Libya vs Mauritania: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Libya
0
in 2010
Mauritania
0
in 2018
Libya rank
150th
Mauritania rank
150th

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Libya
  • Mauritania
00.511.52195119842018

How they compare

Libya currently reports 0 against 0 in Mauritania, a difference of 0.

Across all 51 years both countries report, Mauritania has been ahead every year.

Libya ranks 150th and Mauritania ranks 150th of 166 countries.

Mauritania has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Libya Mauritania Difference Ahead
1960s 0.9 1 0.1 Mauritania
1970s 0 1 1 Mauritania
1980s 0 1 1 Mauritania
1990s 0 1 1 Mauritania
2000s 0 0.8 0.8 Mauritania
2010s 0 0 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Libya or Mauritania?
Libya, at 0 against 0 in Mauritania as of 2010.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Libya and Mauritania?
0, with Libya ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and Mauritania?
51 years are reported by both, from 1960 to 2010.
How do Libya and Mauritania rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Libya ranks 150th and Mauritania ranks 150th 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).