Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) analyzes and evaluates the quality of democracy, a market economy and political management in 128 developing and transition countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path toward a democracy based on the rule of law and a market economy flanked by sociopolitical safeguards. Within this framework, the BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management Index. Countries are further categorized on the basis of these status index and management rankings/scores. For instance, countries are categorized in to 5 groups – viz; 5 or failed, 4 or very limited, 3 or limited, 2 or advanced, and 1 or highly advanced—based on their status index score of 1 to 10. A country with a high score, 8.5 and above, is categorized as highly advanced. A country with a low score, below 4, is categorized as failed. A country is categorized as ‘very limited’ if it has a status index score between 4 and 5.5. A score between 5.5 and 7 means the country is categorized as ‘limited’ and a country is categorized as ‘advanced’ for a score between 7.1 and 8.5. On the basis of the democratic status ranking, countries are further categorized as 5 or ‘hard - line autocracies,’ 4 or ‘moderate autocracies,’ 3 or ‘highly defective democracies,’ 2 or ‘defective democracies,’ and 1 or ‘democracies in consolidation.’ A country with a democratic status ranking below 4 is categorized as a hard line autocracy. A democratic status score between 4 and 5 means that the country is part of the ‘moderate autocracy’ group. A country is grouped as a ‘highly defective democracy’ for a score between 5 and 6. A country is recognized as a ‘defective democracy’ for a score between 6 and 8, and a score of 8 and above earns a country the status of a ‘democracy in consolidation.’ Countries are also categorized in to 5 groups based on their market economy status ranking. The countries are categorized as ‘rudimentary’ or group 5, ‘poorly functioning’ or group 4, ‘functional flaws’ or group 3, ‘functioning’ or group 2, and ‘developed’ or group 1. A country is recognized as a member of the ‘developed’ group with a market economy status ranking/score of 8 and above. A country is grouped as ‘functioning’ if it has a score between 7 and 8. A market economy status ranking between 5 and 7 means the country is categorized to group 3 or the ‘functional flaws’ group. A score between 3 and 5 means that the country is ‘poorly functioning’ and a score below 3 means the country enjoys a ‘rudimentary’ status. Based on the management index ranking, countries are categorized as 5 or failed, 4 or weak, 3 or moderate, 2 or good, and1 or very good. A country is categorized as ‘very good’ for a score of 7 and above. It is categorized as ‘good’ for a score between 5.6 and 7, and as ‘moderate’ for a score between 4.4 and 5.5. A score between 3 and 4.3 means a country is categorized as ‘weak,’ and a score below 3 means the categorization of a country as ‘failed.’ Countries are ranked between 1 and 10 on the basis of the level of difficulty they face. The level of difficulty is further categorized as 5 or negligible, 4 or minor, 3 or moderate, 2 or substantial, and 1 or massive. A score of 8.5 and above means the categorization of the country’s level of difficulty as ‘massive, and a score below 2.5 means the categorization of the level of difficulty faced by the country as ‘negligible.’ The level of difficulty score of 2.5 to 4.4 means a country faces a ‘minor’ level of difficulty and a score between 4.5 and 6.4 means the level of difficulty faced by a country is ‘moderate.’ A country with a score of 6.5 to 8.4 faces a ‘substantial’ level of difficulty.

Data cited at: International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association-ILGA World 

Imputed observations are not based on national data, are subject to high uncertainty and should not be used for country comparisons or rankings. The employed comprise all persons of working age who, during a specified brief period, were in the following categories: a) paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or b) self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work). Data are disaggregated by economic activity, which refers to the main activity of the establishment in which a person worked during the reference period. The series is part of the ILO modelled estimates and is harmonized to account for differences in national data and scope of coverage, collection and tabulation methodologies as well as for other country-specific factors. For more information, refer to the ILOSTAT pages on concepts and definitions and ILO modelled estimates and projections.

  Political Terror Scale Levels 1 - Coun­tries un­der a se­cure rule of law, people are not im­prisoned for their views, and tor­ture is rare or ex­cep­tion­al. Polit­ic­al murders are ex­tremely rare. 2 - There is a lim­ited amount of im­pris­on­ment for non­vi­ol­ent polit­ic­al activ­ity. However, few per­sons are af­fected, tor­ture and beat­ings are ex­cep­tion­al. Polit­ic­al murder is rare. 3 - There is ex­tens­ive polit­ic­al im­pris­on­ment, or a re­cent his­tory of such im­pris­on­ment. Ex­e­cu­tion or oth­er polit­ic­al murders and bru­tal­ity may be com­mon. Un­lim­ited de­ten­tion, with or without a tri­al, for polit­ic­al views is ac­cep­ted. 4 - Civil and polit­ic­al rights vi­ol­a­tions have ex­pan­ded to large num­bers of the pop­u­la­tion. Murders, dis­ap­pear­ances, and tor­ture are a com­mon part of life. In spite of its gen­er­al­ity, on this level ter­ror af­fects those who in­terest them­selves in polit­ics or ideas. 5 - Ter­ror has ex­pan­ded to the whole pop­u­la­tion. The lead­ers of these so­ci­et­ies place no lim­its on the means or thor­ough­ness with which they pur­sue per­son­al or ideo­lo­gic­al goals.   Note- NA_Status_A, NA_Status_H, and NA_Status_S corresponds to  PTS_A, PTS_H, and PTS_S respectively0= The value ‘0’ is assigned where the respective human rights report was available and has been coded66= The value ‘66’ is reserved for missing PTS scores due to missing reports 77=The value ‘77’ is assigned where reports no-longer exist, or do not exist yet88=The value ‘88’ is assigned for units that exist  but no report was published and thus no PTS score is assigned99= The value ‘99’ is assigned where human rights report was published but no PTS score was assigned  

The main objective of the research is to address the theoretical and empirical problems of how political institutions of high quality can be created and maintained. The second objective is to study the effects of Quality of Government on a number of policy areas, such as health, environment, social policy, and poverty. Data citation: Teorell, Jan, Aksel Sundström, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Natalia Alvarado Pachon, Cem Mert Dalli, Rafael Lopez Valverde & Paula Nilsson. 2024. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan24. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, https://www.gu.se/en/quality-government doi:10.18157/qogstdjan24

The Global Slavery Index, the flagship report of the Walk Free Foundation. The Global Slavery Index estimates the number of people in modern slavery in 167 countries. It is a tool for citizens, non government organisations, businesses and public officials to understand the size of the problem, existing responses and contributing factors, so they can build sound policies that will end modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index answers the following questions: What is the estimated prevalence of modern slavery country by country, and what is the absolute number by population? How are governments tackling modern slavery? What factors explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery? Government Response Rating by Country A - 70 to 79.9 BBB - 60 to 69.9 BB - 50 to 59.9 B - 40 to 49.9 CCC - 30 to 39.9 DC - 20 to 29.9 C - 10 to 19.9 D - <0 to 9.9

Data cited at: UN E-Government Knowledgebase - https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ 1. The EGDI is based on a comprehensive Survey of the online presence of all 193 United Nations Member States, which assesses national websites and how e-government policies and strategies are applied in general and in specific sectors for delivery of essential services. The assessment rates the e-government performance of countries relative to one another as opposed to being an absolute measurement. The results are tabulated and combined with a set of indicators embodying a country’s capacity to participate in the information society, without which e-government development efforts are of limited immediate use. Although the basic model has remained consistent, the precise meaning of these values varies from one edition of the Survey to the next as understanding of the potential of e-government changes and the underlying technology evolves. This is an important distinction because it also implies that it is a comparative framework that seeks to encompass various approaches that may evolve over time instead of advocating a linear path with an absolute goal. 2. E-Government Development Index-EGDI Very High-EGDI (Greater than 0.75) High-EGDI (Between 0.50 and 0.75) Middle-EGDI (Between 0.25 and 0.50) Low-EGDI (Less than 0.25)

The Range of Score to Access the Press Freedom. (New Scale) From 85 to 100 points: Good From 70 to 85 points: Satisfactory From 55 to 70 points: Problematic From 40 to 55 points: Difficult From 0 to 40 points: Very Serious   The Range of Score to Access the Press Freedom. (Old Scale) From 0 to 15 points: Good From 15.01 to 25 points: Fairly good From 25.01 to 35 points: Problematic From 35.01 to 55 points: Bad From 55.01 to 100 points: Very bad Note: Negative value is available for 2012 only and it represents the country in top* The press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders publishes every year measures the level of freedom of information in nearly 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to our partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs located in all five continents), to our network of 150 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The 179 countries ranked in this year's index are those for which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from various sources. Some countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. A score and a position are assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.   * In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year's questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year. Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country's evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country's change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.      

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over the period 1996–2020, for six dimensions of governance:Voice and AccountabilityPolitical Stability and Absence of ViolenceGovernment EffectivenessRegulatory QualityRule of LawControl of Corruption The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are a research dataset summarizing the views on the quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. These data are gathered from a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and private sector firms. The WGI do not reflect the official views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. The WGI are not used by the World Bank Group to allocate resources. Measure description: Estimate:-Estimate of governance (ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) governance performance) Standard error (StdErr):-Standard error reflects variability around the point estimate of governance. Number of sources (NumSrc):-Number of data sources on which estimate is based Rank:-Percentile rank among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank) Lower:-Lower bound of 90% confidence interval for governance, in percentile rank terms Upper:-Upper bound of 90% confidence interval for governance, in percentile rank terms