Freedom House: From Wartime Advocacy to the Survey of Freedom

Freedom House took shape in New York in 1941. The United States had not yet formally entered the Second World War, and the European conflict had sharpened the debate between aiding the Allies and maintaining isolationism. Sarah Sunn Bush's institutional study lists Herbert and Eleanor Agar, Dorothy Thompson, George Field, and Ulric Bell among its initiators, noting that they sought to counter Nazi propaganda and mobilize American public support for intervention.

In a report later submitted to the United Nations, the organization identified Republican Wendell Willkie and Democrat Eleanor Roosevelt as the most representative figures associated with its founding. Their different political backgrounds allowed Freedom House to emphasize bipartisan public mobilization. Its initial work had an explicit antifascist political purpose. The survey system that later assessed freedom quantitatively across countries did not already exist in 1941.

References: [1] [6] [7]

Field served as executive director from October 1941, taking responsibility for day-to-day organization. On January 22, 1942, the first headquarters opened at 32 East 51st Street in New York; refugees from the European war helped decorate its interior. Shared premises, cultural displays, and public events translated an abstract commitment to freedom into a practical space for gathering, communication, and cooperation.

One wartime example was the radio program Our Secret Weapon, in which Freedom House participated. Stout rebutted Axis propaganda on air, Sue Taylor White helped plan the program and verify material, and the Columbia Broadcasting System supplied the broadcasting platform. This work required coordinated roles in languages, news, writing, and broadcasting.

A September 1942 report in TIME described an announcer reading claims from Axis broadcasts, followed by responses from detective novelist Rex Stout. The material came from a shortwave-monitoring team led by Jack Gerber. Monitors compiled broadcast content, which the host then selected and commented upon. Raising wartime morale was among the program's aims; its use of satire also gave it a distinctly persuasive character.

References: [2] [3]

By 1973, Freedom House had begun publishing the Comparative Survey of Freedom. In the 1980 yearbook, Gastil explained that the survey had appeared at least annually since January 1973, defining freedom primarily as the right to participate in political choices and civil liberties such as speech, privacy, and a fair trial. The organization's founding, the launch of a specific survey, and the subsequent publication of yearbooks were thus three distinct historical stages.

The assessment then used separate seven-point scales for political rights and civil liberties, followed by classification as free, partly free, or not free. Country narratives set out the political institutions and rights conditions underlying the ratings. The author also cautioned that these grades were categories on a constructed scale, not equidistant numerical values that could be added and subtracted at will. Societies near category boundaries particularly required interpretation in their specific context.

Condensing complex conditions into tables facilitated comparisons across countries and years, while making choices about definitions more consequential. The 1980 volume explicitly rejected directly equating economic welfare or national independence itself with freedom. Readers need to understand these boundaries to judge what a rating actually conveys.

References: [4]

The preface to the 1981 yearbook listed a survey advisory panel that included scholars such as Lipset, Lucian Pye, and Sartori, and thanked Janet Gastil for research and editorial assistance. It also explained that dedicated foundation grants supported year-round research and publication, while contributions from individual members, trade unions, businesses, and foundations went into the general budget. These lists and acknowledgments revealed the networks of personnel and funding on which the research relied.

Research collaboration also took place through thematic conferences. On November 14 and 15, 1980, Freedom House held a conference on freedom in Muslim Central Asia. The following year's volume included eight papers and associated discussions, with a separate editorial summary. Contributors included regional specialists, journalists, and participants with government experience. The conference brought together different forms of expertise and converted them into texts available to the public.

References: [5]

After the war, Freedom House pursued its public objectives through policy statements and research reports, with membership dues and special events among its fundraising methods. Its funding structure changed as international projects expanded. A special report submitted to the United Nations in 2001 stated that approximately half its budget came from government and half from private sources, with some government funding consisting of project funds passed on to foreign nongovernmental organizations.

The report further stated that, with few exceptions, its core research, analysis, and democracy advocacy were supported primarily by nongovernmental funds, and that a board drawn from different political parties and professional backgrounds protected independent decision-making. These were explanations offered by the organization in response to questions, not findings of an external audit. Inclusion in a United Nations document did not mean that the UN endorsed all of its claims.

The document's opening explained why the report had been requested: some member states had questioned the organization's activities, finances, and relationship with the U.S. government, prompting the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations to demand answers. Assessing independence requires distinguishing project funds passed through to others from research budgets and examining specific decisions and public evidence. Neither the organization's own claims nor its funding sources alone suffice for a conclusion.

References: [1] [6]

Drawing on archival research into the survey's formation, Zerndt challenged an overly tidy account of its origins. Early ratings depended largely on Raymond Gastil's individual judgment; the later existence of an advisory network does not automatically demonstrate that the original procedures were collectively designed. She argued that the survey's reputation also owed something to its promotion within political science and American foreign-policy circles.

This criticism suggests that Freedom House's reports are both knowledge products and part of a long-running public advocacy effort. Wartime broadcasting, scholarly conferences, annual classification tables, and international projects used different organizational approaches, rather than one method unchanged since 1941. Understanding their influence requires reading the definitions and statements on participants and funding in the original reports alongside the questions raised by independent research.

References: [4] [5] [6] [7]