Bhutan vs Niger: Justified Political Positions Score

Bhutan
1.4
in 2025
Niger
1.36
in 2025
Bhutan rank
46th
Niger rank
49th

Justified Political Positions Score over time

  • Bhutan
  • Niger
-2-10123190019622025

How they compare

Bhutan currently reports 1.4 against 1.36 in Niger, a difference of 0.04.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 104 shared years of data; in 1922 it was Niger ahead.

Bhutan ranks 46th and Niger ranks 49th of 175 countries.

Across the 11 decades both report, Bhutan averaged higher in 6 and Niger in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bhutan Niger Difference Ahead
1920s -1.93 -0.827 1.1 Niger
1930s -1.62 -0.827 0.798 Niger
1940s -1.62 -0.827 0.798 Niger
1950s -0.3592 -0.879 0.5198 Bhutan
1960s 0.13 -0.687 0.817 Bhutan
1970s 0.13 -0.5422 0.6722 Bhutan
1980s 0.3436 -0.3283 0.6719 Bhutan
1990s 0.4226 1.88 1.46 Niger
2000s 0.4613 1.25 0.7837 Niger
2010s 1.57 1.49 0.0821 Bhutan
2020s 2.03 1.23 0.8012 Bhutan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher justified political positions score, Bhutan or Niger?
Bhutan, at 1.4 against 1.36 in Niger as of 2025.
What is the difference in justified political positions score between Bhutan and Niger?
0.04, with Bhutan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and Niger?
104 years are reported by both, from 1922 to 2025.
How do Bhutan and Niger rank globally for justified political positions score?
Bhutan ranks 46th and Niger ranks 49th of 175 countries.
Where does this data come from?
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Justified Political Positions Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Justified Political Positions Score
Source
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
175 places, 20,802 data points, 1900–2025
Last refreshed

Central estimate of the extent to which political elites provide complex, nuanced, and complete justifications for their views when considering important policy changes.