Botswana vs Croatia: Common Good Justifications Score
Botswana
1.24
in 2025
Croatia
1.27
in 2025
Botswana rank
48th
Croatia rank
45th
Common Good Justifications Score over time
- Botswana
- Croatia
How they compare
Croatia currently reports 1.27 against 1.24 in Botswana, a difference of 0.03.
The two have swapped places 8 times across 85 shared years of data; in 1941 it was Croatia ahead.
Botswana ranks 48th and Croatia ranks 45th of 175 countries.
Across the 9 decades both report, Botswana averaged higher in 6 and Croatia in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | Croatia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1940s | -2.09 | -2.04 | 0.0523 | Croatia |
| 1950s | -2.09 | -1.6 | 0.4904 | Croatia |
| 1960s | -0.8744 | -1.21 | 0.3326 | Botswana |
| 1970s | 0.952 | -1.21 | 2.16 | Botswana |
| 1980s | 0.952 | -1.21 | 2.16 | Botswana |
| 1990s | 0.952 | 0.1645 | 0.7875 | Botswana |
| 2000s | 0.9722 | 1.16 | 0.1873 | Croatia |
| 2010s | 1.19 | 0.9489 | 0.2419 | Botswana |
| 2020s | 1.18 | 0.8582 | 0.3248 | Botswana |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher common good justifications score, Botswana or Croatia?
- Croatia, at 1.27 against 1.24 in Botswana as of 2025.
- What is the difference in common good justifications score between Botswana and Croatia?
- 0.03, with Croatia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Croatia?
- 85 years are reported by both, from 1941 to 2025.
- How do Botswana and Croatia rank globally for common good justifications score?
- Botswana ranks 48th and Croatia ranks 45th of 175 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- V-Dem (2026) β processed by Our World in Data, published as Common Good Justifications Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Central estimate of the extent to which political elites justify their views with the common good for society, either the greatest good for the greatest number of people or as helping the least advantaged people in society when considering important policy changes.