China vs Cuba: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

China
1
in 2018
Cuba
1
in 2018
China rank
117th
Cuba rank
117th

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • China
  • Cuba
0123180019092018

How they compare

China currently reports 1 against 1 in Cuba, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 101 shared years of data; in 1902 it was Cuba ahead.

China ranks 117th and Cuba ranks 117th of 166 countries.

Across the 12 decades both report, China averaged higher in 5 and Cuba in 6.

Head to head by decade

Decade China Cuba Difference Ahead
1900s 1 3 2 Cuba
1910s 0.875 3 2.12 Cuba
1920s 1 3 2 Cuba
1930s 1 3 2 Cuba
1940s 1 3 2 Cuba
1950s 1 1.67 0.6667 Cuba
1960s 1 0 1 China
1970s 1 0 1 China
1980s 1 0 1 China
1990s 1 0 1 China
2000s 1 0.4 0.6 China
2010s 1 1 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, China or Cuba?
China, at 1 against 1 in Cuba as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between China and Cuba?
0, with China ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China and Cuba?
101 years are reported by both, from 1902 to 2018.
How do China and Cuba rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
China ranks 117th and Cuba ranks 117th of 166 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score
Source
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
167 places, 17,813 data points, 1789–2020
Last refreshed

Indicates the extent to which executive recruitment is competitive. It ranges from executive power being seized (score of 0), over the executive being selected by elites (score of 1), and dual selection-election or transitional arrangements (score of 2), to the executive being elected (score of 4).