Introduction

The latest edition of the Academic Freedom Index (AFI) provides an overview of the state of academic freedom in 179
countries in 2023, and trends over time. The AFI assesses de facto levels of academic freedom and is a unique
and peer-reviewed approach to conceptualizing and assessing academic freedom worldwide.1 The aggregate
index rests on five indicators, a customized Bayesian measurement model, and more than one million data
points at the coder level.2 It builds on the expertise of 2,329 scholars around the globe and is freely available at
https://academic-freedom-index.net and https://www.v-dem.net. The findings presented in this year’s update
build upon the AFI team’s research published in several journals in recent years.3

In line with previous AFI reports,4 this year’s data demonstrate that academic freedom globally is under threat.
Using the concept of growth and decline episodes at the country level,5 the report shows that 23 countries
are in episodes of decline in academic freedom, but that academic freedom is increasing in only ten countries.
3.6 billion people now live in countries where academic freedom is completely restricted. Accounting for a
longer timeframe by comparing 2023 data with that of 50 years ago, we note more optimistically that academic
freedom has expanded in 56 countries. Figure 1 shows the state of academic freedom in 2023, based on the
latest version of the Academic Freedom Index (AFI).

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 1: The State of Academic Freedom in 2023 (0–1, low to high)

1
Janika Spannagel and Katrin Kinzelbach, “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators: Introduction to New Global Time-Series
v-Dem Data,” Quality & Quantity 57 (2023): 3969–89, doi:10.1007/s11135-022-01544-0.
2
Curated in version 14 of the V-Dem dataset: Michael Coppedge et al., “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset V14” (University of
Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy Institute, 2024), doi:10.23696/vdemds24.
3
Spannagel and Kinzelbach, “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators”; Lars Lott, “Academic Freedom Growth and Decline
Episodes,” Higher Education, 2023, doi:10.1007/s10734-023-01156-z; Lars Pelke, “Academic Freedom and the Onset of Autocratization,” Democratization
30, no. 6 (2023): 1015–39, doi:10.1080/13510347.2023.2207213; Katrin Kinzelbach, Ilyas Saliba, and Janika Spannagel, “Global Data on the
Freedom Indispensable for Scientific Research: Towards a Reconciliation of Academic Reputation and Academic Freedom,” The International Journal
of Human Rights 26, no. 10 (2022): 1723–40, doi:10.1080/13642987.2021.1998000; Anna Lührmann and Staffan I. Lindberg, “A Third Wave of
Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It?” Democratization 26, no. 7 (2019): 1095–1113, doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029.
4
Katrin Kinzelbach et al., “Academic Freedom Index – 2022 Update,” 2022, doi:10.25593/opus4-fau-18612; Katrin Kinzelbach et al.,
“Academic Freedom Index – 2023 Update,” 2023, doi:10.25593/opus4-fau-21630.
5
Lott, “Academic Freedom Growth and Decline Episodes.”

1
The 2024 AFI update also explores the challenge of polarization. The data show that polarization correlates with
declining academic freedom in many countries, but there are exceptional cases in which academic freedom
expands in the face of high polarization. In highly polarized societies, universities can become caught up in the
maelstrom of an “us versus them” divide. Yet, it is precisely in such tense, even explosive contexts that universities
are particularly important for society. Universities are in a unique position – and thus also have a responsibility –
to counteract polarization with open discourse, scientifically sound knowledge-production, and education. It is
therefore necessary to protect university autonomy. When faced with the specter of polarization, universities
and academics also have self-serving reasons to insist on institutional autonomy and scholarly integrity. When
anti-pluralist parties come to power, they typically seek to limit academic freedom in line with their political
interests. Scholars and higher education decision-makers should therefore prepare to defend institutional
autonomy and take measures to promote individual academic freedom, before it becomes difficult to do so.

Fifty Years and No Progress?

Today’s proportion of the world’s population who lack access to academic freedom is comparable to the situation
50 years ago, in 1973. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

1973 2006 2023

4.5%
15.3% 14.1%
26.1%
28.7%
43.5% 45.5%
21.1%
24.2%

6.3%
8.4%
5.2% 34.5%
11.7% 11.0%

Status Group A: Status Group B: Status Group C: Status Group D: Status Group E:
Fully free Mostly free Moderately restricted Severely restricted Completely restricted

Figure 2: Proportion of Global Population by Status Group in 1973, 2006, and 2023. For this figure, we divided
the AFI into five quintiles (status groups A to E). We did not consider the uncertainty intervals when assigning the
countries into the status groups. Population data for the countries/territories comes from World Bank’s World
Development Indicators and have been rounded for presentation purposes.

The stark decline since the peak year, 2006, is not only due to losses in academic freedom but also due to
population growth, which has been much higher in countries with less freedom. As a result, many more people
are affected by restrictions on academic freedom today than 50 years ago. In 1973, only about 1.6 billion people
(43.5%) lived in countries with completely restricted academic freedom. Now, 45.5% of the world’s population –
3.6 billion people – live in 27 countries where academic freedom is completely restricted.6 Another 11% live in
26 countries with severely restricted academic freedom, as Figure 2 (see the red portions) illustrates.

6
To build the status group presented in Figure 2, the AFI was divided into five quintiles (status groups A to E). We did not consider the
uncertainty intervals when assigning the countries into the status groups. This leads to a reduction in complexity of the AFI data at the
expense of precision, as illustrated in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

2
This is in sharp contrast to 2006, the year for which the Academic Freedom Index records an all-time high. At that time,
approximately 4 billion people lived in contexts of well-protected academic freedom (fully free and mostly free
contexts). Only 17 years later, in 2023, this number has fallen to only 2.8 billion people, as shown in Figure 2.
Of these, 1.1 billion people live in 61 countries that fall into status group A, and 1.7 people live in 41 countries
categorized as status group B. Figure 2 provides a general overview of global developments but simplifies the
nuanced AFI data. We thus proceed with a country-based perspective that highlights variance in countries’
developments over time.

Status Status Status Status Status

Group E Group D Group C Group B Group A

1.0 Czechia Argentina

Honduras
Chile Spain Portugal Cyprus Dominican Republic Nigeria
Uruguay Panama
Status
Taiwan Peru Sierra Leone
South Korea
Malta
Group A
Bulgaria South Africa Burkina Faso Zambia
Romania
Kenya Ecuador Netherlands
0.8 Mongolia Greece Malawi
Ghana Niger
Brazil Nepal Poland United Kingdom
Academic Freedom Index 2023

Paraguay
Serbia Tanzania
Guatemala Status
Bolivia Togo Lesotho United States of America
Indonesia Group B
Albania Morocco Tunisia Madagascar
0.6 Haiti
Mozambique

Somalia Philippines Status

Mali Group C
Angola
Uganda Iraq
0.4 Libya
Vietnam
Status
Guinea Group D
Cameroon Venezuela
Hong Kong
0.2 Russia
India
Laos
Türkiye Bangladesh Status
Afghanistan Group E

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Academic Freedom Index 1973

Asia and Latin America The Middle East

the Pacific and the Caribbean and North Africa

Eastern Europe Sub−Saharan Western Europe

and Central Asia Africa and North America

Figure 3: Increasing and Decreasing Scores on the Academic Freedom Index, 1973–2023. Academic freedom
increased in countries above the diagonal line and decreased in countries or territories below it. Countries are
labelled if the difference between 1973 and 2023 was statistically significant and substantially meaningful. The
size of the points indicates the population size of the countries/territories in 2022 (data from World Bank’s World
Development Indicators).

Figure 3 shows countries with substantial and statistically significant declines and improvements in academic
freedom over the past 50 years. Dots are proportionate in size to country populations to indicate how many
people are affected in the respective countries.7 Fifty-six countries have statistically significant higher levels of de
7
Using a simplified metric comparing 50 intervals and controlling for overlapping uncertainty intervals, and 2022 population data from

3
facto academic freedom in 2023 than in 1973. This represents a remarkable advance for the world seen from the
country-perspective, in stark contrast to the population-perspective above that paints a much darker picture.

In the same timeframe, academic freedom substantially worsened in ten countries, some of which are home
to large populations like Bangladesh, India, Türkiye, and the United States of America. The dots in lighter
colors depict the remaining 73 countries where academic freedom levels have not changed in a substantially
meaningful and statistically significant way.8 This group includes countries as diverse as China, Ethiopia, and
Switzerland.

In summary, Figure 2 and Figure 3 present different perspectives that may at first glance appear contradictory.
Yet, these two perspectives are both valid. They complement each other by highlighting, respectively, how many
people and countries are impacted. To compare both figures, it is helpful to focus on the number of countries
within the same status group, and how these numbers change over time. The five status groups A–E represent
quintiles on the AFI, ranging from the status fully free (A) to the status completely restricted (E). In Figure 3, the X-axis
depicts academic freedom in 1973, while the Y-axis depicts academic freedom in 2023. While in 1973, status
group E included 51 countries, in which academic freedom was completely restricted, that same category in
2023 only includes 27 countries. However, these 27 countries are particularly populous, such as China, India, and
Bangladesh, accounting for a total of 45.5% of the world’s population.

Episodes of Growth and Decline in Academic Freedom

Here we focus on analyzing episodes in countries with declining or growing academic freedom in consecutive
years. Figure 4 shows the overall development of academic freedom since 1973, based on country-averages (on
the left) as well as averages weighted by population size (on the right). The population-weighted perspective
provides a strict egalitarian perspective on academic freedom, since academic freedom concerns people’s right
and opportunity to freely pursue science. The country-averages highlight government performance. This is an
equally important perspective because governments have a duty to protect academic freedom.

The thick pink line represents the most likely global average value of the Academic Freedom Index, with the uncertainty
interval shaded in light pink. Figure 4 shows that academic freedom began declining globally around 2012, but
that the decline remains within the uncertainty interval if we consider country-based averages alone. When
weighted by population size, the worldwide decline in academic freedom is notably more pronounced.

the World Bank’s World Development Indicators.

8
Figure 3 plots the development for 139 countries for which data is available for 1973 and 2023. For 43 countries, either for 1973 or 2023,
no data is available, because (1) the country dissolved, (2) no university was present in 1973, or (3) no AFI data was available for 1973.

4
 0.75 0.75
Academic Freedom Index

Academic Freedom Index

0.50
0.50

0.25
0.25

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year Year

Asia and Pacific Latin America and the Caribbean The Middle East and North Africa World
Eastern Europe and Central Asia Sub−Saharan Africa Western Europe and North America

Figure 4: AFI, Global and Regional Averages, 1960–2023 (right-hand side: population-weighted). Population
data from the World Development Indicators.

The world map in Figure 5 shows which countries were in episodes of growth (blue) or decline (red) in academic
freedom in 2023, using a metric proposed by Lott in Higher Education.9 By using this rigorous, more granular method,
we can detect the start and end dates of episodes, while also paying attention to the statistical uncertainty
attached to AFI scores.10

In 2023, ten countries were in an academic freedom growth episode. This indicates a slightly positive trend
compared to 2019, when only four countries were in a growth episode. Simultaneously, 23 countries are in
episodes of declining academic freedom, just under the record number of 26 declining countries registered in
2021. We interpret this finding optimistically, as another indication of a somewhat better global situation.

Figure 6 details these patterns of decline and growth episodes. It shows how the number of countries with
growth episodes (dashed blue lines) increased from the 1980s and peaked at 44 in 1990. A noticeable decline
started shortly after, but the number of countries in growth episodes began to rise again in 2019.

Coinciding with the so-called third wave of democratization in the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of academic freedom
growth emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s (dotted blue line in Figure 6), resulting in the greatest
improvement in academic freedom yet recorded. The solid red line in Figure 6 shows that the number of
9
Lott, “Academic Freedom Growth and Decline Episodes.”
10
In the following analysis, we use the episodes of academic freedom decline and growth dataset, controlling for overlapping uncertainty
intervals as proposed by Lott (ibid) and updated with V-Dem version 14 data. The respective R package can be downloaded at https:
//github.com/larslott/EpisodeR. A decline episode in academic freedom is defined as a cumulative drop of 0.1 or more on the Academic Freedom
Index and non-overlapping uncertainty intervals before the start of an episode and at the end of an episode. The episode approach is granular
and is not based on a predetermined comparison of two years, which may be arbitrary. Detailed parameters that define academic freedom
decline and growth episodes can be found in Lott (ibid).

5
Figure 5: Countries in Growth and Decline Episodes, 2023. Countries in blue indicate growth episodes in academic
freedom; countries in red indicate decline episodes in academic freedom.

countries with declining academic freedom was zero in both 1991 and 1992. In 2000, this increased to three
countries, before reaching an all-time high in 2021 with 26 counties in episodes of decline. Figure 6 reveals that
the trend of declining academic freedom in an increasing number of countries was manifest and substantial,
providing further visual evidence for the trend presented in Figure 4. Yet it also gives reason for hope that
declines may be overcome.

44

40
Number of Countries

30
26

20

10
10

0
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

Countries with Growth Episodes Countries with Decline Episodes

Figure 6: AFI, Growth and Decline Episodes of Academic Freedom from 1900 to 2023

6
Polarization and Academic Freedom

There can be many factors behind episodes of growth and decline in academic freedom. We focus here on one
of the most plausible explanations for decline in the current context: political and social polarization. Societal
polarization means the division of society into “Us” versus “Them” camps.11 Political polarization means the
division of the political sphere into antagonistic political camps.12

An increasing body of literature demonstrates that the last 20 years of democratic backsliding is primarily driven
by anti-pluralist, nationalist parties. Both their coming to power and subsequent autocratization are strongly
associated with increasingly toxic levels of polarization. These parties typically reign in university autonomy
unless effectively prevented by the domestic legal framework.13

Societal polarization may also lead to a climate of fear that discourages scientists from asking controversial
research questions or sharing their findings with policymakers and the public. Toxic levels of political and societal
polarization may affect autonomous research institutions and individual researchers’ freedom to research and
teach, notably when a scientific topic becomes politically and socially salient, such as climate change, pandemics,
gender studies, or migration research.

Societal Polarization

Serious Thailand Brazil Montenegro

polarization
North Macedonia
Three−year average around episode onset
Societal Polarization

Medium
polarization

Lithuania
China

United Arab Emirates

No
polarization

Decline Episodes Growth Episodes

Figure 7: Polarization of Society around the Onset of Academic Freedom Decline and Growth Episodes Since
2000 (0–4, low to high). The Polarization of Society Indicator is reversed for presentation purposes.
11
The “Polarization of Society” indicator, sourced from the Digital Society project within the V-Dem project, quantifies differences in
opinions on major political issues in a society.
12
The “Political Polarization” indicator, sourced from the Civil and Academic Space survey within the V-Dem project, assesses whether a
society is polarized into antagonistic political camps.
13
Juraj Medzihorsky and Staffan I. Lindberg, “Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties,” Party Politics, 2023,
doi:10.1177/13540688231153092; Felix Wiebrecht et al., “State of the World 2022: Defiance in the Face of Autocratization,” Democratization 30, no.
5 (2023): 769–93, doi:10.1080/13510347.2023.2199452; Lührmann and Lindberg, “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here.”

7
Figure 7 illustrates that academic freedom faces significant risk in countries with pronounced societal polarization.
However, the correlation is far from straight-forward and important outliers such as China, the United Arab
Emirates, and Lithuania highlight that declines in academic freedom can also be caused by other political and
societal developments.

In a few cases, academic freedom expanded even in the presence of serious-to-moderate levels of societal
polarization, as indicated in Figure 7. In Thailand and Macedonia, serious polarization occurred around the onset
of a growth episode in academic freedom. Conversely, countries like Rwanda, Kazakhstan, and Tunisia indicate
that moderate-to-limited polarization may hinder but not necessarily prevent the onset of an academic freedom
growth episode.

This suggests that polarization is not associated with declines in academic freedom under all circumstances.
Factors like the legal framework, but also universities’ and academics’ own agency, likely play a role in mitigating
the pressures of polarization on free science and higher education. In conclusion, societal polarization is one of
many factors that may increase the likelihood of declines in academic freedom, but universities, academics, and
higher education decision-makers can take action to prevent declines in academic freedom in the context of
polarization.

Academic Freedom Index Polarization of Society Political Polarization

El Salvador Hong Kong Hungary

4 1.00

3 0.75

2 0.50

1 0.25

Academic Freedom Index

Polarization Indicator

0 0.00

India Russia Venezuela

4 1.00

3 0.75

2 0.50

1 0.25

0 0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 8: Polarization in Top-Six Countries and Territories with Declines in Academic Freedom, 2000–2023. The
left-hand Y-axis indicates the score for the polarization indicators; higher scores for these indicators indicate high
levels of polarization. The Polarization of Society Indicator is reversed for presentation purposes. The right-hand
Y-axis represents the AFI scale (0–1).

Figure 8 illustrates the top six countries and territories experiencing an ongoing episode of decline in academic
freedom in 2023. In each case, the rise in polarization is followed by a downturn in the Academic Freedom Index. For
instance, political polarization and the polarization of society in Hungary started rising in 2005 and reached
toxic levels in 2010 following Prime Minister Orbán’s electoral victory. After he took office, Hungary’s AFI score
dramatically declined to enter the bottom 20–30% of all countries assessed by the AFI. Similarly, in India, political

8
and societal polarization remained at moderate levels until 2013. The decline in academic freedom then coincided
with a sharp increase in toxic polarization under Prime Minister Modi’s administration.

Across all five cases depicted in Figure 8, it is visually evident that polarization and academic freedom declines
go hand in hand, yet this correlation is no more than an initial empirical hint and certainly no proof of causation.
Research on the connection between polarization and restrictions of academic freedom is still in its infancy,14
but promises to be an important field of research that will provide universities, scholars, and higher education
decision-makers with much needed orientation.

Country Overview

Measuring a latent phenomenon like academic freedom is a challenging endeavor. The AFI data meets high
academic standards15 and uses the best available model for aggregating expert assessments.16

Figure 9 and Figure 10 below present the point estimates and uncertainty intervals for all assessed countries at
year-end 2023. They display every country’s academic freedom in order of the most likely point estimate, as
well as the change over the last ten years if the difference between 2023 and 2013 is statistically significant. We
recommend that users consider the reported uncertainty intervals when making comparisons over time or
between countries. Therefore, the two plots should not be interpreted as rankings. Rather, the plots should be
read such that whenever the uncertainty intervals of two countries overlap, no definitive statement can be made
about which country has greater academic freedom.

For easy and rough orientation, readers may also refer to the index quintiles, or status groups A–E, which are
shaded in different colors in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Whenever the uncertainty intervals of countries overlap with
the shaded colors representing a status group (see the X-axis), no definitive statement can be made about the
status group of that particular country. For example, Lithuania is categorized in status group A, yet its uncertainty
interval overlaps with status group B. This suggests it is likely that Lithuania belongs with status group A, while
statistical uncertainty implies that it is also possible it belongs with status group B. In Figure 9 and Figure 10,
countries highlighted in blue represent the six aforementioned cases of significant improvement in academic
freedom. The 26 countries in red have undergone significant and substantial declines in academic freedom in
the last decade.
14
For example, Julia C. Lerch, David John Frank, and Evan Schofer, “The Social Foundations of Academic Freedom: Heterogeneous
Institutions in World Society, 1960 to 2022,” American Sociological Review 89, no. 1 (2024): 88–125, doi:10.1177/00031224231214000, Table
A1; Roderik Rekker, “The Nature and Origins of Political Polarization over Science,” Public Understanding of Science 30, no. 4 (2021): 352–68,
doi:10.1177/0963662521989193.
15
Lars Pelke and Janika Spannagel, “Quality Assessment of the Academic Freedom Index: Strengths, Weaknesses, and How Best to Use It,”
SSRN (Rochester, NY, 2023), doi:10.2139/ssrn.4495392.
16
Daniel Pemstein et al., “The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded
Data,” in V-Dem Working Paper No. 21. 9th Edition, 2024.

9
 Score and Confidence Intervals
Academic Freedom Index
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Czechia
Estonia
Belgium
Argentina
Italy
Honduras
Top 10% Luxembourg
Slovenia
Jamaica
Sweden
Germany
Spain
Finland
Portugal
Cyprus
Costa Rica
Chile
Barbados

Dominican Republic
Latvia
Nigeria
Vanuatu
Seychelles
Solomon Islands
Top 10−20%

France
Australia
Ireland
Panama
Denmark
Uruguay
Slovakia
Malta
Sierra Leone
Papua New Guinea
Suriname
Austria

Taiwan
Norway
Peru
Zambia
Iceland
Canada
Top 20−30%

Botswana
Switzerland
Israel
Trinidad and Tobago
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
Romania
South Korea
The Gambia
South Africa
Burkina Faso
Kosovo
Malawi

Montenegro
Ecuador
Lithuania
Kenya
Moldova
Georgia
Top 30−40%

Croatia
Senegal
Netherlands
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Greece
North Macedonia
Ghana
Niger
Serbia
Guyana

Nepal
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Tanzania
Timor−Leste
Poland
Top 40−50%

Mongolia
Paraguay
Bolivia
Togo
Benin
Ivory Coast
Guatemala
Lesotho
Indonesia
United States of America
Tunisia
Armenia

Status E Status D Status C Status B Status A

Decreasing Increasing

Figure 9: Countries by Score, Academic Freedom Index, 2013 Compared to 2023. Notes: Red country names
indicate cases of substantial, statistically significant decreasing cases of academic freedom over the past ten
years. Blue country names indicate cases of substantial, statistically significant increasing cases of academic
freedom. Horizontal lines indicate the uncertainty intervals around the point estimates drawn from the V-Dem
Bayesian IRT method. Status groups represent the quintiles of the AFI. Countries for which the uncertainty
intervals go beyond the limits of a status group cannot be clearly assigned to one status group.

10
 Score and Confidence Intervals
Academic Freedom Index
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Madagascar
Colombia
Albania
Sao Tome and Principe
Mexico
Bottom 40−50% Namibia
Guinea−Bissau
Fiji
Morocco
Haiti
Sri Lanka
Japan
Somaliland
Central African Republic
Liberia
Lebanon
Mozambique

Philippines
Pakistan
Maldives
Kuwait
Ukraine
Bottom 30−40%

Somalia
Mauritius
Mali
Kyrgyzstan
Singapore
Gabon
Angola
Palestine/West Bank
Kazakhstan
Republic of the Congo
Iraq
Bhutan
Zanzibar

Uganda
Democratic Republic of Congo
Libya
Malaysia
Chad
Bottom 20−30%

Vietnam
Sudan
Palestine/Gaza
Thailand
Hungary
Uzbekistan
Ethiopia
El Salvador
Djibouti
Mauritania
Comoros
Venezuela
Guinea

Jordan
Cameroon
Cambodia
Hong Kong
Oman
Bottom 10−20%

Yemen
Russia
Zimbabwe
Burundi
Eswatini
Algeria
Rwanda
India
South Sudan
Bangladesh
Azerbaijan
Laos
Qatar

Egypt
Cuba
Türkiye
Afghanistan
United Arab Emirates
Iran
Bottom 10%

Equatorial Guinea
Tajikistan
Bahrain
Syria
China
Saudi Arabia
Nicaragua
Turkmenistan
Belarus
Myanmar
Eritrea
North Korea

Status E Status D Status C Status B Status A

Decreasing Increasing

Figure 10: Countries by Score, Academic Freedom Index, 2013 Compared to 2023. Notes: Red country names
indicate cases of substantial, statistically significant decreasing cases of academic freedom over the past ten
years. Blue country names indicate cases of substantial, statistically significant increasing cases of academic
freedom. Horizontal lines indicate the uncertainty intervals around the point estimates drawn from the V-Dem
Bayesian IRT method. Status groups represent the quintiles of the AFI. Countries for which the uncertainty
intervals go beyond the limits of a status group cannot be clearly assigned to one status group.

11
Background: Assessing Academic Freedom

In this update, we present the fifth iteration of Academic Freedom Index data from V-Dem’s version 14 release, drawing
on assessments made by 2,329 country experts from around the world.

The data cover the period from 1900 to 2023. All data are publicly available and include a total of more than
one million data points at the coder level, five indicators, and an aggregate index on academic freedom based
on a Bayesian measurement model.17 The index defines a range of components “often considered essential to
the de facto realization of academic freedom based on a review of the literature and in-depth discussions with
policymakers, academics and advocates in the higher education field.”18 The Academic Freedom Index rests on five
key indicators: the freedom to research and teach; the freedom of academic exchange and dissemination; the
institutional autonomy of universities; campus integrity;19 and the freedom of academic and cultural expression.
Through these five indicators, the AFI captures elements of academic freedom “that are (a) comparable across
different university systems around the world and (b) specific to the academic sector.”20

Users of our data can benefit from the open data approach adopted by the V-Dem project, which also allows for
the disaggregation of the AFI. Furthermore, we provide comparative data on additional aspects of academic
freedom, notably factual country-year information on constitutional guarantees and commitments to academic
freedom under international human rights law.21

What is the Difference between Versions 13 and 14?

V-Dem uses customized Bayesian IRT models to aggregate expert data to indicators and index values.22 Each year,
a new calculation takes all available data into account and optimizes comparability between years and countries.
However, comparing absolute values of indicators or the index values between different versions of the dataset
can be misleading because (1) experts add data with every annual update; (2) experts may update and change
their own previous ratings to account for new information; and (3) for every annual update, additional experts
are recruited who can also contribute scores for past years. As a general rule, scholars, policymakers, and other
interested parties should use the most recent data for information and analysis.

Version 14 of the AFI benefitted from 132 more contributing coders than version 13, bringing the total to 2,329
coders.

Expert Call and AFI Applications

To continually improve the dataset, we call on scholars with country-specific knowledge and thematic expertise
to contribute to the collaborative AFI coding. Apply to become a new coder by filling out the expert call here.

We also call on higher education policymakers, university leaders, and research funders to promote academic
17
Pemstein et al., “The V-Dem Measurement Model.”
18
Spannagel and Kinzelbach, “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators,” 3973.
19
The absence of security infringements and surveillance on campus, including online learning platforms.
20
Spannagel and Kinzelbach, “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators,” 3974.
21
See also Janika Spannagel, “Introducing Academic Freedom in Constitutions: A New Global Dataset, 1789–2022,” European Political Science,
2023, doi:10.1057/s41304-023-00446-5.
22
Pemstein et al., “The V-Dem Measurement Model.”

12
freedom in their own academic institutions as well as abroad. The Global Public Policy Institute and Scholars at
Risk have published policy recommendations for how to use the Academic Freedom Index data for this purpose.23

About

The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect any official position
of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, the V-Dem Project, or the V-Dem Steering Committee.

Authors: Katrin Kinzelbach, Staffan I. Lindberg, Lars Lott

Code contribution: Kelly Morrison, Yuko Sato, Lars Lott

Copy editor: Jonathan Grayson

Cover design: Soapbox and FAU (Ursula Auer)

Suggested citation: Katrin Kinzelbach, Staffan I. Lindberg, Lars Lott. 2024. Academic Freedom Index 2024
Update. FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg and V-Dem Institute. DOI: 10.25593/open-fau-405

Funders: We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Volkswagen Foundation (grant no. 9B286) as well as
co-funding for the V-Dem infrastructure from the University of Gothenburg.

23
Katrin Kinzelbach et al., “Free Universities. Putting the Academic Freedom Index into Action,” Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI), 2021, https:
//gppi.net/media/KinzelbachEtAl_2021_Free_Universities_AFi-2020_upd.pdf.

13
Bibliography
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael
Bernhard, et al. “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset V14.” University of Gothenburg: Varieties of
Democracy Institute, 2024. doi:10.23696/vdemds24.
Kinzelbach, Katrin, Staffan I. Lindberg, Lars Pelke, and Janika Spannagel. “Academic Freedom Index – 2022
Update,” 2022. doi:10.25593/opus4-fau-18612.
———. “Academic Freedom Index – 2023 Update,” 2023. doi:10.25593/opus4-fau-21630.
Kinzelbach, Katrin, Ilyas Saliba, and Janika Spannagel. “Global Data on the Freedom Indispensable for Scientific
Research: Towards a Reconciliation of Academic Reputation and Academic Freedom.” The International Journal of
Human Rights 26, no. 10 (2022): 1723–40. doi:10.1080/13642987.2021.1998000.
Kinzelbach, Katrin, Ilyas Saliba, Janika Spannagel, and Robert Quinn. “Free Universities. Putting the Academic
Freedom Index into Action.” Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI), 2021. https://gppi.net/media/KinzelbachEtAl_2021_F
ree_Universities_AFi-2020_upd.pdf.
Lerch, Julia C., David John Frank, and Evan Schofer. “The Social Foundations of Academic Freedom: Het-
erogeneous Institutions in World Society, 1960 to 2022.” American Sociological Review 89, no. 1 (2024): 88–125.
doi:10.1177/00031224231214000.
Lott, Lars. “Academic Freedom Growth and Decline Episodes.” Higher Education, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10734-023-01156-
z.
Lührmann, Anna, and Staffan I. Lindberg. “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It?”
Democratization 26, no. 7 (2019): 1095–1113. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029.
Medzihorsky, Juraj, and Staffan I. Lindberg. “Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties.” Party Politics,
2023. doi:10.1177/13540688231153092.
Pelke, Lars. “Academic Freedom and the Onset of Autocratization.” Democratization 30, no. 6 (2023): 1015–39.
doi:10.1080/13510347.2023.2207213.
Pelke, Lars, and Janika Spannagel. “Quality Assessment of the Academic Freedom Index: Strengths, Weaknesses,
and How Best to Use It.” SSRN. Rochester, NY, 2023. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4495392.
Pemstein, Daniel, Kyle L. Marquardt, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Juraj Medzihorsky, Joshua Krusell, Farhad Miri,
and Johannes von Römer. “The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and
Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data.” In V-Dem Working Paper No. 21. 9th Edition, 2024.
Rekker, Roderik. “The Nature and Origins of Political Polarization over Science.” Public Understanding of Science 30, no. 4
(2021): 352–68. doi:10.1177/0963662521989193.
Spannagel, Janika. “Introducing Academic Freedom in Constitutions: A New Global Dataset, 1789–2022.” European
Political Science, 2023. doi:10.1057/s41304-023-00446-5.
Spannagel, Janika, and Katrin Kinzelbach. “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators: Introduction to New
Global Time-Series v-Dem Data.” Quality & Quantity 57 (2023): 3969–89. doi:10.1007/s11135-022-01544-0.
Wiebrecht, Felix, Yuko Sato, Marina Nord, Martin Lundstedt, Fabio Angiolillo, and Staffan I. Lindberg. “State
of the World 2022: Defiance in the Face of Autocratization.” Democratization 30, no. 5 (2023): 769–93.
doi:10.1080/13510347.2023.2199452.

14