This working paper assesses the feasibility and added value of a regionally grounded approach to democracy measurement in the Nordics. It reviews the institutional and societal characteristics associated with Nordic democracies, the pressures affecting the conditions under which they operate, and the extent to which major global indices capture gradual change in these high-performing democratic systems. It then maps practical options for improving Nordic democracy monitoring.
The review finds that a Nordic approach to democracy measurement could add value by complementing existing indices and addressing gaps in how democratic developments across the region are captured. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden remain among the world’s strongest democracies, with robust electoral systems, civil liberties, rule of law and institutional quality. The available evidence provides little indication of systematic democratic backsliding across the region. At the same time, stable headline scores do not capture the full picture. Across indices and country assessments, more uneven performance and modest declines appear in areas including political participation beyond elections, minority inclusion, media freedom and pluralism, public-sector integrity, trust and accountability, and aspects of social and economic equality. Taken together, the review of existing indices, their methodologies and evidence reveals five gaps in the measurement of Nordic democracies:
- Synthesis: relevant evidence is fragmented across indices, surveys, datasets and country reports.
- Sensitivity: aggregate measures are often unable to detect gradual, uneven change near the top of the democratic-performance range.
- Conceptualisation: Nordic features such as universal welfare institutions, social trust, consensus-oriented governance and strong local government are only partly captured, and their relationship to democracy requires careful attention.
- Subnational democracy: global indices pay limited attention to the quality of democracy at the subnational level, although municipalities and regions play central roles in Nordic governance and welfare provision.
- Geographical coverage: Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland are rarely represented in international datasets.
Part 2 considers how each of these gaps might be addressed. Possible responses include a developing a harmonised dataset to bring fragmented evidence together; more sensitive and disaggregated indicators to capture gradual change; cautious testing of additional measures for Nordic institutional and societal features; targeted analysis of democracy at regional and local levels; and alternative forms of coverage for Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland. Further work would need to decide which gaps merit priority, where a Nordic approach would add the greatest value, and which responses are methodologically feasible given available data, expertise and resources. Not all gaps may need—or be feasible—to address within a single measurement approach.
