Lithuania vs Malaysia: Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score

Lithuania
3
in 2018
Malaysia
3
in 2018
Lithuania rank
1st
Malaysia rank
1st

Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Lithuania
  • Malaysia
11.522.53191819682018

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 3 against 3 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 62 shared years of data; in 1957 it was Malaysia ahead.

Lithuania ranks 1st and Malaysia ranks 1st of 166 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Lithuania averaged higher in 2 and Malaysia in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania Malaysia Difference Ahead
1950s 1 2.33 1.33 Malaysia
1960s 1 2.9 1.9 Malaysia
1970s 1 2 1 Malaysia
1980s 1 2 1 Malaysia
1990s 2.9 2 0.9 Lithuania
2000s 3 2.2 0.8 Lithuania
2010s 3 3 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher competitiveness of executive recruitment score, Lithuania or Malaysia?
Lithuania, at 3 against 3 in Malaysia as of 2018.
What is the difference in competitiveness of executive recruitment score between Lithuania and Malaysia?
0, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Malaysia?
62 years are reported by both, from 1957 to 2018.
How do Lithuania and Malaysia rank globally for competitiveness of executive recruitment score?
Lithuania ranks 1st and Malaysia 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).