Bangladesh vs South Africa: Dimension 1.5: Data use by international organizations
Dimension 1.5: Data use by international organizations over time
- Bangladesh
- South Africa
How they compare
Bangladesh currently reports 0.8 against 0.8 in South Africa, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 20 shared years of data; in 2004 it was South Africa ahead.
Bangladesh ranks 102nd and South Africa ranks 102nd of 217 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Bangladesh averaged higher in 2 and South Africa in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bangladesh | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.3 | 0.2667 | 0.0333 | Bangladesh |
| 2010s | 0.6834 | 0.7068 | 0.0234 | South Africa |
| 2020s | 0.875 | 0.8 | 0.075 | Bangladesh |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations, Bangladesh or South Africa?
- Bangladesh, at 0.8 against 0.8 in South Africa as of 2023.
- What is the difference in dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations between Bangladesh and South Africa?
- 0, with Bangladesh ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bangladesh and South Africa?
- 20 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2023.
- How do Bangladesh and South Africa rank globally for dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations?
- Bangladesh ranks 102nd and South Africa ranks 102nd of 217 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statistical Performance Indicators, The World Bank (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/statistical-performance-indicators), published as Dimension 1.5: Data use by international organizations. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Five measures usefulness or reliability of country produced measures for international organizations. First, on comparability of poverty estimates for the World Bank reporting on international poverty (Source: Povcalnet). Second on usable surveys for statistics on child mortality for the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (Source: https://childmortality.org/). Third on accuracy of debt reporting as classified by the World Bank (Source: World Bank WDI metadata). Fourth, on availability of safely managed drinking water data for use by JMP. Fifth, on labor force participation data for use by ILO. We recognize that these data sources provide only partial coverage but consider that they do at least provide some indication of the performance of the national statistical system. With more complete data sources it would be possible to assess this further