Jump to content

Freedom House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom House
FormationOctober 31, 1941; 82 years ago (1941-10-31)
TypeResearch institute
Think tank
Headquarters1850 M Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Nicole Bibbins Sedaca (interim)
Key people
Jane Harman, Chair, Board of Trustees
Revenue (2022)
$93.4 million[1]
Expenses (2022)$85.3 million
approx. 230[2]

Freedom House is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. It is best known for political advocacy surrounding issues of democracy, political freedom, and human rights.[3] Freedom House was founded in October 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons. Most of the organization's funding comes from the U.S. State Department[4] and other government grants. It also receives funds from various semi-public and private foundations, as well as individual contributions.[5]

The organization's annual Freedom in the World report assesses each country's degree of political freedoms and civil liberties. Another key annual report, Freedom on the Net, is Freedom House's annual survey and analysis of internet freedom around the world. While often cited by political scientists, journalists, and policymakers, the organization's democracy indices have received criticism.[6]

Between the 1970s and 2000s, critics predominately alleged that the organization was biased towards American interests due to government funding;[7] others criticized the organization's reliance on democratic indices created near-exclusively by Raymond Gastil.[8] In 2018, the rankings were criticized by National Review, a conservative newspaper, for its perceptions of the NGO being "anti-conservative".[9][10]



Freedom House was incorporated October 31, 1941.[11]: 293  Among its founders were Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, Elizabeth Cutter Morrow, Dorothy Thompson,[12] George Field, Herbert Agar, Herbert Bayard Swope, Ralph Bunche, Father George B. Ford, Roscoe Drummond and Rex Stout. George Field (1904–2006) was executive director of the organization until his retirement in 1967.[13]

According to its website, Freedom House was founded in 1941.[14] Several groups were aggressively supporting U.S. entry into World War II and in early autumn 1941, when various group activities began to overlap, the Fight for Freedom Committee began exploring a mass merger. George Field then conceived the idea of all of the groups maintaining their separate identities under one roof—Freedom House—to promote the concrete application of the principles of freedom.[11]: 293 

Freedom House had physical form in a New York City building that represented the organization's goals. A converted residence at 32 East 51st Street opened January 22, 1942,[11]: 293  as a centre "where all who love liberty may meet, plan their programs and encourage one another". Furnished as a gift of the Allies, the 19-room building included a broadcasting facility.[12] In January 1944, Freedom House moved to 5 West 54th Street, a former residence that Robert Lehman lent to the organization.[15][16]

Freedom House sponsored influential radio programs including The Voice of Freedom (1942–43)[17][18] and Our Secret Weapon (1942–43), a CBS radio series created to counter Axis shortwave radio propaganda broadcasts. Rex Stout, chairman of the Writers' War Board and representative of Freedom House, would rebut the most entertaining lies of the week. The series was produced by Paul White, founder of CBS News.[11]: 305 [19]: 529 

By November 1944, Freedom House was planning to raise money to acquire a building to be named after the recently deceased Wendell L. Willkie.[20][21] In 1945 an elegant building at 20 West 40th Street was purchased to house the organization. It was named the Willkie Memorial Building.[22][23][24]

After the war, as its website states, "Freedom House took up the struggle against the other twentieth century totalitarian threat, Communism ... The organization's leadership was convinced that the spread of democracy would be the best weapon against totalitarian ideologies."[14] Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO.[14] Freedom House also supported the Johnson Administration's Vietnam War policies.[25]

Freedom House was highly critical of McCarthyism.[14][26] During the 1950s and 1960s, it supported the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and its leadership included several prominent civil rights activists – though it was sometimes critical of civil rights leaders for their anti-war activism, Freedom House awarded Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers its annual Freedom Award in 1963.[27][28] It supported Andrei Sakharov, other Soviet dissidents, and the Solidarity movement in Poland.[29] Freedom House assisted the post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics.[14]

The organization describes itself currently as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House states that it:[30]

has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets.

In 1967, Freedom House absorbed Books USA, which had been created several years earlier by Edward R. Murrow,[31] as a joint venture between the Peace Corps and the United States Information Service.[32][33]

Since 2001, Freedom House has supported citizens involved in challenges to the existing regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. The organization states, "From South Africa to Jordan, Kyrgyzstan to Indonesia, Freedom House has partnered with regional activists in bolstering civil society; worked to support women's rights; sought justice for victims of torture; defended journalists and free expression advocates; and assisted those struggling to promote human rights in challenging political environments."[14] However, alternative classifications have produced significantly different results from those of the FH for Latin American countries.[34]



Freedom House is a nonprofit organization with approximately 300 staff members worldwide.[35] Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and also countries in Central Asia.

Freedom House states that its board of trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists". All board members are current residents of the United States. Past members of the organization's board of directors include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke and Lawrence Lessig, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes and Bayard Rustin.[2]



According to their 2022 financial statement and independent auditors' report, Freedom House reported $93,705,255 of total revenue:

  • Federal grants – $79,606,961
  • International public agencies – $1,055,339 ($3,826,812 with donor restrictions)
  • Corporations and foundations – $1,873,651 ($5,849,073 with donor restrictions)
  • Individual contributions – $1,487,190
  • Net assets released from restrictions – $2,901,964

Freedom House's total expenses in 2022 were $85,530,680.[1]



Freedom in the World

Classification of countries according to the Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2021 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2020.[36]
  Free   Partially Free   Not Free

Since 1973, Freedom House publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, which it seeks to assess[37] the current state of civil liberties and political rights in 195 countries and 15 territories.

The Freedom in the World report is composed of numerical ratings based on external analysts and using a combination of on-the-ground research, consultations with local contacts, and information from news articles, nongovernmental organizations, governments, and a variety of other sources. Expert advisers and regional specialists then vet the analysts’ conclusions. The final product represents the consensus of the analysts, advisers, and Freedom House staff.[38]

Freedom in the World uses a two-tiered system consisting of scores and statuses. Total scores across the various categories are based on a 100-point scale and correspond to statues of Free, Partly Free, and Not Free.

The survey's methodology is largely derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with expertise in methodological issues.[39][38]

Freedom House's methods (around 1990) and other democracy-researchers were mentioned as examples of an expert-based evaluation by sociologist Kenneth A. Bollen, who is also an applied statistician. Bollen writes that expert-based evaluations are prone to statistical bias of an unknown direction, that is, not known either to agree with U.S. policy or to disagree with U.S. policy: "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."[40]

Freedom of the Press

2015 Freedom of the Press Classifications[41]
  Not Free   Partly Free   Free   No Data

The Freedom of the Press index was an annual survey of media independence, published between 1980 and 2017.[42] It assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and internet freedom throughout the world.[43] It provides numerical rankings and rates each country's media as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free". Individual country narratives examine the legal environment for the media, political pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to information.

An independent review of press freedom studies, commissioned by the Knight Foundation in 2006, found that FOP is the best in its class of Press Freedom Indicators.[44]

Freedom on the Net


The Freedom on the Net reports provide analytical reports and numerical ratings regarding the state of Internet freedom for countries worldwide.[45] The countries surveyed represent a sample with a broad range of geographical diversity and levels of economic development, as well as varying levels of political and media freedom. The surveys ask a set of questions designed to measure each country's level of Internet and digital media freedom, as well as the access and openness of other digital means of transmitting information, particularly mobile phones and text messaging services. Results are presented for three areas:

  • Obstacles to Access: infrastructural and economic barriers to access; governmental efforts to block specific applications or technologies; legal and ownership control over internet and mobile phone access providers.
  • Limits on Content: filtering and blocking of websites; other forms of censorship and self-censorship; manipulation of content; the diversity of online news media; and usage of digital media for social and political activism.
  • Violations of User Rights: legal protections and restrictions on online activity; surveillance and limits on privacy; and repercussions for online activity, such as legal prosecution, imprisonment, physical attacks, or other forms of harassment.

The results from the three areas are combined into a total score for a country (from 0 for best to 100 for worst) and countries are rated as "Free" (0 to 30), "Partly Free" (31 to 60), or "Not Free" (61 to 100) based on the totals.

Other reports

  • Nations in Transit published its 25th edition in May 2023.
  • Political Prisoners Initiative: Launched in 2022, Free Them All: A Political Prisoners Initiative examines and tracks restrictions on the liberty of human rights defenders and prodemocracy activists. Its website features emblematic cases of political imprisonment worldwide.[46][47]
  • Transnational Repression: Freedom House's reports on transnational repression examine what is being done to protect exiles and diaspora members who are being intimidated and threatened by the governments from which they fled. The reports assess the responses put forward by the governments of countries where exiles and diasporas reside, by international organizations, and by technology companies.[48]
  • China Dissent Monitor: Published since 2022, this database tracks and documents instances of dissent by Chinese citizens against the Chinese government. The initiative includes quarterly reports with data analysis.[49]
  • China Media Bulletin: A monthly report that includes data and analysis on censorship, media freedom, and internet freedom issues related to the Chinese government.[50]
  • Hong Kong Media Bulletin: A monthly email newsletter that provides unique insight into media freedom and freedom of expression issues in Hong Kong.[51]
  • Beijing's Global Media Influence: A special report issued in 2022 measuring the extent of media influence leveraged by the Chinese Communist Party within mostly Free countries worldwide.[52]
  • Election Watch for the Digital Age: A data-driven project that launched in 2020 which helps technology companies, policymakers, and civil society forecast the risk of human rights violations and digital interference ahead of significant elections around the world.[53]

Special reports


Freedom House has produced more than 85 special reports since 2002, including:[54]

  • Reviving News Media in an Embattled Europe: In 2023, Freedom House published a report on media freedom across Europe. Reviving News Media in an Embattled Europe features in-depth research and interviews with nearly 40 media professionals and experts in six countries (Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Poland), examining the playing field for free and independent news media within those countries.[55]
  • How Civic Mobilizations Grow in Authoritarian Contexts: A 2022 report that analyzes how civic movements organize and expand in countries governed by authoritarian regimes. It examines 21 recent examples of these movements in authoritarian countries to determine the factors that helped or hindered their growth. It includes case studies from Belarus, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Vietnam.[56]
  • Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies: This was an annual report of extracts from Freedom in the World covering countries that receive the lowest possible combined average score for political rights and civil liberties, as well as countries "on the threshold", falling just short of the lowest possible rating.[57]
  • A New Multilateralism for Atrocities Prevention (2015)[58]
  • Voices in the Streets: Mass Social Protests and the Right to Peaceful Assembly[59]
  • Today's American: How Free?: A special report which examined whether Americans in 2008 were sacrificing essential values in the war against terror, and scrutinizes other critical issues such as the political process, criminal justice system, racial inequality and immigration.[60]
  • Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2009[61]
  • Freedom of Association Under Threat: The New Authoritarians' Offensive Against Civil Society (2007)[62]

Other activities


In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, and global democracy and human rights programming. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists local human rights workers and non-government organizations.

On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers managed by Freedom House in Tashkent, Namangan, and Samarkand offered access to materials and books on human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.

Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 80 non-governmental organizations that monitors free expression violations around the world and defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression. Freedom House also publishes the China Media Bulletin, a weekly analysis on press freedom in and related to the People's Republic of China.



Relationship with the U.S. government


In 2006, the Financial Times reported that Freedom House had received funding by the State Department for "clandestine activities" inside Iran. According to the Financial Times, "Some academics, activists and those involved in the growing US business of spreading freedom and democracy are alarmed that such semi-covert activities risk damaging the public and transparent work of other organisations, and will backfire inside Iran."[63]

On December 7, 2004, former U.S. House Representative and Libertarian politician Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said "one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."[64]

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to regimes supportive of US interests.[65] Most notably, Freedom House described the 1979 Rhodesian general election as "fair", but described the 1980 Southern Rhodesian general election as "dubious",[65] and found the 1982 Salvadoran presidential election to be "admirable".[65]

Cuban, Sudanese, and Chinese criticism


In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments for and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba said that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also claimed a lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. Cuba also stated that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Sudan also gave criticism. The Russian representative inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the International Criminal Court?"[66]

The U.S. representative stated that alleged links between Freedom House and the CIA were "simply not true". The representative said he agreed that the NGO receives funds from the United States Government, but said this is disclosed in its reports. The representative said the funds were from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was not a branch of the CIA. The representative said his country had a law prohibiting the government from engaging in the activities of organizations seeking to change public policy, such as Freedom House. The representative said his country was not immune from criticism from Freedom House, which he said was well documented. The U.S. representative further argued that Freedom House was a human rights organization which sought to represent those who did not have a voice. The representative said he would continue to support NGOs who criticized his government and those of others.[66]

In August 2020, then Freedom House president Michael Abramowitz was sanctioned – together with the heads of four other U.S.-based democracy and human rights organizations and six U.S. Republican lawmakers – by the Chinese government for supporting the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement in the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. The leaders of the five organizations saw the sanctioning, whose details were unspecified, as a tit-for-tat measure in response to the earlier sanctioning by the U.S. of 11 Hong Kong officials. The latter step had in turn been a reaction to the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law at the end of June.[67]



Russia, identified by Freedom House as "Not Free", called Freedom House biased and accused the group of serving U.S. interests. Sergei Markov, an MP from the ruling United Russia party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization, commenting: "You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia ... There are many Russophobes there."[68] Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, posited that Freedom House made its evaluations based on objective criteria explained on the organization's website, and denied that it had a pro-U.S. agenda, saying: "If you look closely at the 193 countries that we evaluate, you'll find that we criticize what are often considered strategic allies of the United States."[68]

UCLA political scientist Daniel Treisman has criticized Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman cited that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which is a federation of absolute monarchies with no element of democracy within the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen, where criticism of the president was illegal. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics, in which Russia has a much better score. In 2018, the Polity IV scale scored the United Arab Emirates at -8, Russia at +4, and the United States at +8.[69]

In May 2024, Russian authorities declared Freedom House an “undesirable organization”.[70]

Alleged partiality toward Uzbekistan


Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, wrote that the executive director of Freedom House told him in 2003 that the group decided to back off from its efforts to spotlight human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, because some Republican board members (in Murray's words) "expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to U.S. and coalition forces". Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan at the time included the killing of prisoners by "immersion in boiling liquid", and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.[71] Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of Freedom House in 2003, replied that Murray's "characterization of our conversation is an inexplicable misrepresentation not only of what was said at that meeting, but of Freedom House's record in Uzbekistan ... Freedom House has been a consistent and harsh critic of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as clearly demonstrated in press releases and in our annual assessments of that country".[72]

Overemphasis on formal aspects of democracy


According to one study, Freedom House's rankings "overemphasize the more formal aspects of democracy while failing to capture the informal but real power relations and pathways of influence ... and frequently lead to de facto deviations from democracy."[73] States can therefore "look formally liberal-democratic but might be rather illiberal in their actual workings"[73][74]

Criticism from American conservatives


In the 2010s, a number of American conservative institutions have criticized Freedom House for what they see as an anti-conservative shift in the organization; the organization has been criticized as being biased against conservative governments and the policies they enact, and has also been accused of favoring progressive and left-wing ideas in its ranking system.[75][76] It has also been criticized for a perceived shift to an activist mindset; a 2018 article in the National Review described it as having "changed dramatically since its anti-Communist days during the Cold War" and having "become simply another progressive, anti-conservative (and overwhelmingly government-dependent) NGO".[9] Another article criticized Freedom House for characterizing differences in policy as anti-democratic and for using what it regarded as partisan rather than objective measures of democracy.[10]

Chronology of systematic evaluations


From the 1970s until 1990, Raymond Gastil practically produced the reports on his own, though sometimes with help from his wife. Gastil himself described it in 1990 as "a loose, intuitive rating system for levels of freedom or democracy, as defined by the traditional political rights and civil liberties of the Western democracies." Regarding criticisms of his reports, he said: "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings".[77][8]

In a 1986 report on the methodology used by Gastil and others to create Freedom in the World report, Kenneth A. Bollen noted some bias but found that "no criticisms of which I am aware have demonstrated a systematic bias in all the ratings. Most of the evidence consists of anecdotal evidence of relatively few cases. Whether there is a systematic or sporadic slant in Gastil's ratings is an open question".[78] In a later report by Bollen and Pamela Paxton in 2000, they concluded that from 1972 to 1988 (a specific period they observed), there was "unambiguous evidence of judge-specific measurement errors, which are related to traits of the countries." They estimated that Gastil's method produced a bias of 0.38 standard deviations (s.d.) against Communist countries and a larger bias, 0.5 s.d., favoring Christian countries.[79]

In 2001, a study by Mainwaring, Brink, and Perez-Linanhe found the Freedom Index of Freedom in the World to have a strong positive correlation (at least 80%) with three other democracy indices. Mainwaring et al. wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations,[how?] and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions". Nonetheless, when evaluated on Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index was positively correlated with the index of Adam Przeworski and with the index of the authors themselves.[80] However, according to Przeworski in 2003, the definition of freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom. He gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. citizens vote; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison".[81]

A 2014 report by comparative politics researcher Nils D. Steiner found "strong and consistent evidence of a substantial bias in the FH ratings" before 1988, with bias being reflected by the relationships between the U.S. and the countries under investigation. He writes that after 1989 the findings were not as strong but still hinted at political bias.[82] In 2017, Sarah Sunn Bush wrote that many critics found the original pre-1990 methodology lacking. While this improved after a team was hired in 1990, she says some criticism remains. As for why the Freedom House index is most often quoted in the United States, she notes that its definition of democracy is closely aligned with US foreign policy. US-allied countries tend to get better scores than in other reports. However, because the report is important to US lawmakers and politicians, weaker states seeking US aid or favor are forced to respond to the reports, giving the Freedom House significant influence in those places.[83]

See also



  1. ^ "Freedom House" (PDF). Freedom House. Retrieved August 16, 2023.
  2. ^ a b "Our Leadership". Freedom House. Archived from the original on March 19, 2015. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  3. ^ "Cuba After Fidel – What Next?". Voice of America. October 31, 2009. Archived from the original on April 13, 2014. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  4. ^ Nixon, Ron (April 14, 2011). "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings". The New York Times. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  5. ^ "Financials". Freedom House. Retrieved August 16, 2023.
  6. ^ Little, Andrew; Meng, Anne (January 17, 2023). "Subjective and Objective Measurement of Democratic Backsliding". Social Science Research Network. Rochester, NY. SSRN 4327307.
  7. ^ William Ide (January 11, 2000). "Freedom House Report: Asia Sees Some Significant Progress". Voice of America. Archived from the original on December 4, 2013. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  8. ^ a b Sarah Bush (November 7, 2017). "Should we trust democracy ratings? New research finds hidden biases". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. ISSN 0190-8286. OCLC 1330888409.
  9. ^ a b Fonte, John (April 2, 2018). "What Is Illiberalism? Answering Joshua Muravchik". National Review. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
  10. ^ a b Fonte, John; Gonzalez, Mike (February 14, 2018). "Freedom House Turns Partisan". National Review. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
  11. ^ a b c d McAleer, John J. (1977). Rex Stout: A Biography. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9780316553407.
  12. ^ a b United Press (January 11, 1942). "Freedom House Will Open Soon". Waterloo Sunday Courier. Waterloo, Iowa.
  13. ^ History of the Freedom House Archived May 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, George Field Collection of Freedom House Files, 1933–1990 (Bulk 1941–1969): Finding Aid, Princeton University Library; Freedom House Statement on the Passing of George Field Archived January 3, 2012, at the Wayback Machine (June 1, 2006). Retrieved January 15, 2011
  14. ^ a b c d e f "Our History". Freedom House. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  15. ^ "Freedom House Moves". New York Herald Tribune. January 7, 1944. p. 15A. ProQuest 1282804564.
  16. ^ "Freedom House Moves" (PDF). The New York Times. January 7, 1944. p. 20. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
  17. ^ "Program Reviews: The Voice of Freedom". The Billboard. Vol. 54, no. 15. April 11, 1942. p. 8. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  18. ^ "Freedom House Records 1933–2014, The Voice of Freedom". Princeton University Library Finding Aids. Princeton University. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  19. ^ Dunning, John (1998). On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-507678-3.
  20. ^ "A Willkie Memorial Building Is Planned by Freedom House: Midtown Structure Will House Groups Working for Causes He Served; Dedication Is Planned Oct. 8, 1945, First Anniversary of His Death". New York Herald Tribune. November 21, 1944. p. 18A. ProQuest 1283121658.
  21. ^ "Memorial Building for Willkie Planned" (PDF). The New York Times. November 21, 1944. p. 25. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
  22. ^ "Field, George, 1904–". Princeton University Library Finding Aids. Princeton University. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  23. ^ "Freedom House Records 1933–2014, Series 3: Willkie Memorial Building". Princeton University Library Finding Aids. Princeton University. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  24. ^ "Former Site of the Willkie Memorial Building". Great Architects of New York: Henry J. Hardenbergh. Starts and Fits. Archived from the original on March 25, 2015. Retrieved March 22, 2015.
  25. ^ "Johnson Is Backed By Freedom House On Vietnam Policy". The New York Times. July 21, 1965. Retrieved October 7, 2014. The 'silent center,' most of the American people, should be heard from on Vietnam, Freedom House said yesterday in a 'Credo of Support' for the Johnson Administration's policies in Southeast Asia.
  26. ^ "CURB BY CONGRESS URGED; Freedom House Seeks to Protect Citizens From Unfair Attack". The New York Times. January 2, 1952. Retrieved October 17, 2014. The public affairs committee of Freedom House proposed yesterday that Congress revise its rules to 'protect citizens from unfair and unwarranted attack' by Senators and Representatives who shield themselves behind Congressional immunity. Asserting that the methods of political and personal attack exemplified in Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican from Wisconsin, injured citizens both within and out of Government without just cause, the Freedom House statement said ...
  27. ^ "Annual Freedom Award". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  28. ^ "Freedom House Scores Dr. King". The New York Times. May 21, 1967. Retrieved October 17, 2014. Freedom House severely criticized the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. yesterday for lending his 'mantle of respectability' to an anti-Vietnam war coalition that includes 'well-known Communist allies and luminaries of the hate-America Left.'
  29. ^ "Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov Honored by Freedom House". The New York Times. December 5, 1973. Retrieved October 17, 2014. Fifteen 'courageous dissenters' in the Soviet Union were chosen here yesterday as winners of the 1973 Freedom Award by the nonprofit private organization known as Freedom House. The organization, which describes itself as dedicated to the strengthening of free societies, cited the novelist Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and the nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov, 13 others and their 'unnamed colleagues.'
  30. ^ "Freedom House Annual Report 2002" (PDF). Freedom House. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  31. ^ Barnhisel, Greg; Turner, Catherine (2010). "books+USA"+peace+corps&pg=PA135 Pressing the Fight: Print, Propaganda, and the Cold War. University of Massachusetts Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-1558497368. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  32. ^ "Onward the Peace Corps". Milwaukee Journal. December 2, 1964. Retrieved March 27, 2012.[permanent dead link]
  33. ^ Kent, Allen (1985). "International Book Donation Programs". Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Volume 38. p. 239.
  34. ^ "Classifying political regimes in Latin America, 1945–1999". Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais. doi:10.1590/S0011-52582001000400001. S2CID 15063406.
  35. ^ "Our Board and Staff". Freedom House.
  36. ^ "Freedom in the World Countries | Freedom House". freedomhouse.org. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
  37. ^ Casper, Gretchen; Tufis, Claudiu (May 21, 2003). "Correlation versus Interchangeability: The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy using Highly Correlated Datasetsi" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 21, 2003. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
  38. ^ a b "Freedom in the World Research Methodology". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  39. ^ "Freedom in the World 2006". freedomhouse.org. January 11, 2012. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
  40. ^ Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3108-2
  41. ^ "Scores and Status Data 1980–2015". Freedom of the Press 2015. Freedom House. Retrieved June 12, 2015.[permanent dead link]
  42. ^ "Publication Archives". Freedom House. Retrieved November 9, 2020.
  43. ^ "Freedom of the Press", web page, Freedom House. Retrieved May 29, 2011
  44. ^ "An Evaluation of Press Freedom Indicators", Lee B. Becker, Tudor Vlad and, Nancy Nusser, International Communication Gazette, vol.69, no.1 (February 2007), pp. 5–28
  45. ^ On The Net_Full Report.pdf Freedom on the Net 2009[permanent dead link], Freedom House, accessed 16 April 2012
  46. ^ "About Our Political Prisoners Initiative". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  47. ^ "Free Them All: A Political Prisoners Initiative". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  48. ^ "Transnational Repression: About the Project". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  49. ^ "China Dissent Monitor". Freedom House. February 14, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  50. ^ "China Media Bulletin". Freedom House. July 18, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  51. ^ "Hong Kong Media Bulletin". Freedom House. July 20, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  52. ^ "Authoritarian Expansion and the Power of Democratic Resilience". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  53. ^ "About the Project: Election Watch". About the Project: Election Watch for the Digital Age. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  54. ^ "Special Reports", Freedom House. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  55. ^ "Reviving News Media in an Embattled Europe". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  56. ^ "How Civic Mobilizations Grow in Authoritarian Contexts". Freedom House. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  57. ^ Worst of the Worst 2012: The World's Most Repressive Societies Archived December 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Freedom House, 28 June 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  58. ^ A New Multilateralism for Atrocities Prevention, Stanley Foundation, March 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  59. ^ Voices in the Streets: Mass Social Protests and the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Freedom House, January 2014. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  60. ^ Today's American: How Free? Archived October 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Freedom House, 2008. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  61. ^ in Sub Saharan Africa.pdf Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2009[permanent dead link], Freedom House, 2009. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  62. ^ in Sub Saharan Africa.pdf Freedom of Association Under Threat: The New Authoritarians' Offensive Against Civil Society[permanent dead link], Freedom House, 2007. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  63. ^ Guy Dinmore (March 31, 2006). "Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran". The Financial Times. Archived from the original on May 6, 2015. Retrieved April 6, 2006.(subscription required)
  64. ^ Ron Paul. "U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine". Archived from the original on December 12, 2012.
  65. ^ a b c Chomsky and Herman: Manufacturing Consent, Vintage 1994, p. 28
  66. ^ a b "UN: NGO Committee hears arguments for, against Freedom House".
  67. ^ Morello, Carol (August 11, 2020). "U.S. democracy and human rights leaders sanctioned by China vow not to be cowed into silence". Washington Post. Retrieved January 11, 2021.
  68. ^ a b "Freedom Is Downgraded From 'Bad'".
  69. ^ Treisman, Daniel (2011). The Return: Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev. Free Press. pp. 341–52. ISBN 978-1-4165-6071-5.
  70. ^ "Russia declares US NGO Freedom House an undesirable organisation". Reuters. May 7, 2024.
  71. ^ Glorious Nation of Uzbekistan, By Tara McKelvey, New York Times Book Review, December 9, 2007. Book review of DIRTY DIPLOMACY: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror, by Craig Murray.
  72. ^ Jennifer Windsor (December 23, 2007). "Freedom House's Record". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 26, 2024. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  73. ^ a b Erk, Jan; Veenendaal, Wouter (2014). "Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake". Journal of Democracy. 25 (3): 135–148. doi:10.1353/jod.2014.0054. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 155086258.
  74. ^ Veenendaal, Wouter P. (January 2, 2015). "Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a democratic political system". Democratization. 22 (1): 92–112. doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.820710. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 145489442.
  75. ^ "Freedom House Turns Partisan". The Heritage Foundation. February 16, 2018. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
  76. ^ Schwarz, Fred (July 4, 2018). "Land of the 86 Percent Free". National Review. Retrieved March 5, 2022.
  77. ^ Gastil, R. D. (1990). "The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions". Studies in Comparative International Development. 25 (1): 25–50. doi:10.1007/BF02716904. S2CID 144099626.
  78. ^ Bollen, K.A., "Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984", Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4 (November 1986), pp. 567–91. Also in: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. (Eds.), Human Rights and Statistics, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, pp. 188–215, ISBN 0-8122-3108-2.
  79. ^ Bollen, Kenneth A. and Paxton, Pamela, "Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy" Archived November 28, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 1 (February 2000), pp.58–86
  80. ^ Mainwaring, S.; Brinks, D.; Pérez-Liñán, A. B. (2001). "Classifying Political Regimes in Latin". Studies in Comparative International Development. 36 (1): 37–65. doi:10.1007/BF02687584. S2CID 155047996.
  81. ^ Przeworski, Adam (2003). "Freedom to choose and democracy". Economics and Philosophy. 19 (2): 265–79. CiteSeerX doi:10.1017/S0266267103001159. S2CID 38812895.
  82. ^ Steiner, N. D. (2016). Comparing Freedom House democracy scores to alternative indices and testing for political bias: Are US allies rated as more democratic by Freedom House?. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(4), 329-349.
  83. ^ Bush, Sarah Sunn (2017). "The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings". Perspectives on Politics. 15 (3): 711–731. doi:10.1017/S1537592717000925. S2CID 109927267.