Guinea vs Myanmar: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Guinea
2
in 2018
Myanmar
2
in 2018
Guinea rank
84th
Myanmar rank
84th

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Guinea
  • Myanmar
0123194819832018

How they compare

Guinea currently reports 2 against 2 in Myanmar, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 60 shared years of data; in 1958 it was Guinea ahead.

Guinea ranks 84th and Myanmar ranks 84th of 166 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Guinea averaged higher in 4 and Myanmar in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guinea Myanmar Difference Ahead
1950s 1 0 1 Guinea
1960s 1 0.6 0.4 Guinea
1970s 1 0.6 0.4 Guinea
1980s 0.4 0.8 0.4 Myanmar
1990s 0 0 0
2000s 0 0 0
2010s 2 0.75 1.25 Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Guinea or Myanmar?
Guinea, at 2 against 2 in Myanmar as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Guinea and Myanmar?
0, with Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea and Myanmar?
60 years are reported by both, from 1958 to 2018.
How do Guinea and Myanmar rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Guinea ranks 84th and Myanmar ranks 84th 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).