Database of Political Institutions: 2017
Metadata & use
| Identifier | https://doi.org/10.60966/8b7m-1y04 |
|---|---|
| License | Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 3.0 IGO |
| Citation |
Cruz, Cesi, et al. (2018). Database of Political Institutions: 2017. IDB Open Data. https://doi.org/10.60966/8b7m-1y04 |
| Published date | 2018-03-01 |
| Modified date | 2026-07-15 |
| Tags/Keywords | Democracy · Elections · Legislatures · Political Institutions · Political Parties |
| Language |
|
| In Series | Database of Political Institutions |
| Temporal coverage | 1975-2017 |
| Country |
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cape Verde
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo - Brazzaville
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Congo - Kinshasa
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Eswatini
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Côte d’Ivoire
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar (Burma)
Namibia
Nepal
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
North Macedonia
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Lucia
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
South Sudan
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Gambia
Netherlands
Timor-Leste
Togo
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Türkiye
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
| Region | Latin America and the Caribbean |
| Publisher |
Inter-American Development Bank
|
| Author |
Cruz, Cesi
Keefer, Philip
Scartascini, Carlos
Inter-American Development Bank
|
| Data collection type | Observational Data |
| Statistical type | Panel Data |
| Data structure | Structured Data |
| Data notes |
What is the Database of Political Institutions (DPI)?The Database of Political Institutions 2017 (DPI) is a comprehensive dataset compiling information on political institutions, elections, and government structures across more than 180 countries from 1975 to 2017. It provides standardized dpi data for comparative political and economic research. What does the DPI database include?The dpi database contains institutional and electoral data such as: It also includes political instability data and measures that help evaluate the evolution of political systems. Who created and maintains the DPI database?The data DPI was initially developed by researchers at the World Bank’s Development Research Group in 2000. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) now hosts and maintains the Database of Political Institutions 2017, expanding its coverage and accessibility. What countries and years does the dataset cover?The dataset includes information on approximately 180 countries spanning 42 years (1975–2017), providing a rich basis for long-term analysis of political institutions and governance structures worldwide. Why is the Database of Political Institutions 2017 crucial?This dataset is one of the most cited resources in comparative political economy and DPI politics research. It enables scholars to examine how institutional design, electoral competition, and legislative balance impact governance and stability. How do the DPI political party variables work?The DPI political party indicators identify party ideology, governing coalitions, and the strength of opposition in national legislatures. These variables enable researchers to examine the impact of political parties on policymaking and institutional effectiveness. What can the DPI data tell us about political instability?The dataset includes political instability data such as executive turnover, legislative balance, and regime changes, offering insights into how political institutions influence stability and democratic resilience. How can the DPI database be used in research?Researchers use the dpi data to study: How often is the DPI database updated?The Database of Political Institutions 2017 is the latest comprehensive version. The IDB periodically validates and documents updates to ensure reliability and consistency of the dpi database for academic and policy analysis. Where can I access the DPI data?The DPI database is available on the Inter-American Development Bank’s Open Data platform at data.iadb.org. Users can download and analyze DPI data for research, policymaking, and educational purposes. What are political institutions and why are they important?The dataset does not directly define political institutions, but it measures them through variables describing executive power, legislative structure, electoral competitiveness, party systems, and checks and balances. These indicators are important because they help researchers compare how different political systems operate and how institutional design affects governance and policy outcomes. What is the evolution of political institutions in the 21st century?The dataset allows analysis of institutional evolution over time because it records yearly information on political systems, elections, party composition, and executive authority. For example, the 2017 update extends earlier versions by adding new years and correcting variables across many countries, enabling longitudinal comparisons of institutional change. How do political institutions influence public policy?The dataset does not measure policy outcomes directly, but it includes variables such as executive tenure, legislative composition, party orientation, and electoral rules. These factors shape how decisions are made, which actors have veto power, and how easily governments can pass legislation, all of which influence public policy. What is the difference between formal vs. informal political institutions?The dataset focuses on formal political institutions such as constitutions, legislatures, executives, electoral systems, and political parties. Informal norms and cultural practices are not coded unless they affect formal institutional rules, such as when party affiliation, electoral rules, or executive authority are formally documented. How is the executive branch described as a political institution?The dataset contains multiple variables describing the executive branch, including system type (presidential, parliamentary, or assembly-elected), years in office, term limits, military background, and party affiliation. These variables allow researchers to analyze how executive authority differs across countries. What is the simple definition and examples of political institutions?The dataset does not provide a simple definition, but examples of political institutions included in the data are: - Executive office (president or prime minister) - Legislature (parliament or congress) - Political parties - Electoral systems - Constitutional term limits - Party representation in government What is the link between political institutions and economic growth?The dataset itself does not measure economic growth, but it is commonly used in research linking institutional variables — such as electoral competitiveness, party fragmentation, and executive constraints — to economic performance. How are new political institutions created?The dataset does not explain how institutions are created. It records institutional characteristics once they exist, such as after constitutional reforms, elections, or changes in political systems. What is the difference between inclusive vs. extractive political institutions?The dataset does not classify institutions as inclusive or extractive. However, variables such as electoral competitiveness, number of parties, and checks on executive power can be used to approximate how open or concentrated political power is. |