Ecuador vs Lesotho: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Ecuador
3
in 2018
Lesotho
3
in 2018
Ecuador rank
1st
Lesotho rank
1st

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Ecuador
  • Lesotho
0123183019242018

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 3 against 3 in Lesotho, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 51 shared years of data; in 1968 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 1st and Lesotho ranks 1st of 166 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 4 and Lesotho in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Lesotho Difference Ahead
1960s 3 2 1 Ecuador
1970s 0.9 0.7 0.2 Ecuador
1980s 3 1 2 Ecuador
1990s 3 1.4 1.6 Ecuador
2000s 2.4 2.8 0.4 Lesotho
2010s 3 3 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Ecuador or Lesotho?
Ecuador, at 3 against 3 in Lesotho as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Ecuador and Lesotho?
0, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Lesotho?
51 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 2018.
How do Ecuador and Lesotho rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Ecuador ranks 1st and Lesotho ranks 1st 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).