Iceland vs Niger: Justified Political Positions Score

Iceland
1.36
in 2025
Niger
1.36
in 2025
Iceland rank
47th
Niger rank
49th

Justified Political Positions Score over time

  • Iceland
  • Niger
-10123190019622025

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 1.36 against 1.36 in Niger, a difference of 0.

Across all 104 years both countries report, Iceland has been ahead every year.

Iceland ranks 47th and Niger ranks 49th of 175 countries.

Iceland has averaged higher in every one of the 11 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Iceland Niger Difference Ahead
1920s 0.783 -0.827 1.61 Iceland
1930s 0.9351 -0.827 1.76 Iceland
1940s 1.68 -0.827 2.51 Iceland
1950s 1.93 -0.879 2.81 Iceland
1960s 1.93 -0.687 2.62 Iceland
1970s 1.93 -0.5422 2.47 Iceland
1980s 1.93 -0.3283 2.26 Iceland
1990s 2.54 1.88 0.6582 Iceland
2000s 2.52 1.25 1.27 Iceland
2010s 2.28 1.49 0.7869 Iceland
2020s 2.31 1.23 1.08 Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher justified political positions score, Iceland or Niger?
Iceland, at 1.36 against 1.36 in Niger as of 2025.
What is the difference in justified political positions score between Iceland and Niger?
0, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Niger?
104 years are reported by both, from 1922 to 2025.
How do Iceland and Niger rank globally for justified political positions score?
Iceland ranks 47th 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.