Burkina Faso vs Zimbabwe: Combined polity score
Combined polity score over time
- Burkina Faso
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 1 against 0 in Burkina Faso, a difference of 1.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 42 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Zimbabwe ahead.
Burkina Faso ranks 31st and Zimbabwe ranks 29th of 51 countries.
Across the 5 decades both report, Burkina Faso averaged higher in 2 and Zimbabwe in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burkina Faso | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970s | -10.6 | -5.2 | 5.4 | Zimbabwe |
| 1980s | -7 | -0.2 | 6.8 | Zimbabwe |
| 1990s | -4.9 | -5.7 | 0.8 | Burkina Faso |
| 2000s | -0.3 | -3.4 | 3.1 | Burkina Faso |
| 2010s | 0 | 1 | 1 | Zimbabwe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher combined polity score, Burkina Faso or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 1 against 0 in Burkina Faso as of 2011.
- What is the difference in combined polity score between Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe?
- 1, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe?
- 42 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2011.
- How do Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe rank globally for combined polity score?
- Burkina Faso ranks 31st and Zimbabwe ranks 29th of 51 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Center for Systemic Peace, www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm, published as Combined polity score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Combined Polity score is computed by subtracting the AUTOCRACY score (UPP.INS.AUTO.XQ) from the DEMOCRACY score (UPP.INS.DEMO.XQ); the resulting unified polity scale ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to -10 (strongly autocratic). Note: The POLITY score was added to the Polity IV data series in recognition of its common usage by users in quantitative research and in the overriding interest of maintaining uniformity among users in this application. The simple combination of the original DEMOC and AUTOC index values in a unitary POLITY scale, in many ways, runs contrary to the original theory stated by Eckstein and Gurr in Patterns of Authority Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual 17 (1975) and, so, should be treated and interpreted with due caution. Its primary utility is in investigative research which should be augmented by more detailed analysis. The original theory posits that autocratic and democratic authority are distinct patterns of authority, elements of which may co-exist in any particular regime context. The inclusion of this variable in the data series should not be seen as an acceptance of the counter-proposal that autocracy and democracy are alternatives or opposites in a unified authority spectrum, even though elements of this perspective may be implied in the original theory. The POLITY variable provides a convenient avenue for examining general regime effects in analyses but researchers should note that the middle of the implied POLITY “spectrum” is somewhat muddled in terms of the original theory, masking various combinations of DEMOC and AUTOC scores with the same POLITY score. Investigations involving hypotheses of varying effects of democracy and/or autocracy should employ the original Polity scheme and test DEMOC and AUTOC separately.