Hungary vs Lesotho: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Hungary
3
in 2018
Lesotho
3
in 2018
Hungary rank
1st
Lesotho rank
1st

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Hungary
  • Lesotho
0123186719422018

How they compare

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

The two have swapped places 4 times across 52 shared years of data; in 1966 it was Lesotho ahead.

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

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Hungary Lesotho Difference Ahead
1960s 1 2 1 Lesotho
1970s 1 0.7 0.3 Hungary
1980s 1.11 1 0.1111 Hungary
1990s 3 1.4 1.6 Hungary
2000s 3 2.8 0.2 Hungary
2010s 3 3 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Hungary or Lesotho?
Hungary, at 3 against 3 in Lesotho as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Hungary and Lesotho?
0, with Hungary ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Lesotho?
52 years are reported by both, from 1966 to 2018.
How do Hungary and Lesotho rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Hungary 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).