Guinea-Bissau vs United Arab Emirates: Dimension 1.5: Data use by international organizations
Dimension 1.5: Data use by international organizations over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 0.9 against 0.9 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.
Across all 20 years both countries report, United Arab Emirates has been ahead every year.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 66th and United Arab Emirates ranks 66th of 217 countries.
United Arab Emirates has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 0.3866 | 0.59 | 0.2034 | United Arab Emirates |
| 2020s | 0.783 | 0.9 | 0.117 | United Arab Emirates |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations, Guinea-Bissau or United Arab Emirates?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 0.9 against 0.9 in United Arab Emirates as of 2023.
- What is the difference in dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations between Guinea-Bissau and United Arab Emirates?
- 0, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and United Arab Emirates?
- 20 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2023.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and United Arab Emirates rank globally for dimension 1.5: data use by international organizations?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 66th and United Arab Emirates ranks 66th 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