El Salvador vs Myanmar: Competitiveness of Political Participation Score
Competitiveness of Political Participation Score over time
- El Salvador
- Myanmar
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 4 against 4 in Myanmar, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1950 it was Myanmar ahead.
El Salvador ranks 34th and Myanmar ranks 34th of 167 countries.
Across the 7 decades both report, El Salvador averaged higher in 6 and Myanmar in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | Myanmar | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1950s | 2 | 3 | 1 | Myanmar |
| 1960s | 3 | 1.6 | 1.4 | El Salvador |
| 1970s | 2.78 | 1 | 1.78 | El Salvador |
| 1980s | 3 | 1.33 | 1.67 | El Salvador |
| 1990s | 3.6 | 2 | 1.6 | El Salvador |
| 2000s | 4 | 1.8 | 2.2 | El Salvador |
| 2010s | 4 | 2.62 | 1.38 | El Salvador |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher competitiveness of political participation score, El Salvador or Myanmar?
- El Salvador, at 4 against 4 in Myanmar as of 2018.
- What is the difference in competitiveness of political participation score between El Salvador and Myanmar?
- 0, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Myanmar?
- 63 years are reported by both, from 1950 to 2018.
- How do El Salvador and Myanmar rank globally for competitiveness of political participation score?
- El Salvador ranks 34th and Myanmar ranks 34th of 167 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Competitiveness of Political Participation 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 political participation is competitive. It ranges from unregulated political participation (score of 0), over repressed political participation (score of 1), suppressed political participation (score of 2), factional political participation (score of 3), and transitional arrangements (score of 4), to competitive political participation (score of 5).