Japan vs Lithuania: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score
Japan
3
in 2018
Lithuania
3
in 2018
Japan rank
1st
Lithuania rank
1st
Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time
- Japan
- Lithuania
How they compare
Japan currently reports 3 against 3 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 92 shared years of data; in 1918 it was Lithuania ahead.
Japan ranks 1st and Lithuania ranks 1st of 166 countries.
Across the 11 decades both report, Japan averaged higher in 5 and Lithuania in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Japan | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 1 | 3 | 2 | Lithuania |
| 1920s | 1 | 2.5 | 1.5 | Lithuania |
| 1930s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1940s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1950s | 3 | 1 | 2 | Japan |
| 1960s | 3 | 1 | 2 | Japan |
| 1970s | 3 | 1 | 2 | Japan |
| 1980s | 3 | 1 | 2 | Japan |
| 1990s | 3 | 2.9 | 0.1 | Japan |
| 2000s | 3 | 3 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 3 | 3 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Japan or Lithuania?
- Japan, at 3 against 3 in Lithuania as of 2018.
- What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Japan and Lithuania?
- 0, with Japan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Japan and Lithuania?
- 92 years are reported by both, from 1918 to 2018.
- How do Japan and Lithuania rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
- Japan ranks 1st and Lithuania 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
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).