Aruba vs South Korea: Control of Corruption - Governance score
Control of Corruption - Governance score over time
- Aruba
- South Korea
How they compare
Aruba currently reports 65.44 0-100 against 65.05 0-100 in South Korea, a difference of 0.39 0-100.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Aruba ahead.
Aruba ranks 41st and South Korea ranks 43rd of 204 countries.
Aruba has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Aruba | South Korea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 72.55 0-100 | 57 0-100 | 15.56 0-100 | Aruba |
| 2010s | 69.77 0-100 | 57.78 0-100 | 12 0-100 | Aruba |
| 2020s | 66.64 0-100 | 64.32 0-100 | 2.32 0-100 | Aruba |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher control of corruption - governance score, Aruba or South Korea?
- Aruba, at 65.44 0-100 against 65.05 0-100 in South Korea as of 2024.
- What is the difference in control of corruption - governance score between Aruba and South Korea?
- 0.39 0-100, with Aruba ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Aruba and South Korea?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2024.
- How do Aruba and South Korea rank globally for control of corruption - governance score?
- Aruba ranks 41st and South Korea ranks 43rd of 204 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Revised Methodology for Measuring Governance Using Perception Data., World Bank Group (WBG), published as Control of Corruption - Governance score (0-100). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Control of Corruption (CC) captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is used for private gain, including both petty and grand corruption, as well as capture of the state by elites and private interests. Governance score is a linear transformation of the governance estimate using hypothetical worst-case and base-case countries. It is an absolute score ranging from 0-100. Larger values correspond to better governance. The (country-series-time) metadata include the (a) number of sources, and (b) confidence intervals (lower and upper bound). The number of sources indicates the number of underlying data sources on which the governance score (respectively the underlying governance estimate) is based. The confidence intervals include the lower and upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the governance score. Confidence intervals are a statistical range of values that likely contain the true value (of what is being estimated).