Oman vs Zambia: Clientelism Index
Oman
0.501
in 2025
Zambia
0.488
in 2025
Oman rank
88th
Zambia rank
89th
Clientelism Index over time
- Oman
- Zambia
How they compare
Oman currently reports 0.501 against 0.488 in Zambia, a difference of 0.013.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 115 shared years of data; in 1911 it was Oman ahead.
Oman ranks 88th and Zambia ranks 89th of 176 countries.
Across the 12 decades both report, Oman averaged higher in 11 and Zambia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Oman | Zambia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 0.834 | 0.5596 | 0.2744 | Oman |
| 1920s | 0.834 | 0.4695 | 0.3645 | Oman |
| 1930s | 0.834 | 0.3272 | 0.5068 | Oman |
| 1940s | 0.834 | 0.2973 | 0.5367 | Oman |
| 1950s | 0.834 | 0.2894 | 0.5446 | Oman |
| 1960s | 0.826 | 0.2503 | 0.5757 | Oman |
| 1970s | 0.6326 | 0.2909 | 0.3417 | Oman |
| 1980s | 0.62 | 0.3756 | 0.2444 | Oman |
| 1990s | 0.62 | 0.4134 | 0.2066 | Oman |
| 2000s | 0.548 | 0.4901 | 0.0579 | Oman |
| 2010s | 0.5232 | 0.5745 | 0.0513 | Zambia |
| 2020s | 0.5042 | 0.48 | 0.0242 | Oman |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher clientelism index, Oman or Zambia?
- Oman, at 0.501 against 0.488 in Zambia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in clientelism index between Oman and Zambia?
- 0.013, with Oman ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Oman and Zambia?
- 115 years are reported by both, from 1911 to 2025.
- How do Oman and Zambia rank globally for clientelism index?
- Oman ranks 88th and Zambia ranks 89th of 176 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Clientelism Index. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Composite index measuring the extent to which politics hinge on clientelistic exchanges of targeted goods, jobs, or cash for electoral support; higher values denote more pervasive clientelism.