Kyrgyzstan vs Norway: Dimension 5.1: Legislation and governance
Dimension 5.1: Legislation and governance over time
- Kyrgyzstan
- Norway
How they compare
Kyrgyzstan currently reports 1 against 1 in Norway, a difference of 0.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Norway has been ahead every year.
Kyrgyzstan ranks 1st and Norway ranks 1st of 152 countries.
Norway has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kyrgyzstan | Norway | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 0 | 1 | 1 | Norway |
| 2020s | 0.75 | 1 | 0.25 | Norway |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dimension 5.1: legislation and governance, Kyrgyzstan or Norway?
- Kyrgyzstan, at 1 against 1 in Norway as of 2023.
- What is the difference in dimension 5.1: legislation and governance between Kyrgyzstan and Norway?
- 0, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and Norway?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2019 to 2023.
- How do Kyrgyzstan and Norway rank globally for dimension 5.1: legislation and governance?
- Kyrgyzstan ranks 1st and Norway ranks 1st of 152 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statistical Performance Indicators, The World Bank (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/statistical-performance-indicators), published as Dimension 5.1: Legislation and governance. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Included in dashboard, but not index because of insufficient country coverage. This indicator is based on PARIS21 indicators on SDG 17.18.2 (national statistical legislation compliance with UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics), existence of National Statistical Council, national statistical strategy generation, national statistical plan. Limited country coverage makes cross country comparison limited. A global database of statistical and data legislation and governance practice would be a valuable resource for capacity building in general not just for the SPI.