Comoros vs Mauritania: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Comoros
0
in 2018
Mauritania
0
in 2018
Comoros rank
150th
Mauritania rank
150th

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Comoros
  • Mauritania
0123196019892018

How they compare

Comoros currently reports 0 against 0 in Mauritania, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 43 shared years of data; in 1975 it was Mauritania ahead.

Comoros ranks 150th and Mauritania ranks 150th of 166 countries.

Comoros has averaged higher in every one of the 5 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Comoros Mauritania Difference Ahead
1970s 1 1 0
1980s 1 1 0
1990s 1.78 1 0.7778 Comoros
2000s 1.2 0.8 0.4 Comoros
2010s 2.67 0 2.67 Comoros

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Comoros or Mauritania?
Comoros, at 0 against 0 in Mauritania as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Comoros and Mauritania?
0, with Comoros ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Comoros and Mauritania?
43 years are reported by both, from 1975 to 2018.
How do Comoros and Mauritania rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Comoros ranks 150th and Mauritania ranks 150th 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).