Croatia vs Vanuatu: Justified Political Positions Score

Croatia
1.29
in 2025
Vanuatu
1.26
in 2025
Croatia rank
50th
Vanuatu rank
52nd

Justified Political Positions Score over time

  • Croatia
  • Vanuatu
-3-2-1012190019622025

How they compare

Croatia currently reports 1.29 against 1.26 in Vanuatu, a difference of 0.03.

The two have swapped places 7 times across 85 shared years of data; in 1941 it was Vanuatu ahead.

Croatia ranks 50th and Vanuatu ranks 52nd of 175 countries.

Across the 9 decades both report, Croatia averaged higher in 5 and Vanuatu in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Croatia Vanuatu Difference Ahead
1940s -1.88 -2.4 0.5244 Croatia
1950s -0.5456 -2.4 1.86 Croatia
1960s 0.085 -2.4 2.49 Croatia
1970s 0.085 -2.4 2.49 Croatia
1980s 0.2368 0.649 0.4122 Vanuatu
1990s -0.7981 0.649 1.45 Vanuatu
2000s 0.6284 0.928 0.2996 Vanuatu
2010s 1.36 0.9844 0.3708 Croatia
2020s 1.32 1.45 0.1337 Vanuatu

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher justified political positions score, Croatia or Vanuatu?
Croatia, at 1.29 against 1.26 in Vanuatu as of 2025.
What is the difference in justified political positions score between Croatia and Vanuatu?
0.03, with Croatia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Vanuatu?
85 years are reported by both, from 1941 to 2025.
How do Croatia and Vanuatu rank globally for justified political positions score?
Croatia ranks 50th and Vanuatu ranks 52nd 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.