Côte d'Ivoire vs Papua New Guinea: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score
Côte d'Ivoire
2
in 2018
Papua New Guinea
2
in 2018
Côte d'Ivoire rank
84th
Papua New Guinea rank
84th
Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time
- Côte d'Ivoire
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Côte d'Ivoire currently reports 2 against 2 in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.
Across all 35 years both countries report, Papua New Guinea has been ahead every year.
Côte d'Ivoire ranks 84th and Papua New Guinea ranks 84th of 167 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 5 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Côte d'Ivoire | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970s | 1 | 2 | 1 | Papua New Guinea |
| 1980s | 1 | 2 | 1 | Papua New Guinea |
| 1990s | 0.9 | 2 | 1.1 | Papua New Guinea |
| 2000s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Côte d'Ivoire or Papua New Guinea?
- Côte d'Ivoire, at 2 against 2 in Papua New Guinea as of 2018.
- What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Côte d'Ivoire and Papua New Guinea?
- 0, with Côte d'Ivoire ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Côte d'Ivoire and Papua New Guinea?
- 35 years are reported by both, from 1975 to 2018.
- How do Côte d'Ivoire and Papua New Guinea rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
- Côte d'Ivoire ranks 84th and Papua New Guinea ranks 84th of 167 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
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).