score for Asia and Australasia, the region which has made the most democratic progress during the lifetime of the Democracy Index, fell by 0.05. Latin America’s average score declined by 0.04 in 2020, marking the fifth consecutive year of regression for the region. The average score for North America fell by only 0.01, but a bigger decline of 0.04 in the US score was masked by an improvement in Canada’s score.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Gender-Pay-Gap Report
    Gender pay gap report 2020 Gender pay gap report 2020 Foreword The Economist Group is committed to being an organisation that promotes belonging and aims to have a Group culture that reflects inclusivity, diversity, and excellence. In our fourth year of reporting, the UK data shows a great improvement at the mean and, more importantly, at the median, where our gender pay gap has improved by one-third this year. The analysis indicates that changes in practices and policies, as described at the end of the report, have resulted in the improvement in the numbers. We have consistently reduced the fixed pay gap over the last three years with major improvements in the proportion of women recruited in higher paid roles (see page 6). However, we are far from parity and men still dominate the top quartile for pay despite the Group employing similar numbers of women and men. We are pleased to be making progress, and we are committed to the critical work ahead. We recognise the gender pay gap is still significant, and we are working to change it. Lara Boro Chief Executive March 2021 2 Gender pay gap report 2020 1. The UK gender pay gap (as per UK Government reporting guidelines) On the snapshot date of 5th April 2020, the Group employed 751 people in the UK (364 women and 387 men), mainly in London and Birmingham including editorial colleagues, marketing, research, sales, technology, consultancy, head office and support functions. Gender pay gap Women’s hourly pay rate* vs men’s Our gender pay gap has improved by one-third this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2020
    Fiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2020 Fiscal policy amid the crisis arising from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic Thank you for your interest in this ECLAC publication ECLAC Publications Please register if you would like to receive information on our editorial products and activities. When you register, you may specify your particular areas of interest and you will gain access to our products in other formats. www.cepal.org/en/publications ublicaciones www.cepal.org/apps Fiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean 2020 Fiscal policy amid the crisis arising from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary Mario Cimoli Deputy Executive Secretary Raúl García-Buchaca Deputy Executive Secretary for Management and Programme Analysis Daniel Titelman Chief, Economic Development Division Ricardo Pérez Chief, Publications and Web Services Division The Fiscal Panorama of Latin America and the Caribbean is a report prepared each year by the Economic Development Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The preparation of this year’s report was supervised by Daniel Titelman, Chief of the Division, and Noel Pérez Benítez, Chief of the Division’s Fiscal Affairs Unit. Jean Baptiste Carpentier, María Gil, Michael Hanni, Juan Pablo Jiménez and Noel Pérez Benítez worked on the drafting of the report. Chapter III drew on inputs prepared by Juan Carlos Gómez Sabaini and Dalmiro Morán. Andrea Podestá prepared inputs for chapter IV. Swen Tellier provided research assistance and prepared statistical information. The Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) assisted with the financing of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Republic of Congo Constitution
    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, 2005 [1] Table of Contents PREAMBLE TITLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1 The State and Sovereignty Chapter 2 Nationality TITLE II HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES AND THE DUTIES OF THE CITIZEN AND THE STATE Chapter 1 Civil and Political Rights Chapter 2 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Chapter 3 Collective Rights Chapter 4 The Duties of the Citizen TITLE III THE ORGANIZATION AND THE EXERCISE OF POWER Chapter 1 The Institutions of the Republic TITLE IV THE PROVINCES Chapter 1 The Provincial Institutions Chapter 2 The Distribution of Competences Between the Central Authority and the Provinces Chapter 3 Customary Authority TITLE V THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL TITLE VI DEMOCRACY-SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS Chapter 1 The Independent National Electoral Commission Chapter 2 The High Council for Audiovisual Media and Communication TITLE VII INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS TITLE VIII THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TITLE IX TRANSITORY AND FINAL PROVISIONS PREAMBLE We, the Congolese People, United by destiny and history around the noble ideas of liberty, fraternity, solidarity, justice, peace and work; Driven by our common will to build in the heart of Africa a State under the rule of law and a powerful and prosperous Nation based on a real political, economic, social and cultural democracy; Considering that injustice and its corollaries, impunity, nepotism, regionalism, tribalism, clan rule and patronage are, due to their manifold vices, at the origin of the general decline
    [Show full text]
  • Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2018
    Quantifying Peace and its Benefits The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. IEP achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness; providing metrics for measuring peace; and uncovering the relationships between business, peace and prosperity as well as promoting a better understanding of the cultural, economic and political factors that create peace. IEP is headquartered in Sydney, with offices in New York, The Hague, Mexico City and Brussels. It works with a wide range of partners internationally and collaborates with intergovernmental organisations on measuring and communicating the economic value of peace. For more information visit www.economicsandpeace.org Please cite this report as: Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2018. Available from: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed Date Month Year). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Key Findings 4 RESULTS 5 Highlights 6 2018 Global Peace Index rankings 8 Regional overview 12 Improvements & deteriorations 19 TRENDS 23 Ten year trends in the Global Peace Index 26 100 year trends in peace 32 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIOLENCE 45 Results 46 The macroeconomic impact of peace 52 POSITIVE PEACE 59 What is Positive Peace? 60 Trends in Positive Peace 65 What precedes a change in peacefulness? 69 Positive Peace and the economy 73 APPENDICES 77 Appendix A: GPI Methodology 78 Appendix B: GPI indicator sources, definitions & scoring criteria 82 Appendix C: GPI Domain scores 90 Appendix D: Economic cost of violence 93 GLOBAL PEACE INDEX 2018 | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the twelfth edition of the Global Peace Index Afghanistan, South Sudan, Iraq, and Somalia comprise (GPI), which ranks 163 independent states and the remaining least peaceful countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    In pursuit of progress since Annual report 2020 report Annual Annual report 2020 In pursuit of progress since Annual report 2020 report Annual Annual report 2020 CONTENTS ANNUAL REPORT STRATEGIC REPORT 2 Five-year summary 3 Group overview 4 From the chairman 6 From the chief executive 8 From the editor 9 Business review: the year in detail 13 The Economist Educational Foundation 15 The Economist Group and environmental sustainability 17 Corporate governance: the Wates Principles, our Section 172(1) statement and our guiding principles REPORT AND ACCOUNTS GOVERNANCE 22 Directors 23 Executive team 24 Trustees, board committees 25 Directors’ report 28 Directors’ report on remuneration 31 Financial review CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 35 Independent auditor’s report to the members of The Economist Newspaper Limited 38 Consolidated income statement 39 Consolidated statement of comprehensive income 40 Consolidated balance sheet 41 Consolidated statement of changes in equity 42 Consolidated cashflow statement 44 Notes to the consolidated financial statements COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 94 Company balance sheet 95 Company statement of changes in equity 96 Notes to the company financial statements NOTICES 108 Notice of annual general meeting 1 STRATEGIC REPORT Five-year summary 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 £m £m £m £m £m Income statement—continuing business* Revenue 326 333 329 303 282 Operating profit 31 31 38 43 47 Profit after taxation 21 25 28 39 37 Profit on sale of CQ-Roll Call, Inc - 43 - - - Profit on sale of Economist Complex - - - -
    [Show full text]
  • MIRPS: Regional Context and Comprehensive Approach
    Index Part 1 ..................................................... 1 MIRPS: Regional Context and Comprehensive Approach............................................................................. 1.1 National Chapters of MIRPS Countries……………….. 1.2 Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama Part 2 ......... …………………………………….2 Contributions from Cooperation Actors………….…. 2.1 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, UNHCR Spanish Committee Contributions from Regional and International Organisations and from Regional Networks……………………………………………..……..…..... 2.2 Organization of American States (OAS), Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, General Secretariat of the Central American Integration System (SG SICA), Secretariat of the Central American Social Integration System (SISCA), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), United Nations Development Group (UNDG Lac), Resident Coordinators of the United Nations System in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Human Rights Institutions, Latin American and Caribbean Ecclesiastic Network of Migration, Displacement, Asylum and Human Trafficking (CLAMOR), Regional Network of Civil Society Organisations for Migration (RROCM), Risk, Emergency & Disaster Working Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (REDLAC), Specialised Regional Group of Academics who Support the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework (GREAT MIRPS), Integrarse Network. NOTICE / DISCLAIMER:
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Disinformation on Democratic Processes and Human Rights in the World
    STUDY Requested by the DROI subcommittee The impact of disinformation on democratic processes and human rights in the world @Adobe Stock Authors: Carme COLOMINA, Héctor SÁNCHEZ MARGALEF, Richard YOUNGS European Parliament coordinator: Policy Department for External Relations EN Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 653.635 - April 2021 DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY The impact of disinformation on democratic processes and human rights in the world ABSTRACT Around the world, disinformation is spreading and becoming a more complex phenomenon based on emerging techniques of deception. Disinformation undermines human rights and many elements of good quality democracy; but counter-disinformation measures can also have a prejudicial impact on human rights and democracy. COVID-19 compounds both these dynamics and has unleashed more intense waves of disinformation, allied to human rights and democracy setbacks. Effective responses to disinformation are needed at multiple levels, including formal laws and regulations, corporate measures and civil society action. While the EU has begun to tackle disinformation in its external actions, it has scope to place greater stress on the human rights dimension of this challenge. In doing so, the EU can draw upon best practice examples from around the world that tackle disinformation through a human rights lens. This study proposes steps the EU can take to build counter-disinformation more seamlessly into its global human rights and democracy policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Through the Post-Cold War Era: the Evolution of Foreign Policy in North Korea
    UC Berkeley Berkeley Undergraduate Journal Title Surviving Through The Post-Cold War Era: The Evolution of Foreign Policy In North Korea Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nj1x91n Journal Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 21(2) ISSN 1099-5331 Author Yee, Samuel Publication Date 2008 DOI 10.5070/B3212007665 Peer reviewed|Undergraduate eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Introduction “When the establishment of ‘diplomatic relations’ with south Korea by the Soviet Union is viewed from another angle, no matter what their subjective intentions may be, it, in the final analysis, cannot be construed otherwise than openly joining the United States in its basic strategy aimed at freezing the division of Korea into ‘two Koreas,’ isolating us internationally and guiding us to ‘opening’ and thus overthrowing the socialist system in our country [….] However, our people will march forward, full of confidence in victory, without vacillation in any wind, under the unfurled banner of the Juche1 idea and defend their socialist position as an impregnable fortress.” 2 The Rodong Sinmun article quoted above was published in October 5, 1990, and was written as a response to the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union, a critical ally for the North Korean regime, and South Korea, its archrival. The North Korean government’s main reactions to the changes taking place in the international environment during this time are illustrated clearly in this passage: fear of increased isolation, apprehension of external threats, and resistance to reform. The transformation of the international situation between the years of 1989 and 1992 presented a daunting challenge for the already struggling North Korean government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes
    The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes WITH A FOREWORD BY JOHN J. DEGIOIA, PRESIDENT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Anthony P. Carnevale Nicole Smith Lenka Dražanová Artem Gulish Kathryn Peltier Campbell 2020 Center on Education and the Workforce McCourt School of Public Policy Reprint permissions [TK] Reprint Permission The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce carries a Creative Commons license, which permits noncommercial reuse of any of our content when proper attribution is provided. You are free to copy, display, and distribute our work, or include our content in derivative works, under the following conditions: Attribution: You must clearly attribute the work to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce and provide a print or digital copy of the work to [email protected]. Our preference is to cite figures and tables as follows: Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes, 2020. Noncommercial Use: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Written permission must be obtained from the owners of the copy/literary rights and from Georgetown University for any publication or commercial use of reproductions. Approval: If you are using one or more of our available data representations (figures, charts, tables, etc.), please visit our website at cew.georgetown.edu/publications/reprint- permission for more information. For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit creativecommons.org. Email [email protected] with any questions. 2 THE ROLE OF EDUCATION IN TAMING AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes WITH A FOREWORD BY JOHN J.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards the Implementation of the MIRPS in Central America & Mexico
    Concept notes Towards the implementation of the MIRPS in Central America & Mexico Concept notes on selected sectors 2020 Concept notes Context Impacted by increasingly complex forced displacement situations, Central America hosts hundreds of thousands of people who have fled their homes, either within or across their country’s borders, in search of safety. This includes IDPs in El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico; together with refugees and asylum-seekers from the northern Central American countries who have fled chronic gang violence, persecution and insecurity. The vast majority of refugees and asylum-seekers from these countries are hosted in Mexico and the USA, with several thousands more having sought asylum in Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Panama. In addition, tens of thousands of people have fled the social and political crisis in Nicaragua, the vast majority arriving in neighbouring Costa Rica where asylum claims have increased exponentially. In 2019, the Americas was the largest recipient of asylum applications worldwide. An additional several hundred thousand persons are returning to their countries of origin as deportees, including those with protection needs. With an increasing trend of people forcibly displaced in the region exerting pressure on national protection and asylum systems, the MIRPS seeks to expand the operational capacity of States in Central America and Mexico to respond to forced displacement. This includes making the necessary arrangements to ensure safe reception and admission of people forced to flee, facilitating access to safe spaces and shelters, engaging community and municipal leadership, promoting durable solutions and livelihoods, as well as fostering an environment of peaceful coexistence. In 2017, Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama adopted the San Pedro Sula Declaration, to address forced displacement by strengthening the protection and assistance to affected persons, as well as promoting durable solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Licensing Agreement
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS: INTEGRATED LICENSING AGREEMENT These Terms and Conditions form part of the Agreement between The Economist Group and Client and refer to words defined in the Integrated Licensing Agreement (or any agreement in which these terms are incorporated by reference). 1. Payment Terms All fees expressed herein are exclusive of sales tax, value added tax, or any other taxes and duties which, if applicable, will be charged to Client in addition to the fees. In addition to the fees, Client will be responsible for the payment of any withholding taxes that may be payable. Travel expenses are not included in the fee(s) and, if such charges are incurred, they will also be charged to Client in addition to the fees. All fees are non- refundable (except as otherwise specified herein) and are due within net 30 days of the invoice date. Payments made after the due date may be (in The Economist Group’s discretion) subject to a late fee equal to the lesser of 1.5% per month or the maximum allowed by law. 2. Licence of Trademarks 2.1 Where The Economist Group gives approval in writing in advance, The Economist Group grants to Client a non-exclusive, non-sub-licensable licence (during the term of this Agreement) to use the “Economist Intelligence Unit”, “Economist Events”, “Economist Films” or “(E) BrandConnect” (as applicable) name and/or logo, for the purpose only of: (i) promoting and marketing the Event(s), or (ii) attributing the Deliverables to Economist Films, Economist Events, EIU or (E) BrandConnect (as applicable) in accordance with this Agreement, PROVIDED THAT in each case (a) these trademarks will only be used in the exact format and specification as directed from time to time by The Economist Group, (b) all advertising, promotional, marketing and other material which feature the trademarks (in any medium or media) will be subject to the prior review by and written approval of The Economist Group before their publication or use, and (c) Client will not modify, amend or add to the content or format of any of the licensed trademarks in any manner.
    [Show full text]
  • GDI) and Governance, Democracy, and Emancipation Index (GDEI): a Cross-Country Empirical Study (1998 – 2017
    Open Political Science, 2021; 4: 15–26 Research Article Debasish Roy* Formulation of Governance and Democracy Index (GDI) and Governance, Democracy, and Emancipation Index (GDEI): A Cross-country Empirical Study (1998 – 2017) https://doi.org/10.1515/openps-2021-0002 received July 6, 2020; accepted August 10, 2020. Abstract: This research paper is aimed at formulation of a composite Governance and Democracy Index (GDI) based on the six indicators of good governance by Kaufmann et al. (2003, 2007) to assess and evaluate the relative performances of 10 major democracies of the world for the time period of 20 years (1998 – 2017) (Base Year = 1996). In order to do so, three distinct methodologies are adopted based on the absolute values and relative changes in the observations of independent variables. The extended part of this research involves formulation of Governance, Democracy, and Emancipation Index (GDEI) which incorporates the Emancipative values. Keywords: Control of Corruption Relative (CCR); Government Effectiveness Relative (GER); Political Stability Relative (PSR); Governance and Democracy Index (GDI); Governance and Democracy Index Area (GDIA); Governance, Democracy, and Emancipation Index (GDEI). JEL Classifications: C10; C43; C65; H11; P52. 1 Introduction The modern concept of governance originated from the Greek verb κυβερνάω (kubernáo) as coined by Plato which means “to steer” – and it should be the focal theme of a political leader (Republic 8.551c). According to Shin (2016), “Whereas government is a descriptive term that refers to the official institutions of a state, the term governance has had a normative cast since its inception, signifying forms of rule that produce desired ends”.
    [Show full text]