Index of Economic Freedom 2003

2003 Index of Economic Freedom

GERALD P. ODRISCOLL, JR., is Senior Fellow in Economic Policy and Director of the Center forInternational Trade and Economics (CITE) at The Heritage Foundation.

EDWIN J. FEULNER is President of The Heritage Foundation.

MARY ANASTASIA OGRADY is Editor of the Americas column and Senior Editorial Page Writer atThe Wall Street Journal.

Robert L. Bartley is Editor of The Wall Street Journal.

William W. Beach is John M. Olin Fellow in Economics and Director of the Center for Data Analysis atThe Heritage Foundation.

Ana I. Eiras is Latin America Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at TheHeritage Foundation. She is also Editor of the Spanish-language edition of the Index of Economic Freedom.

Sara J. Fitzgerald is Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at TheHeritage Foundation.

Mart Laar is the former Prime Minister of Estonia.

Robert L. Pollock is Editorial Page Writer at The Wall Street Journal.

Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for Interna-tional Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.

2003 Index ofEconomic Freedom

Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr.,Edwin J. Feulner,

and Mary Anastasia OGradywith Ana I. Eiras and

Brett D. Schaefer

i v 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

Copyright 2003 by The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

The Heritage Foundation The Wall Street Journal214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Washington, DC 20002 200 Liberty Street(202) 546-4400 New York, NY 10281www.heritage.org (212) 416-2000

www.wsj.com

Cover image copyright 2002 by Getty ImagesCover design by Brian S. CobbISBN 0-89195-262-4ISSN 1095-7308

vTable of Contents

v i 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

viiTable of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................ xiby Robert L. Bartley

Preface.............................................................................................................. xiiiby Edwin J. Feulner

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. xvby Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., Edwin J. Feulner,and Mary Anastasia OGrady

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1by Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., Edwin J. Feulner,and Mary Anastasia OGrady

Chapter 1: The Role of Property Rights in Economic Growth ...............................27 An Introduction to the 2003 Index

by William W. Beach and Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr.

Chapter 2: In the Middle East, Arbitrary Government Feeds Rage .........................29by Robert L. Pollock

Chapter 3: How Estonia Did It .............................................................................35by Mart Laar

Chapter 4: Scandinavias Changing Political and Economic Landscape ..................39by Sara J. Fitzgerald

Chapter 5: Explaining the Factors of the Index of Economic Freedom ........................49by William W. Beach and Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr.

Chapter 6: The 2003 Index of Economic Freedom: The Countries ...............................71by Ana I. Eiras and Brett D. Schaefer

Table of Contents

viii 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

Albania .............................................................. 75Algeria .............................................................. 77Angola............................................................... 79Argentina .......................................................... 81Armenia ............................................................ 85Australia ........................................................... 87Austria .............................................................. 89Azerbaijan .........................................................91The Bahamas .................................................... 93Bahrain ............................................................. 95Bangladesh........................................................97Barbados ........................................................... 99Belarus ............................................................ 101Belgium .......................................................... 103Belize .............................................................. 105Benin ............................................................... 107Bolivia ............................................................. 109Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................ 111Botswana ........................................................ 113Brazil ............................................................... 115Bulgaria .......................................................... 119Burkina Faso ................................................... 121Burma (Myanmar) ......................................... 123Burundi ........................................................... 125Cambodia ....................................................... 127Cameroon ....................................................... 129Canada ............................................................ 131Cape Verde...................................................... 133Central African Republic ................................ 135Chad ................................................................ 137Chile ................................................................ 139China, Peoples Republic of ........................... 143China, Republic of (Taiwan) .......................... 147Colombia ........................................................ 151Congo, Democratic Republic of (formerly Zaire) ........................................... 155Congo, Republic of ......................................... 157Costa Rica ....................................................... 159Croatia ............................................................ 161Cuba ................................................................ 163Cyprus ............................................................ 167Czech Republic ............................................... 169Denmark ........................................................ 171Djibouti .......................................................... 173Dominican Republic ....................................... 175Ecuador ........................................................... 177Egypt .............................................................. 179

El Salvador...................................................... 181Equatorial Guinea .......................................... 183Estonia ............................................................ 185Ethiopia .......................................................... 189Fiji ................................................................... 191Finland ............................................................ 193France.............................................................. 195Gabon ............................................................. 197The Gambia .................................................... 199Georgia ........................................................... 201Germany ......................................................... 203Ghana.............................................................. 205Greece ............................................................. 207Guatemala ...................................................... 209Guinea............................................................. 211GuineaBissau ................................................ 213Guyana ........................................................... 215Haiti ................................................................ 217Honduras ........................................................ 219Hong Kong ..................................................... 221Hungary ......................................................... 225Iceland............................................................. 227India ................................................................ 229Indonesia ........................................................ 231Iran ................................................................. 233Iraq ................................................................. 235Ireland............................................................. 237Israel ............................................................... 241Italy ................................................................. 243Ivory Coast ..................................................... 245Jamaica ............................................................ 247Japan ............................................................... 249Jordan.............................................................. 253Kazakhstan ..................................................... 255Kenya .............................................................. 257Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of (North Korea) ............................................... 259Korea, Republic of (South Korea) ............................................... 261Kuwait ............................................................ 265Kyrgyz Republic ............................................ 267Laos ................................................................ 269Latvia .............................................................. 271Lebanon .......................................................... 273Lesotho ........................................................... 275Libya ............................................................... 277Lithuania ......................................................... 279

i xTable of Contents

Luxembourg ................................................... 281Macedonia ....................................................... 283Madagascar ..................................................... 285Malawi ............................................................ 287Malaysia .......................................................... 289Mali ................................................................. 291Malta ............................................................... 293Mauritania ...................................................... 295Mauritius ........................................................ 297Mexico............................................................. 299Moldova .......................................................... 301Mongolia ......................................................... 303Morocco .......................................................... 305Mozambique ................................................... 307Namibia .......................................................... 309Nepal .............................................................. 311The Netherlands ............................................ 313New Zealand .................................................. 315Nicaragua ....................................................... 317Niger ............................................................... 319Nigeria ............................................................ 321Norway .......................................................... 323Oman .............................................................. 325Pakistan .......................................................... 327Panama ........................................................... 329Paraguay ......................................................... 331Peru ................................................................. 333The Philippines ............................................... 335Poland ............................................................. 337Portugal .......................................................... 339Qatar ............................................................... 341Romania ......................................................... 343Russia .............................................................. 345Rwanda ........................................................... 349Saudi Arabia ................................................... 351Senegal ............................................................ 353Sierra Leone ................................................... 355Singapore ........................................................ 357Slovak Republic .............................................. 361Slovenia ........................................................... 363South Africa .................................................... 365Spain ............................................................... 367Sri Lanka ......................................................... 369Sudan .............................................................. 371Suriname ......................................................... 373Swaziland........................................................ 375Sweden ........................................................... 377

Switzerland ..................................................... 379Syria ................................................................ 381Tajikistan ........................................................ 383Tanzania ......................................................... 385Thailand .......................................................... 387Togo ................................................................ 389Trinidad and Tobago ...................................... 391Tunisia ............................................................ 393Turkey ............................................................ 395Turkmenistan ................................................. 397Uganda ........................................................... 399Ukraine ........................................................... 401United Arab Emirates .................................... 403United Kingdom ............................................. 405United States .................................................. 407Uruguay .......................................................... 411Uzbekistan...................................................... 413Venezuela ........................................................ 415Vietnam .......................................................... 419Yemen ............................................................. 423Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of (SerbiaMontenegro) ................................... 425Zambia ........................................................... 427Zimbabwe ...................................................... 429

Per Capita Income Throughout the World .. 432

Major Works Cited .................................... 437

x 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

x iTable of Contents

Foreword

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 dramatically changed our world, in terms of personal freedom, in terms of military power, in terms ofdiplomatic influence. In terms of the economy, itmeant that the chimera of centrally planned econo-mies had vanished. The Index of Economic Freedomstarted a few years later and has recorded the world-wide advance of the principles of free markets.

It is especially significant that the trend contin-ues with the 2003 Index, for this was not a year ofspreading prosperity. In earlier years, of course,economic liberalism continued to spread despite theimplosion of the Japanese economy, the taming ofthe Asian tigers, and the stunning default by Rus-sia. In these cases, the U.S. locomotive continuedto pull the world toward economic growth.

In the third quarter of 2000, though, the loco-motive ran off the rails. After four impressive quar-ters from mid-1999 to mid-2000, soaring technol-ogy stocks collapsed, earnings warnings echoedalong Wall Street, and the U.S. economy slippedinto recession for the first time in a decade. In 2001,this was followed by the stunning terrorist attackat the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, warin Afghanistan, the prospect of further war in Iraq,oil prices rising to $30, and economic stagnation inthe U.S., Europe, and Asia. Economists call it a syn-chronized world downturn.

In this foreword a year ago, I wrote that eco-nomic freedom continued to spread despite the startof a downturn. The economic freedom of 73 coun-tries improved, while 53 declined. But I worried,Are this years encouraging results merely mo-

mentum, or will they be carried forward in themore difficult time were just now navigating?Another years results are now in. In the periodfrom July 2001 to June 2002, the ratings of 74 coun-tries improved while 49 declined.

The trend toward liberalization, that is, contin-ued undisturbed. This suggests it is anything but apassing fad, the artifact of some economic bubble.Rather, it represents a deep worldwide consensusthat the path to prosperity lies in the verities ofopen trade, sound money, international flows ofgoods and capital (and labor), market-determinedprices, sensible regulation, and the protection ofproperty rights.

One of the most remarkable developments ofthe past few years is that Mexico is no longer aLatin American economy. The rest of the SouthernCone has slipped back into trouble, with crisisspreading from Argentina to Brazil to Venezuela.But thanks to the North American Free TradeAgreement, the Mexican economy is now linked tothe United States. Though Mexico is still rankedonly mostly free, its economic freedom has con-tinued to improve, and, politically, it has had itsfirst peaceful inter-party transfer of government.

This should be a lesson about development, but,sadly, the NAFTA momentum has been lost. Presi-dent Bush did struggle to get new trade promotionauthority, but he also imposed new steel tariffs andwent along with congressional passage of higheragricultural subsidies. The era of trade agreementshistorically succeeded in lowering trade barriersaround the world, but the principle of Ill lower

xi i 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

my barriers if youll lower yours has an inherentcontradiction. The GATTs and WTOs provide anincentive to keep barriers as negotiating chips and,despite their storied past, seem to be sputtering toan end as protectionist devices.

Its time for both developed and developingnations to look again at a policy of unilateral freetrade, letting your businesses and consumers buythe cheapest products in the world and learn fromthe rigors of international competition. This sug-gestion seems startling against the background ofthe last half-century, but it was the policy of theBritish Empire at its zenith. The repeal of the CornLaws in 1846 was the proudest moment in Britisheconomic history.

The world is still some way from such sweep-ing reform, intellectually and politically. The BushAdministration is providing strong leadership inthe campaign against terrorism, but this seems tobe a distraction from the economic leadership thatwould reestablish the U.S. as a world locomotiveand world champion of free markets, propertyrights, and other tenets of economic liberalism.Some time may pass before such leadership is onceagain in place, so its comforting to see that thetrend is well-established and, even with Washing-ton distracted, likely to continue on its own.

Robert L. Bartley

Editor, The Wall Street JournalSeptember 2002

xiiiTable of Contents

Preface

Economic freedom is advancing. For the pastnine years, The Heritage Foundations annualIndex of Economic Freedom has provided a valu-able tool with which to measure economic freedomaround the world. Journalists, teachers, students,entrepreneurs, and government officials are amongthe many who use this book. In this edition, onceagain co-published with The Wall Street Journal, weanalyze the economic freedom of 161 countries ac-cording to 10 factors in an effort to trace the path toeconomic prosperity.

As we have emphasized in the past, the road toeconomic freedom is not easy, but it is rewarding.Today, however, as economic freedom continuesto grow in countries in all regions of the world,many other countries continue to pursue the failedand counterproductive policies of the past.

To reap the fruits of economic freedom, a coun-try must embrace a fundamental commitment tothat aim. As argued by Adam Smith in his Lectureson Jurisprudence:

Little else is requisite to carry a state to thehighest degree of opulence from the lowestbarbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tol-erable administration of justice; all the restbeing brought about by the natural course ofthings. All governments which thwart thisnatural course, which forces things into an-other channel or which endeavor to arrestthe progress of society at a particular point,are unnatural, and to support themselves areobliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.

Countries that embrace economic freedom notonly see long-term benefits, such as expansion ingrowth, but also are able to weather economicstorms. Ignoring this simple yet profound fact,many countries grow impatient and resort to pro-tectionism and government intervention instead ofallowing the free market to do its work. When eco-nomic turmoil strikes, the markets in these coun-tries therefore lack the institutions that would in-sulate their economies from economic shocks. Thecurrent conditions of some countries in LatinAmerica, such as Argentina, as well as several ofthe countries still struggling to emerge from theAsian financial crisis, are prime examples of thisconsequence of the lack of economic freedom.

Despite the dire economic circumstances insome countries, however, others continue to opentheir markets and improve, as this years Index in-dicates. Improvement is seen from the very top 10countries down even to those at the bottom of thescale.

The list of greatly improved countries includesBotswana. While Botswana has yet to attain theranking of free, it has long served, through itsprudent economic policies, as a model of successfuldevelopment for sub-Saharan Africa. Having capi-talized on its record by improving its trade policy,capital flows and foreign investment, banking andfinance, and regulation scores, Botswana is now sub-Saharan Africas freest country.

Scandinavia continues on the path of economicfreedom, with four of its five countries ranked as

xiv 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

free. This year, for the first time, Sweden andIceland are ranked as free countries, and Norway,though it remains mostly free, continues to im-prove. Denmark is the worlds sixth freest coun-try, tied with the United States and Estonia. Stillknown for their large welfare states, many of theScandinavian countries have decreased regulationand government intervention, and have liberalizedtheir policies to attract foreign investors. Addition-ally, Scandinavia has a strong rule of law, a historyof openness to trade, and little, if any, corruption.

Clearly, these countries have advanced signifi-cantly along the path to economic freedom. As thisyears Index reveals, however, this is not the casefor all countries. Despite its abundance of oil, theMiddle East continues to be plagued by the corrup-tion and absence of the fundamental rule of lawthat rob its people of economic freedom. In his chap-ter, In the Middle East, Arbitrary GovernmentFeeds Rage, Robert L. Pollock graphically de-scribes the snares that deter entrepreneurs in theMiddle East.

In addition, as many countries have improvedor regressed, there are many others whose scoresor rankings have not changed. Although its overalleconomic freedom has declined somewhat, HongKong remains the worlds most economically freecountry. Yet, as the scores reveal, Singapore is closebehind, with their overall scores separated by adifference of only 0.05 point. Hong Kongs score isworse because of government intervention, butSingapores has improved because of the lower costof government.

A few changes in Singapores policy could eas-ily put it in first place next year, and several othercountries likewise could be contending for first placewith only a few changes. As a tax haven for foreigninvestment that has attracted capital from aroundthe world, Luxembourg is a prime example. Lastyear, Luxembourg was tied for fourth place; thisyear, its government intervention score has im-proved, enabling it to claim the honor of the worldsthird freest economy. This is proof that incremen-tal changes matter.

Mart Laar, former prime minister of Estonia,has contributed a chapter to this years Index titledsimply How Estonia Did It. In just a few pages,he describes how Estonia rose from a former So-viet satellite economy to become one of the freesteconomies in the world. Despite such success sto-ries, however, the leaders of many other nationscontinue to resist the changes that must take placeif their economic freedom and resultant prosperityare to advance.

Many of these leaders denounce or simply avoidthe policies necessary for growth on one hand, whilethe other hand asks for more economic aid; buteconomic freedom, not aid, is the solution to theproblems of developing countries.

The lesson, once again as in past years, is de-ceptively simple: Economic freedom leads to eco-nomic prosperity. While taking steps to advanceeconomic freedom may be uncomfortable and po-litically difficult in the short term, the growth ratesfound in the free countries demonstrate beyondquestion that the benefits enable a country not onlyto stand on its own, but to flourish.

Edwin J. Feulner

President

The Heritage Foundation

September 2002

x vTable of Contents

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our grateful apprecia-tion to the many individuals, especiallythose at The Heritage Foundation, whohave made such valuable contributions to the ninthedition of the Index of Economic Freedom.

The primary responsibility for producing theIndex was borne by The Heritage FoundationsCenter for International Trade and Economics(CITE). Ana Eiras and Brett Schaefer did an excel-lent job in grading the countries this year. Ana alsocoordinated the complex process of producing theIndex. In managing the data and the extensive re-search process, she was ably assisted by SaraFitzgerald, Anthony Kim, and Kimberly Thomp-son. In addition to these tasks, Anthony authoredthe statistical summary that accompanies each coun-try and Kimberly served as initial editor and factchecker. Both were invaluable in guaranteeing aprofessional and error-free product. Additionally,Ana, Brett, and Kimberly authored many of the in-troductory paragraphs for the countries.

In the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Insti-tute for International Studies, Ariel Cohen, JohnHulsman, Stephen Johnson, and James Phillipswrote introductory paragraphs and provided theirexpertise. Director Helle Dale also provided valu-able input. Yvette Campos and Allison Goodmanprovided valuable production support.

In the Asian Studies Center, Dana Dillon, BalbinaHwang, John Tkacik, Jr., and Paolo Pasicolan wroteintroductions and provided assistance. DirectorLarry Wortzel supplied guidance and advice. KathyGudgel provided valuable production support.

We are particularly grateful to William Beach,Director of the Center for Data Analysis, for hiscontinued support in reviewing the methodologyemployed by the Index and for his contributions toChapter 1.

We thank Todd Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Le-gal Studies, for his perceptive comments on theproperty rights factor and for grading the propertyrights factor in the United States.

In the Information Technology Department,invaluable help was provided by Vice President ofInformation Systems Michael Spiller, Ted Morgan,Genevieve Grimes, and Joanna Yu. We are grate-ful for their professionalism.

We are also grateful to Jon Garthwaite, Direc-tor of Online Communications, and his staff for plac-ing the entire Index on the Heritage Web site (http://www.heritage.org/index/). They also did an excel-lent job of developing a searchable database thathelps researchers identify key trends over the eight-year history of the Index. Ryan Zempel, MelissaKaiser, Chris Avore, John Hanley, and JohnnyBoursiquot were indispensable to this project.

Once again, as in past years, we are grateful forthe work of veteran Senior Editor RichardOdermatt, who was responsible for final review ofthe entire text, and to Senior Copy Editor WilliamT. Poole, who continues to bear the primary re-sponsibility for editing the entire text and whoseprofessionalism, commitment to the project, andattention to detail do so much to make each yearsedition a reality.

xvi 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

In Publishing Services, Brian Cobb was respon-sible for all design and layout, and Valerie Rieder,assisted by Thomas J. Timmons, developed theregional and country maps and formatted the chartsand tables. Daryl Malloy managed the publishingof the Index, and Therese Pennefather coordinatedthe entire production process.

We are especially pleased to be able to include anessay by Mart Laar, former Prime Minister of Esto-nia, this year. We would also like to thank LeonardLiggio, Maralene Martin, Peter Noble, our formercolleague Aaron Schavey, and the editors of The WallStreet Journal, who helped to guide us with theirthoughtful advice and insight on the countries.

Countless individuals serving with various account-ing firms, businesses, research organizations, U.S.government agencies, foreign embassies, and otherorganizations cooperated in providing us with the dataused in the Index. Their assistance is much appreci-ated. So, too, is the work of Heritage interns AdamDoverspike, Kevin Lee, Lisa Martilotta, AngelaMattoon, and Kolbjorn Nelson, who were particu-larly helpful in producing this edition. Like their pre-decessors, they did the legwork, compiled the data,and researched hard-to-find data in a timely fashion.We wish them the best in their new ventures.

As always, we must acknowledge our enduringdebt both to Heritage Trustee Ambassador J. Will-

iam Middendorf II, for originally encouraging us toundertake such a study of global economic freedom,and to the many other people within Heritage whocontinue to lend their expertise to our effort as theyhave in past years.

Sadly, this year we must bid farewell to one ofthose people. Kim Holmes served as an editor of theIndex of Economic Freedom from its inception, and hiswise counsel and insights have helped make it a bet-ter book. President George W. Bush has nominatedKim to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-national Organizations. Among his duties in that newposition, he will oversee the Administrations policytoward the United Nations. We wish him all the bestas he pursues this new challenge.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciationto the many people who, year after year, have eitherpraised or criticized the Index of Economic Freedom soenthusiastically. The support and encouragement ofpeople in all parts of the world continue to serve as amajor source of inspiration for The Heritage Founda-tion and The Wall Street Journal in their ongoing col-laboration on this important work. We hope thisyears effort matches the expectations of all our sup-porters, as well as the thoughtful critics who so oftenhave provided the insights that enable us to continueto improve the Index.

Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr.

Edwin J. Feulner

Mary Anastasia OGrady

September 2002

xviiTable of Contents

1Executive Summary

Executive Summaryby Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., Edwin J. Feulner,

and Mary Anastasia OGrady

The idea of producing a user-friendly index of eco-nomic freedom as a tool for policymakers and in-vestors was first discussed at The Heritage Founda-tion in the late 1980s. The goal then, as it is today,was to develop a systematic, empirical measurementof economic freedom in countries throughout theworld. To this end, the decision was made to estab-lish a set of objective economic criteria that, since1994, have been used to study and grade variouscountries for the annual publication of the Index ofEconomic Freedom.

The Index, however, is more than just a datasetbased on empirical study; it is a careful theoreticalanalysis of the factors that most influence the insti-tutional setting of economic growth. Moreover, al-though many theories exist about the origins andcauses of economic development, the findings of thisstudy are straightforward: The countries with themost economic freedom also have higher rates oflong-term economic growth and are more prosper-ous than are those with less economic freedom.

The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal2003 Index of Economic Freedom measures how well161 countries score on a list of 50 independent vari-ables divided into 10 broad factors of economic free-dom. The higher the score on a factor, the greaterthe level of government interference in the economyand the less economic freedom a country enjoys.These 50 variables are grouped into the followingcategories:

Trade policy,

Fiscal burden of government,

Government intervention in the economy,

Monetary policy,

Capital flows and foreign investment,

Banking and finance,

Wages and prices,

Property rights,

Regulation, and

Black market.

Chapter 5 explains these factors in detail. Takentogether, they offer an empirical depiction of acountrys level of economic freedom. A systematicanalysis of these factors continues to demonstratethat countries with the highest levels of economicfreedom also have the highest living standards.

WORLDWIDE PATTERNSThis year, economic freedom has advanced

throughout the world. Every region has improved.Worldwide, 74 countries have better scores, 49 haveworse scores, and 32 have scores that are unchanged.Of the 156 countries numerically graded in the 2003Index, 15 are classified as free, 56 as mostly free,

2 2003 Index of Economic Freedom

Economic Freedom and Per Capita Income

Economic Freedom in 2003

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators on CDROM 2002; Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2001 for the following countries: Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, Congo, Dem. Rep., Cuba, Djibouti, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia; The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, the 2003 Index of Economic Freedom.

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$26,855

$12,569

$3,229 $3,585

Free Mostly Free Mostly Unfree Repressed

2000 Per Capita Income in Purchasing Power Parities

74 as mostly unfree, and 11 as repressed.

Sierra Leone was graded numerically this yearbecause the civil war has ended and peaceful elec-tions have occurred, returning stability to the na-tion. Iraq, the Democratic Republic of Congo,Angola, Sudan, and Burundi were suspended fromgrading. Iraq was suspended due to a lack of basiceconomic data. The four sub-Saharan African coun-tries have been in a prolonged state of anarchy orcivil unrest and remain suspended from grading untilsuch time as political stability again makes a quanti-tative assessment possible.

Of those countries ranked in the top 10two tieat number 3, three tie at number 6, and two tie atnumber 9six are in North America or Europe andfour are in Asia. Most of the worlds economicallyrepressed countries lie in Asia. With the exceptionof Latin America, all of the regions boast a net gainof six countries with improved scores. Latin Americahas a net gain of only one country.

Of the 10 factors measured in the Index, the fiscalburden factor marked the greatest number of im-provements, at 37 countries, while the scores of 22countries are worse because of their high cost ofgovernment. The level of protection that countriesmaintain in their trade policy is worse in 31 coun-tries, while 20 countries have improved their scores.The level of government intervention is higher in

25 countries but lowerin 34 countries. Mon-etary policy is better in23 countries and worsein 21 countries. Open-ness to foreign invest-ment is worse in 16countries and better inonly eight countries.

The banking and fi-nance scores for 23countries are improvedthis year, while onlyfive have worse scoresbecause of restrictionsand requirements onbanks. The wages andprices scores are betterfor 20 countries andworse for eight coun-tries. The regulationscores are better for

eight countries and worse for three countries. Theblack market scores are the same for 152 countries,with only two improving and only one earning aworse score.

For the past two years, we have noted a world-wide trend in the decline of the protection of prop-erty rights. Sadly, many countries continue to disre-gard the important relationship between maintain-ing strong property rights and attracting investment.This trend continues: Three countries have weak-ened in their protection of property rights and onlyone has improved. While 151 countries remainedthe same, considering last years decline in the pro-tection of property of rights (22 countries), the lackof improvement this year with a net loss of two coun-tries indicates that the outlook continues to be dis-appointing.

In order to grow, countries must implement poli-cies that attract investors and encourage entrepre-neurs. As Lee Hoskins and Ana I. Eiras pointed outin the 2002 edition of the Index, in spite of havingsimilar natural resources, human capital, and struc-ture in their economies, Australia is a thriving na-tion while the citizens of Argentina have becomeincreasingly poor.1 The difference between the twocountries lies in policy.

Governments around the world should take noteof the message in this book. Economic freedom en-

Economic Freedom and Per Capita Income

3Executive Summary

ables a country to utilize its resources efficiently.Economically free countries tend to have higher percapita income than less free countries. For instance,while Hong Kongs GDP per capita in 2000 was$24,218, Irans was $1,649 and Zimbabwes was amere $621.2 As long as Iran and Zimbabwe continueto maintain economies that are repressed, their citi-zens will continue to suffer. The level of economicfreedom in a country determines whether its fatewill be one of prosperity or one of poverty.

NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPEThe region encompassed by North America and

Europe remains the worlds most economically free,containing six of the top 10 freest countries in thisyears Index. Yet economic freedom in NorthAmerica and Europe appears to be a European phe-nomenon claiming half of the worlds freest econo-mies. Additionally, the four freest economies in Asiaare former British colonies that have maintained thebasic legal and political institutions inherited fromGreat Britain.

On net, the region shows a gain in economic free-dom by six countries. The factor that shows the mostimprovement in this region is the fiscal burden ofgovernment, with 12 countries earning better scoresand only three countries earning worse scores overthe past year. The property rights score for the en-tire region remains the same.

The countries that illustrate the most dramaticimprovement in score are Iceland, Croatia, andSlovenia. All of these countries improved by 0.25point this year. Hungary illustrates the sharpest de-cline in economic freedom. Many of the former So-viet satellite economies continue to struggle to takehold of economic freedom. Belarus, for instance, isthe least free country in the region. Across the board,Belarus scores poorly in all of the factors.

As many of these economies continue to struggle,however, Estonia proves that with the right policiesin place, growth is achievable. Estonia has main-tained its score and is ranked as the worlds sixthfreest economy this year (tied with Denmark andthe United States). In his chapter, How Estonia DidIt, former Prime Minister Mart Laar detailsEstonias journey to economic freedom, emphasiz-ing the paramount importance of property rights andthe rule of law.

Just across the Baltic Sea, Scandinavia continuesto advance with four out of the five Scandinaviancountries ranked as free. Denmark remains thefreest economy in Scandinavia. This year, for thefirst time, Sweden and Iceland are ranked as freecountries. Even Norway, which remains mostlyfree, has made progress. In her chapter onScandinavias Changing Political and EconomicLandscape, Sara J. Fitzgerald describes the changesthat have taken place.

As noted last year, while European leaders haveoften promoted big government, many countries arenow beginning to lower taxes, cut regulations, andprivatize state-owned enterprises. Icelands PrimeMinister, David Oddsson, wants to cut the corpo-rate tax rate to 15 percent and eliminate propertytaxes by 2004. Finland has often been noted for itsstrong business environment. Luxembourg, thethird freest economy in the world, attracts capitalfrom around the globe and is a tax haven for foreigninvestors.

The Celtic tiger also continues to roar. Irelandhas had the fastest growing economy in the Euro-pean Union for the past eight years. One of the se-crets of Irelands success is its competitive tax rates.For instance, Irelands corporate taxation ratecur-rently 16 percentis scheduled to fall to 12.5 per-cent by 2003. Ireland clearly illustrates the impor-tance of a lighter fiscal burden in advancing eco-nomic freedom and spurring growth.

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEANLatin America and the Caribbean continue to

suffer from a lack of reform. In general, throughoutthe 1990s, the region implemented only politicallyfacile reforms. Countries in the region failed toimplement a strong rule of law. In some, many eco-nomic deficiencies began to emerge and an eco-nomic crisis developed as they faced a global eco-nomic downturn. Instead of implementing full re-forms, many of these countries have chosen to stiflewhat little economic freedom they had.

Of the 26 countries that are graded this year, 11have improved in their overall level of economicfreedom and 10 are worse. There was no net gainlast year; this year, however, there is a net gain ofone country. This region improved the least. Notone country is rated free in the entire region, al-though 14 are rated mostly free.


Although Chiles score is worse this year, thecountry remains the freest nation in the region andis tied for 16th freest economy in the world. Chileangovernment consumption has increased along withthe regulatory burden on business. Chiles regula-tion and government intervention scores are worse.

The country that has declined the most in eco-nomic freedom will come as no surprise. Argentinahas gone through several presidents and continuesto blame the free market for its ills. As noted in Chap-ter 6, despite the need for tough reforms, thegovernments main focus is on trying to obtain morefunds from international financial institutions.Argentina appears to be reverting to the closed soci-ety that characterized the end of the 1980s, with pricecontrols, financial restrictions, inflation, and rampantviolation of property rights.

On a positive note, for the past several years, eco-nomic freedom has advanced in Barbados. As thethird freest economy in this region, Barbados has alow level of government intervention, a very lowlevel of inflation, a low level of restrictions in bank-ing and finance, a low level of intervention in wagesand prices, strong property rights, a low level of regu-lation, and little black market activity. Barbados is acountry that could easily become free by imple-menting a few changes.

NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EASTThe scores of 11 countries in this region have

improved this year, while five are worse, givingNorth Africa and the Middle East a net gain in eco-nomic freedom of six countries. This is an improve-ment from last years net gain of only one country.The region has 10 countries that are ranked mostlyfree, but none has been ranked as free. The re-gion improved the most in the fiscal burden factor,with eight countries earning better scores and onlyone earning a worse score this year.

Maintaining the same score as last year, Bahrainremains the most economically free country in thisregion and is tied for 16th freest economy in theworld. The United Arab Emirates continues to havethe second freest economy in the region, followedby Israel, Kuwait, and Qatar. The United Arab Emir-ates score is worse this year based on the availabil-ity of more information concerning regulation andthe fiscal burden of government.

Israel, Kuwait, and Qatar have improved sincelast year. Israels government intervention and black

market scores have improved. Kuwaits governmentintervention and trade policy scores also have im-proved.

Qatars fiscal burden of government, govern-ment intervention, banking and finance, and wagesand prices scores have all improved. This is thesecond consecutive year that Qatar has improved.As noted in Chapter 6, Qatars ruler, SheikhHamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has undertaken a boldprogram of political and economic reform sincecoming to power in 1995. He has liberalized thepolitical system; given women the right to vote;created a democratically elected Municipal Coun-cil; and nurtured an independent television station,al-Jazira, that has acquired a wide audience through-out the Arab world.

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAOverall, economic freedom in sub-Saharan Af-

rica has improved in the past year. The scores of 19countries are better, while the scores of 13 are worse.The region has a net gain of six countries. The fac-tor that is most improved in this region is bankingand finance, in which 12 countries have improvedtheir scores. The monetary policy factor proved tobe the biggest challenge for this region, with 10 coun-tries earning worse scores. The property rights fac-tor is for the most part unchanged, with 35 coun-tries receiving the same score as last year. Whilenone of the countries are ranked free, five earnthe ranking of mostly free.

This year, Botswana is the regions freest coun-try. In addition, for the second year in a row, it hasimproved its score. Botswanas trade policy, capitalflows and foreign investment, banking and finance,and regulation scores have improved. Madagascaris the second freest country in the region and is tiedwith Libya for having made the most improvementsin the past year.3

Among countries numerically graded, Zimbabweremains the regions least economically free andcontinues to deteriorate. Yet the country that suf-fered the greatest decline in economic freedom isRwanda. Its trade policy, capital flows and foreigninvestment, and fiscal burden of government scoresall are worse.

The property rights score remains the same forthe majority of the countries, with only one improv-ing and one worsening. As noted last year, however,

5Executive Summary

many of these countries remain crippled by cor-ruption and a lack of strong protection of propertyrights. Without strong property rights, these coun-tries will remain poverty-stricken. Investors will notconsider investing in countries that are rife with cor-ruption and where property rights are poorly pro-tected.

ASIAPACIFICWith 15 countries improving and nine countries

that are worse, the AsiaPacific region experienceda net gain of six countries. This region is diverse,boasting both the worlds top three freest economiesand the largest number (five) of repressed econo-mies of all the regions. The four freest economies inthe regionHong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand,and Australiahave stayed true to their AngloSaxon roots by keeping legal systems modeled afterGreat Britain.

The region improved the most in the monetarypolicy and fiscal burden factors. In monetary policy,six countries have earned better scores and threehave earned worse scores. In the fiscal burden fac-tor, six countries are better and five are worse. Theregion experienced the largest net gain (four coun-tries) in the wages and prices factor, with five coun-tries improving and only one country earning aworse score.

Even though its score is worse for the secondconsecutive year, Hong Kong remains the worldsfreest economy. Hong Kongs government interven-tion score worsened this year, but its many virtuesinclude a duty-free port, low cost of government,very low level of inflation, very low barriers to for-eign investment, very low level of restrictions inbanking and finance, low level of intervention inwages and prices, strong property rights, very lowlevel of regulation, and a low level of black marketactivity.

Once again, Singapore boasts the worlds secondfreest economy. Singapores overall score is betterthis year because of improvement in its fiscal bur-den of government score. Clearly, if economic free-dom continues to advance, Singapore could easilybe a contender for the rank of freest economy in theworld next year. The difference between HongKongs score and Singapores is only 0.05 point.

The countries that experienced the largest im-provement overall in the advancement of economic

freedom are the Kyrgyz Republic andTurkmenistan. The country that suffered the larg-est decline is Sri Lanka. South Korea suffered thesecond largest decline in economic freedom.

For the second consecutive year, Indonesia hasimproved. While Indonesias monetary policy scoreis 1 point better, its government intervention scoreis 0.5 point worse this year. Considering the prob-lems that Indonesia continues to face, this is only asmall step, but it is a step in the right direction.

As noted in Chapter 6, the Indonesian govern-ment is considered one of the most corrupt in Asia.Corruption remains a large problem in Asia gener-ally. For the most part, the economies that havefailed to emerge fully from the Asian financial crisisremain burdened with crony capitalism.

The economies that are thriving have little or nocorruption and have cracked down on the blackmarket. However, there are other countries thatsuffer from one or multiple problems such as a thriv-ing market for software piracy, a black market thatholds a significant amount of the economy, or a po-litical scene in which leaders are frequently bribed.The black market score for the region is unchangedthis year.

COUNTRY TREND TABLESTable 1 lists the countries that have improved

the most since the publication of the 2002 edition ofthe Index. It is very difficult to obtain data for manyof the repressed countries. With respect to Libya,Cuba, and Iran, new data became available that clari-fied policies and led to improvements in their scoresin the past yearin some cases perhaps withoutpositive actions by the governments of these coun-tries.

Improved availability of data is a positive resultof the greater transparency that globalization de-mands. For instance, some countries have releaseddata in order to comply with requirements of inter-national institutions such as the World Bank andInternational Monetary Fund. In other cases, suchas Cuba, the government has slightly opened itseconomy to foreign investment, and data are accu-mulated as foreign investors analyze the businessclimate within the country and as more tourists visitthe country.

Madagascar and Libya have experienced thegreatest change this year. Last year, Madagascars


Table 1. Countries Showing GreatestImprovement Overall Since 2002

Index of Economic FreedomCountries Score Change Region

Madagascar 0.45 Sub-Saharan Africa

Libya 0.45 North Africa and Middle East

Botswana 0.40 Sub-Saharan Africa

Iran 0.40 North Africa and Middle East

Equatorial Guinea 0.30 Sub-Saharan Africa

Cuba 0.30 Latin America and the Caribbean

Qatar 0.30 North Africa and Middle East

Iceland 0.25 North America and Europe

South Africa 0.25 Sub-Saharan Africa

Slovenia 0.25 North America and Europe

Croatia 0.25 North America and Europe

Kyrgyz Rep. 0.25 Asia and the Pacific

Turkmenistan 0.25 Asia and the Pacific

Table 2. Countries Showing Greatest Declinein Economic Freedom Since 2002


Argentina 0.45 Latin America and the Caribbean

Hungary 0.25 North America and Europe

Sri Lanka 0.25 Asia and the Pacific

Zambia 0.25 Sub Saharan Africa

Rwanda 0.25 Sub Saharan Africa

Nigeria 0.25 Sub Saharan Africa

El Salvador 0.20 Latin America and the Caribbean

Korea, South 0.20 Asia and the Pacific

Mozambique 0.20 Sub Saharan Africa

Benin 0.20 Sub Saharan Africa

Yugoslavia 0.20 North America and Europe

Poland 0.20 North America and Europe

Djibouti 0.20 Sub Saharan Africa

Gambia, The 0.20 Sub Saharan Africa

score was 3.10; this year, its scoreis 2.65. Madagascar remains rankedas mostly free. If reforms con-tinue at the same pace as in the pastyear, Madagascar could achieve aranking of free within two years.

Last year, Libyas score was 4.75;this year, its score is 4.30. WhileLibya remains ranked as a re-pressed country with many re-forms needed, this is the secondconsecutive year it has improved.The primary reason for this im-provement is the availability ofmore extensive data on inflationthat were not available duringpreparation of the 2002 Index.

Botswana and Iran are tied asthe second most improved coun-tries in the past year. Additionally,Botswana is one of the countriesthat have greatly improved since1995. (See Table 3.) Last year,Botswanas score was 2.90; thisyear, its score is 2.50. Irans scorelast year was 4.55; this year, it is4.15. This is the second consecutiveyear that Iran has improved.

Table 2 lists the countries thatexperienced the greatest decline ineconomic freedom during the pastyear. After being on a political andeconomic roller coaster, it is nosurprise that Argentina has experi-enced the greatest decline in eco-nomic freedom among all coun-tries. Last year, Argentinas scorewas 2.50; this year, its score is 2.95.

Not only have South Korea andZambia experienced a great loss ineconomic freedom in the past year,as Table 4 indicates, but both coun-tries have regressed since the firstedition of the Index in 1995. Lastyear, South Koreas score was 2.50;this year, its score is 2.70. Last year,Zambias score was 3.25; this year,its score is 3.50.

7Executive Summary

Table 4. Countries Showing Greatest Declinein Economic Freedom Since 1995


Turkey (1995) 0.70 North America & Europe

Japan (1995) 0.65 Asia Pacific

Belarus (1995) 0.60 North America & Europe

Malaysia (1995) 0.60 Asia Pacific

Nigeria (1995) 0.60 Sub-Saharan Africa

Zimbabwe (1995) 0.60 Sub-Saharan Africa

Korea, South (1995) 0.55 Asia Pacific

Paraguay (1995) 0.55 Latin America & The Caribbean

Venezuela (1995) 0.50 Latin America & The Caribbean

Zambia (1995) 0.40 Sub-Saharan Africa

Mauritius (1999) 0.35 Sub-Saharan Africa

* The number in parentheses indicates the first year the country was included in the Index

Table 3. Countries Showing GreatestImprovement Overall Since 1995


Azerbaijan (1996) 1.40 Asia Pacific

Armenia (1996) 1.10 North America & Europe

Lithuania (1996) 1.10 North America & Europe

Cambodia (1997) 1.00 Asia Pacific

Nicaragua (1995) 1.00 Latin America & The Caribbean

Mozambique (1995) 0.95 Sub-Saharan Africa

Bosnia (1998) 0.90 North America & Europe

Haiti (1995) 0.80 Latin America & The Caribbean

Madagascar (1995) 0.80 Sub-Saharan Africa

Botswana (1995) 0.80 Sub-Saharan Africa

Vietnam (1995) 0.80 Asia Pacific

* The number in parentheses indicates the first year the country was included in the Index

Table 3 shows the countriesthat have made the largest over-all improvement over the entirehistory of the Index. Azerbaijan hasmade the most improvement witha score change of 1.40 since thecountry was first graded in 1996.Armenia and Lithuania are tied forsecond most improved with achange of 1.10 in their scores. Asmentioned last year, it is notewor-thy that, although these threeeconomies were once part of theSoviet Union, their levels of over-all economic freedom have all ad-vanced. Estonia, however, contin-ues to be the only free countryfrom the former Soviet bloc.

Mozambique is listed as acountry that has made the great-est improvement since the incep-tion of the Index. This year,Mozambique is one of the coun-tries exhibiting the greatest de-cline in economic freedom in thepast year. Mozambiques tradepolicy and monetary scores areworse.

Table 4 shows the countriesthat have exhibited the greatestdecline in economic freedom overthe entire history of the Index. Tur-key has declined the most, with ascore change of 0.70, and contin-ues its descent with a worse scorethis year. Despite taking initialsteps to adopt reform, Turkey isstill reeling from its economic cri-sis. Japan, as a country with thesecond greatest decline in eco-nomic freedom with a scorechange of 0.65, has a worse scorethis year as well.

GLOBAL FREE TRADEASSOCIATIONCOUNTRIES

In the 2001 edition of the Index,three Heritage analysts proposed


Criteria for Membership in aGlobal Free Trade Association

Freedom to Trade. Countries must maintain an open trade policy, with minimal barriers to im-ports and minimal subsidies to domestic industries. This means an average tariff rate not greater than9 percent as well as few or no non-tariff barriers, which include import quotas or licensing require-ments that restrict trade. Countries that generally set low tariff barriers, do not impose excessive non-tariff barriers, and do not put serious impediments in the way of foreign investment demonstratetheir fundamental commitment to free trade.

Freedom to Invest. Countries must maintain liberal policies regarding capital flows and invest-ment. Specifically, this means a transparent and open foreign investment code, impartial treatment offoreign investments, and an efficient approval process. Restrictions on foreign investment must befew in number and not significant economically.

Freedom to Operate a Business (Low Regulatory Burden). Countries must maintain an openenvironment for business. Overly burdensome regulations can deter trade and investment. Investorsmay choose not to enter a country because of the difficulties involved in opening a business or be-cause the cost of doing business in that country is excessive. Countries must maintain simple licens-ing procedures, apply regulations uniformly, and be nondiscriminatory in their treatment of foreign-owned business.

Secure Property Rights. A country with a well-established rule of law protects private propertyand provides an environment in which business transactions can take place with a degree of cer-tainty. Investors are likely to engage in economic transactions when they know the judicial systemprotects private property and is not subject to outside influence. Secure property rights help to ensurethat efforts to expand trade with a GFTA country can be successful.

a plan for a global free trade association (GFTA).4

This year, 13 countries qualify, while 15 are in thenear-miss category by falling short in one factorby 1 point.5

The qualifying countries, based on 2003 Index ofEconomic Freedom data, are Australia, Botswana, Den-mark, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland,Luxembourg, New Zealand, Singapore, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States. Botswana qualifiesfor the first time this year because of improvementsin its trade, regulation, and foreign investmentscores.

Among the near-miss countries are examplesthat range from Switzerland to Israel. Regulationcontinues to be the most common reason for thenear-miss countries. Although Chile qualified lastyear, it is in the near-miss category this year be-cause of a worse regulation score. Of the 15 near-miss countries, 11 fail to qualify because of theirregulation scores; two (Canada and Cyprus) do notqualify because of their foreign investment scores;one (El Salvador) does not qualify because of weak

property rights; and one (Bahrain) does not qualifybecause of restrictions on trade.

While most liberalization in the past year hasbeen accomplished through bilateral free tradeagreements, such agreements include only two par-ties, thereby creating trade diversion for those whoare left out. A GFTA would not be a substitute forthe World Trade Organization (WTO), but wouldseek to advance liberalization while the WTO roundis being negotiated.

A GFTA would limit trade diversion by welcom-ing all those who are truly free traders into the fold.Additionally, a GFTA would motivate other coun-tries to liberalize their markets in order to join.Market liberalization should be voluntary. TheGFTA would operate under this very concept. Mem-bership in the GFTA would include only countriesthat have a record as free traders.

9Executive Summary

Table 5. Membership in a Global Free Trade AssociationNext in Line

Qualifying Countries Country Policy Blocking Membership

1 Australia 1 Austria Regulation

2 Botswana 2 Bahrain Trade

3 Denmark 3 Belgium Regulation

4 Estonia 4 Canada Foreign Investment

5 Finland 5 Chile Regulation

6 Hong Kong 6 Cyprus Foreign Investment

7 Iceland 7 El Salvador Property Rights

8 Ireland 8 Germany Regulation

9 Luxembourg 9 Israel Regulation

10 New Zealand 10 Italy Regulation

11 Singapore 11 Netherlands Regulation

12 United Kingdom 12 Portugal Regulation

13 United States 13 Spain Regulation

14 Sweden Regulation

15 Switzerland Regulation

Notes:1 Lee Hoskins and Ana I. Eiras, Property Rights: The Key to Economic Growth, in Gerald P. ODriscoll,

Jr., Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia OGrady, 2002 Index of Economic Freedom(Washington, D.C.: TheHeritage Foundation and Dow Jones &, Company, Inc., 2002), pp. 4244.

2 Numbers are in real terms.

3 For a discussion of data issues with respect to Libya, see Country Trend Tables, p. 5.

4 John C. Hulsman, Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., and Denise H. Froning, The Free Trade Association: ATrade Agenda for the New Global Economy, in Gerald P. ODriscoll, Jr., Kim R. Holmes, and MelanieKirkpatrick, 2001 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and DowJones & Company, Inc., 2001), pp. 3341.

5 See Table 5, Membership in a Global Free Trade Association, p. 9.


Glo

bal

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m

Not

Ran

ked

Free

Mos

tly U

nfre

eSc

ore:

3.0

0 to

3.9

5M

ostly

Fre

eSc

ore:

2.0

0 to

2.9

5R

epre

ssed

Scor

e: 4

.00

to 5

.00

Scor

e: 1

.00

to 1

.95

11Executive Summary

New ZealandAustraliaTaiwan CambodiaJapan Thailand Korea, SouthPhilippines, The Malaysia MongoliaSri Lanka IndonesiaPakistan

Hong KongSingapore

Kyrgyz Rep., TheAzerbaijanFijiBangladesh KazakhstanIndiaNepalChinaVietnamTajikistanTurkmenistan

UzbekistanBurma

LaosKorea, North

WorldRank

39

2735354052627272809999

12

104104113119119119119127135143146

149148

153156

2.052.00

1.852.352.153.202.403.333.003.403.15

19951.301.50

3.403.60

3.80

3.604.50

5.00

1.701.852.302.502.502.552.702.853.003.003.053.303.30

20031.451.50

3.353.353.403.503.503.503.503.553.703.954.15

4.254.20

4.405.00

1.701.852.352.602.452.402.502.953.102.902.803.353.30

20021.351.55

3.603.503.403.703.603.553.403.553.853.854.40

4.354.10

4.555.00

1.701.902.102.852.052.202.253.053.003.002.703.553.45

20011.301.55

3.653.953.403.803.753.853.503.554.103.954.40

4.454.20

4.655.00

1.701.902.003.002.152.702.402.852.703.152.903.503.40

20001.301.45

3.604.203.303.753.703.803.603.404.304.004.30

4.404.10

4.605.00

1.701.901.903.002.052.352.202.852.603.252.753.103.45

19991.301.40

3.604.203.303.753.953.803.303.604.304.004.30

4.404.10

4.605.00

1.851.901.953.102.002.352.252.652.603.152.752.853.20

19981.301.40

3.804.303.203.504.003.803.403.504.354.254.20

4.504.20

4.505.00

1.802.151.953.502.052.302.252.852.803.352.502.903.20

19971.401.50

4.653.203.50

3.803.653.604.45

4.30

4.455.00

1.802.051.95

2.052.352.302.952.703.502.802.853.15

1.301.50

1996

4.753.153.50

3.853.553.604.45

4.30

4.355.00

Asia and the Pacific Index of Economic Freedom Scores(30 Economies)


1000

Mile

s

Aus

tral

ia

Fiji

Sam

oa

Mon

golia

Peop

les

Rep

ublic

of C

hina

Hon

g K

ong

Thai

land

Phili

ppin

es

Japa

n

Indo

nesia

Sing

apor

e

Sri L

anka

Vie

tnam

Taiw

an

Papu

aN

ew G

uine

a

Burm

aLa

os

Paki

stan

Bang

lade

sh

Nep

al

Indi

a

Cam

b.

Aus

tral

ia

Mal

aysia

Kaz

akhs

tan

Tajik

istan

Turk

menis

tanUzb

ekista

n

Aze

r.

Kyr

gyz

Rep

.

Afg

hani

stan

Bhut

an

Aus

tral

ia

Brun

ei

New

Zea

land

Nor

thK

orea

Sout

hK

orea

Rus

sia

Not

e: F

iji an

d Sa

moa

are

not

to

scal

e.

Not

Ran

ked

Free

Mos

tly U

nfre

eM

ostly

Fre

eR

epre

ssed

Scor

e: 1

.00

to 1

.95

Scor

e: 3

.00

to 3

.95

Scor

e: 2

.00

to 2

.95

Scor

e: 4

.00

to 5

.00

Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m in

th

e A

sia-

Pac

ific

Reg

ion

13Executive Summary

WorldRank

94

149139

11

356669

111111151819191922272929293233354044445256566266668992

104104113119131135138

151

Macedonia

YugoslaviaBosnia

Iceland

LuxembourgIrelandDenmarkEstoniaUnited StatesUnited Kingdom

SwedenFinlandNetherlandsSwitzerland CanadaAustria BelgiumGermanyCyprusNorwayItalyLithuaniaSpainPortugalLatvia Czech Rep., TheFranceArmeniaHungary MaltaMexicoGreece SloveniaSlovak Rep., ThePolandCroatiaMoldova

BulgariaAlbaniaGeorgiaTurkey UkraineRussiaRomania

Belarus

2003

3.25

4.253.80

1.90

1.701.751.801.801.801.85

1.901.901.901.952.052.102.102.102.152.302.352.352.352.402.452.502.552.652.652.702.802.802.852.902.903.153.20

3.353.353.403.503.653.703.75

4.30

1995

2.10

2.401.901.90

2.65

2.052.10

2.10

2.50

2.502.70

2.202.30

3.003.352.853.00

2.803.30

3.90

3.503.60

2.803.703.403.60

3.70

2002

3.25

4.053.90

2.15

1.801.801.901.801.801.85

2.051.951.801.902.002.102.102.102.152.452.352.352.302.302.502.402.702.702.402.702.902.803.102.902.703.403.35

3.403.303.403.353.853.703.70

4.35

2001

4.00

2.15

1.751.652.052.051.751.80

2.252.151.851.902.052.052.102.102.152.452.302.552.402.302.652.202.502.952.552.802.952.702.902.852.753.453.60

3.303.503.552.903.853.703.65

4.25

2000

4.40

2.15

1.801.852.252.201.801.90

2.352.202.051.902.002.052.102.202.552.302.302.902.402.302.652.202.503.102.552.953.002.753.003.002.803.503.20

3.403.703.652.753.603.703.30

4.10

1999

4.70

2.15

1.951.902.252.351.801.80

2.352.202.051.902.002.102.102.202.652.352.303.002.402.302.752.202.403.452.953.053.202.852.903.102.803.603.30

3.503.603.652.803.603.503.30

4.10

1998

4.70

2.15

1.851.902.252.301.851.85

2.452.152.101.952.202.102.102.302.702.352.403.002.452.402.852.352.403.503.003.053.302.853.003.152.903.653.40

3.653.703.652.603.803.353.30

4.00

1997

2.25

2.002.102.052.501.801.90

2.452.201.951.952.202.102.102.202.602.452.503.102.552.402.952.202.403.503.003.153.252.803.303.053.103.603.40

3.603.603.852.703.753.553.40

3.80

2.002.102.002.501.851.90

2.652.351.901.952.102.102.102.202.602.452.603.452.702.653.052.202.303.753.003.253.102.903.503.003.103.603.40

3.503.703.952.903.803.503.65

3.40

1996

North America and Europe Economic Freedom Score(45 Economies)


Pola

nd

Bela

rus

Hun

gary

Rom

ania

Cze

chR

epub

licU

krai

ne

Swed

en

U.K

.

Irel

and

Italy

Fran

ce

Port

ugal

Gre

ece

Bulg

aria

Aus

tria

(Rus

sia)

Switz

.

Luxe

mbo

urg

Net

herl

ands

Den

mar

kLa

tvia

Lith

uani

a

Finl

and

Nor

way

Mal

taCro

atia

Ger

man

y

Icel

and

Slov

ak R

ep.

Slov

.

Bosn

ia

Cyp

rusT

urke

y

1,00

0 M

iles

Gre

enla

nd(D

enm

ark)

Spai

n

Gre

enla

nd(D

enm

ark)

Mex

ico

Arm

en.

Moldo

va

Geo

rgia

Rus

sia

Can

ada

Esto

nia

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Rus

sia

Yugo

slavi

a

Mac

ed.

Alb

ania

Not

Ran

ked

Free

Mos

tly U

nfre

eM

ostly

Fre

eR

epre

ssed

Scor

e: 1

.00

to 1

.95

Scor

e: 3

.00

to 3

.95

Scor

e: 2

.00

to 2

.95

Scor

e: 4

.00

to 5

.00

250

Mile

s

Bel

g.

Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m in

No

rth

Am

eric

a an

d E

uro

pe

15Executive Summary

WorldRank 2003 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 199520012002

80 Central African Rep. 3.05 3.05

72 Mauritius 3.00 2.85 2.652.953.00

128 Equatorial Guinea 3.60 4.05 3.953.903.90128 Togo 3.60 3.80 3.903.753.60

52 Namibia 2.70 2.90 2.85 2.90 2.902.952.90

99 Djibouti 3.30 3.40 3.30 3.45 3.253.353.1099 Gambia, The 3.30 3.40 3.30 3.50 3.403.353.10

113 Chad 3.40 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.003.603.60

131 Rwanda 3.65 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.303.603.40

35 Botswana 2.50 2.95 2.95 2.95 3.05 3.00 3.302.952.9044 Madagascar 2.65 3.20 3.25 3.35 3.25 3.35 3.453.103.1044 South Africa 2.65 2.90 2.90 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.003.052.90

62 Uganda 2.85 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.60 2.61 2.783.003.0072 Swaziland 3.00 3.00 2.90 2.90 3.10 3.20 3.003.003.10

72 Mali 3.00 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.25 3.302.952.9080 Senegal 3.05 3.05 3.15 3.30 3.45 3.703.053.20

80 Ivory Coast 3.05 3.45 3.55 3.45 3.60 3.50 3.203.002.9085 Guinea 3.10 3.10 3.10 2.90 3.20 3.00 3.153.103.3085 Mauritania 3.10 3.80 3.70 3.75 3.90 3.753.703.3085 Kenya 3.10 3.05 3.05 3.10 3.25 3.35 3.303.153.2089 Gabon 3.15 3.10 3.00 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.003.253.2589 Cape Verde 3.15 3.70 3.80 3.60 3.60 3.503.353.1594 Burkina Faso 3.25 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.60 3.803.303.2094 Mozambique 3.25 3.80 3.90 4.10 4.00 4.10 4.203.353.05

104 Lesotho 3.35 3.55 3.45 3.50 3.65 3.653.403.40104 Tanzania 3.35 3.40 3.20 3.20 3.25 3.50 3.603.503.40104 Cameroon 3.35 3.40 3.40 3.80 3.70 3.80 3.303.203.25104 Benin 3.35 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.10 3.202.903.15

113 Niger 3.40 3.80 3.60 3.80 3.90 4.003.503.50113 Ghana 3.40 3.10 3.10 3.20 3.40 3.40 3.303.103.40119 Ethiopia 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.60 3.55 3.753.653.55119 Zambia 3.50 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.75 3.00 3.103.153.25

131 Malawi 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.70 3.65 3.60 3.503.553.50

135 Congo, Republic of 3.70 3.90 3.95 4.55 4.00 4.103.703.75140 Sierra Leone 3.85 3.80 3.70 3.60 3.55 3.50 3.60n/an/a140 Nigeria 3.85 3.30 3.20 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.253.353.60142 Guinea Bissau 3.90 4.30 4.204.003.95153 Zimbabwe 4.40 3.90 3.90 4.00 3.75 3.75 3.804.254.30

Angola n/a 4.50 4.50 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.30n/an/aBurundi n/a 4.00 4.20 4.20 4.10n/an/aCongo, Dem. Rep. of n/a 4.70 4.70 3.95 4.15 4.20 3.90n/an/aSudan n/a 3.85 4.05 4.20 4.20 4.10 4.10n/an/a

19952003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996WorldRank

2.65 2.95 3.15 3.05 3.1544 Qatar

1.702.00 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.90 1.70 1.8016 Bahrain2.20 2.15 2.05 2.15 2.15 2.25 2.20 2.2024 United Arab Emirates

2.902.45 2.65 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 3.0033 Israel2.55 2.75 2.55 2.50 2.50 2.60 2.50 2.5040 Kuwait

2.702.80 2.90 2.70 2.80 2.85 2.70 2.80 2.9056 Oman 3.052.85 2.70 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.80 2.9562 Jordan2.952.95 3.05 2.70 2.75 2.85 3.05 2.90 2.8568 Morocco

2.95 3.00 3.00 2.95 2.85 2.70 2.80 2.8068 Saudi Arabia2.902.95 2.85 2.90 3.00 3.00 2.80 2.80 2.7068 Tunisia

3.25 3.15 2.85 3.20 3.25 3.25 2.95 3.0594 Lebanon3.503.25 3.10 3.20 3.45 3.50 3.45 3.50 3.5094 Algeria3.703.35 3.55 3.60 3.50 3.40 3.35 3.55 3.45104 Egypt3.803.65 3.75 3.85 3.85 4.05 4.10 4.00 3.85131 Yemen

3.95 4.10 4.00 4.00 4.10 3.95 3.95 4.00143 Syria4.15 4.55 4.70 4.55 4.55 4.70 4.70 4.65146 Iran4.30 4.75 4.90 4.85 4.85 4.90 4.90 4.85151 Libyan/a 5.00 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.90Iraq

North Africa and Middle East Index of Economic Freedom Scores(18 Economies)

Sub-Saharan Africa Index of Economic Freedom Scores (42 Economies)


1,000 Miles

Botswana

Gabon

TunisiaMorocco

Swaziland

Ghana

IvoryCoast

SierraLeone

Guinea

(Angola)

Zimbabwe

Mali

Nigeria

SouthAfrica

Tanzania

Algeria

Madagascar

Mozambique

Ethiopia

Yemen

Oman

Bahrain

Israel

Cameroon

Syria

UAESaudi Arabia

Libya

Lesotho

BurkinaFaso

Benin

Zambia

Congo

Angola

Senegal Niger

Mauritania

Leb.

CapeVerde

Somalia

Burundi

ChadThe Gambia

Djibouti

Namibia

Jordan

Iraq

Kuwait

Iran

Togo

GuineaBissau

EquatorialGuinea

Qatar

Mauritius

Runion(France)

Uganda

RwandaCongo,

Dem. Rep.

Kenya

Egypt

Sudan

NotRanked

Free

Score: 1.00 to 1.95

Mostly Unfree

Score: 3.00 to 3.95

Mostly Free

Score: 2.00 to 2.95

Repressed

Score: 4.00 to 5.00

Central AfricanRepublicLiberia

WesternSahara

Eritrea

Malawi

Economic Freedom in Africa and the Middle East

17Executive Summary

19952003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 199616 2.602.00 1.85 2.00 2.00 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.5522 2.252.15 2.05 2.15 2.20 2.20 2.05 2.05 2.1024 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.50 2.70 2.9026 2.652.25 2.05 1.95 2.00 2.15 2.40 2.40 2.4535 2.902.50 2.55 2.35 2.55 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.8543 2.60 2.45 2.50 2.35 2.50 2.60 2.60 2.6044 3.102.65 2.70 2.40 2.65 2.75 2.60 2.70 2.7044 2.402.65 2.70 2.55 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.50 2.5044 2.902.65 2.65 2.65 2.85 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.9555 2.702.75 2.70 2.70 2.80 2.85 2.95 2.75 2.7556 2.902.80 2.90 2.80 2.50 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.8056 3.052.80 2.80 2.70 2.70 2.65 2.70 2.70 2.8556 3.302.80 2.75 2.50 2.45 2.55 2.85 2.90 2.9068 2.752.95 2.50 2.25 2.10 2.10 2.30 2.60 2.5572 4.003.00 3.15 3.45 3.60 3.60 3.50 3.70 3.6072 3.303.00 3.10 3.25 3.50 3.30 3.45 3.45 3.5572 2.903.00 2.85 2.95 2.90 2.90 3.00 3.05 3.0580 3.253.05 3.15 3.35 3.35 3.45 3.25 3.35 3.3085 3.403.10 3.00 2.85 2.90 3.10 3.20 3.10 3.2092 3.603.20 3.20 3.35 3.20 3.20 3.40 3.30 3.3099 2.653.30 3.10 3.20 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.65 2.65

118 3.203.45 3.45 3.45 3.10 3.00 2.90 3.00 3.10119 3.003.50 3.65 3.55 3.30 3.30 3.40 3.40 3.50128 4.403.60 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.00 4.10 4.10 4.40143 3.95 3.95 3.85 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 4.00155 4.854.45 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85

WorldRank

Chile Bahamas Barbados El Salvador Uruguay Trinidad and Tobago BoliviaPanama Costa Rica BelizeJamaica Guatemala Peru Argentina Nicaragua BrazilColombiaHonduras Dominican Rep., TheGuyanaParaguay EcuadorVenezuela HaitiSurinameCuba

Latin America and the Caribbean Index of Economic Freedom Scores(26 Economies)


Economic Freedom in South America

NotRanked

Free

Score: 1.00 to 1.95

Mostly Unfree

Score: 3.00 to 3.95

Mostly Free

Score: 2.00 to 2.95

Repressed

Score: 4.00 to 5.00

1,000 Miles

GuyanaVenezuela

Colombia

Peru

Bolivia

Paraguay

Argentina

Uruguay

Brazil

Chile

Suriname

Ecuador

Falkland Islands(United Kingdom)

South Georgia Island(United Kingdom)

French Guiana(France)

19Executive Summary

Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m in

th

e C

entr

al A

mer

ica

and

Car

ibb

ean

Cub

a

Pana

ma

Nic

arag

ua

Hon

dura

s

El S

alva

dor

Gua

tem

ala

Bel

ize

Cos

ta

R

ica

500

Mile

s

Hai

ti

Dom

inic

anR

epub

lic

Jam

aica

The

Baha

mas

Trin

idad

and

Toba

go

Barb

ados

Puer

to R

ico

(U.S

.)

Cay

man

Isla

nds

(U.K

.)

Not

Ran

ked

Free

Mos

tly U

nfre

eM

ostly

Fre

eR

epre

ssed

Scor

e: 1

.00

to 1

.95

Scor

e: 3

.00

to 3

.95

Scor

e: 2

.00

to 2

.95

Scor

e: 4

.00

to 5

.00

Aru

ba, C

ura

ao a

nd B

onai

re(N

ethe

rland

s)


Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m a

nd

Inco

me

Not

e: P

er c

apita

GD

P fig

ures

wer

e no

t ava

ilabl

e fo

r the

follo

win

g co

untr

ies:

Arm

enia

, The

Bah

amas

, Bah

rain

, Bos

nia,

Dem

ocra

tic R

epub

lic o

f Con

go, C

uba,

Djib

outi,

Ir

aq, N

orth

Kor

ea, K

uwai

t, Le

bano

n, L

ibya

, Mal

ta, O

man

, Qat

ar, S

urin

ame,

Tai

wan

, Taj

ikis

tan,

Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irate

s, Yu

gosla

via.

Per

cap

ita G

DP

figur

es a

re in

cu

rren

t in

tern

atio

nal d

olla

rs a

nd a

re fr

om19

99.

Sour

ce: T

he W

orld

Ban

k, 2

001

Wor

ld D

evel

opm

ent I

ndica

tors

on

CD-R

OM

.

5,00

0

10,0

00

15,0

00

20,0

00

25,0

00

30,0

00

$35,

000

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2003

Ind

ex o

f Eco

no

mic

Fre

edo

m S

core

Asia

-Pac

ific

Euro

pe a

nd N

orth

Am

eric

a

Afr

ica

and

the

Mid

dle

East

Latin

Am

eric

a

Fitt

ed L

ine

2000

Per

Cap

ita G

DP

in P

urch

asin

g Po

wer

Par

ities

Rep

ress

ed

Mo

stly

Un

free

Mo

stly

Fre

eFr

ee

21Executive Summary

1 3 3 5 6 6 6 9 9 11 11 11 11 15 16 16 18 19 19 19 22 22 24 24 26 27 27 29 29 29 32 33 33Ran

k

2H

on

g K

on

g

Lu

xem

bo

urg

New

Zea

land

Irela

nd

Den

mar

kEs

toni

aU

nite

d St

ates

Aus

tral

iaU

nite

d K

ingd

omF

inla

nd

Icela

nd

Neth

erl

and

sS

wed

en

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Bah

rain

Ch

ileC

anad

aA

ustr

ia

Bel

gium

Ger

man

yB

aham

asC

ypru

sB

arb

ado

sU

nit

ed

Ara

b E

mir

ates

El S

alva

do

rN

orw

ayT

aiw

anIta

lyLi

thua

nia

Sp

ain

Po

rtu

gal

Isra

el

Lat

via

Sin

gap

ore

1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Tra

de 12 4 4 3 4.5

3.5

3.5

3.5 4 4 3 4 4.5

3.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 5 4.5

1.5

3.5 4 2 2 4 3 5 3.5 4 4 5 4

Fisc

al B

urde

nof

Gov

ernm

ent

23 2 2 2 3.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 3 3 2 2.5 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 3 2

Gov

ernm

ent

Inte

rven

tion

31 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1

Mon

etar

yPo

licy

11 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

Fore

ign

Inve

stm

ent

11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2

Ban

king

and

Fi

nanc

e

22 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Wag

e/Pr

ices

21 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 3

Prop

erty

Rig

hts

11 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Reg

ulat

ion

11.

5 1 1 1.5 1 2.5

1.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.5 2 2 2 1 3.5 1 2.5

2.5 3 2 2 1.5

3.5

Bla

ckM

arke

t

11.

30

2.10

2.40

1.90

2.05

1.90

2.65

1.70

2.60

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.25

2.65

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.70

2.90

1995

Scor

es

1.50

1.45

1.70

1.70

1.75

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.85

1.85

1.90

1.90

1.90

1.90

1.95

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.15

2.15

2.20

2.20

2.25

2.30

2.30

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.40

2.45

2.45

2003

Scor

es

1.50

1.35

1.80

1.70

1.80

1.90

1.80

1.80

1.85

1.85

1.95

2.15

1.80

2.05

1.90

2.00

1.85

2.00

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.05

2.15

2.30

2.15

2.05

2.45

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.30

2.30

2.65

2.50

2002

Scor

es

1.55

1.30

1.75

1.70

1.65

2.05

2.05

1.75

1.90

1.80

2.15

2.15

1.85

2.25

1.90

1.90

2.00

2.05

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.15

2.15

2.40

2.05

1.95

2.45

2.10

2.30

2.55

2.40

2.30

2.75

2.65

2001

Scor

es

1.55

1.30

1.80

1.70

1.85

2.25

2.20

1.80

1.90

1.90

2.20

2.15

2.05

2.35

1.90

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.10

2.20

2.20

2.55

2.50

2.15

2.00

2.30

2.00

2.30

2.90

2.40

2.30

2.75

2.65

2000

Scor

es

1.45

1.30

1.95

1.70

1.90

2.25

2.35

1.80

1.90

1.80

2.20

2.15

2.05

2.35

1.90

1.80

2.10

2.00

2.10

2.10

2.20

2.20

2.65

2.60

2.15

2.15

2.35

1.90

2.30

3.00

2.40

2.30

2.75

2.75

1999

Scor

es

1.40

1.30

1.85

1.85

1.90

2.25

2.30

1.85

1.90

1.85

2.15

2.15

2.10

2.45

1.95

1.90

2.15

2.20

2.10

2.10

2.30

2.05

2.70

2.50

2.25

2.40

2.35

1.95

2.40

3.00

2.45

2.40

2.75

2.85

1998

Scor

es

1.40

1.50

1.40

2.00

1.80

2.10

2.05

2.50

1.80

2.15

1.90

2.20

2.25

1.95

2.45

1.95

1.70

2.20

2.20

2.10

2.10

2.20

2.05

2.60

2.70

2.20

2.40

2.45

1.95

2.50

3.10

2.55

2.40

2.75

2.95

1997

Scor

es1.

30

2.00

1.80

2.10

2.00

2.50

1.85

2.05

1.90

2.35

1.90

2.65

1.95

1.80

2.55

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.20

2.10

2.60

2.90

2.20

2.45

2.45

1.95

2.60

3.45

2.70

2.65

3.00

3.05

1.50

1996

Scor

es

No

te: C

ou

ntr

ies

wh

ose

sco

res

hav

e ch

ang

ed s

ince

last

yea

r ar

e in

Bo

ld.

Ind

ex o

f Ec

on

om

ic F

reed

om

Ran

kin

gs


Mal

ta

Bo

tsw

ana

Cam

bo

dia

Cze

ch R

ep

., T

he

Jap

anU

rugu

ayF

ran

ceK

uw

ait

Th

aila

nd

Tri

nid

ad a

nd

To

bag

oA

rmen

iaB

oliv

iaC

osta

Ric

a H

un

gary

Mad

agas

car

Pan

ama

Qat

arS

ou

th A

fric

aK

ore

a, S

ou

th

Nam

ibia

Beliz

eG

reec

e G

uate

mal

a

Jam

aica

Mexic

oO

man

Peru

Jord

anP

hili

pp

ines,

Th

eS

love

nia

Uga

nd

aP

ola

nd

Slov

ak R

ep.,

The

Arg

en

tin

a

35 35 35 35 35 40 40 40 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 52 52 52 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 62 62 62 62 66 66 68Ran

k

2 2 3 2 3 2 2 4 4 1

Documents

Index of Economic Freedom 2003