Kuwait vs Zambia: Justified Political Positions Score

Kuwait
1.75
in 2025
Zambia
1.77
in 2025
Kuwait rank
31st
Zambia rank
30th

Justified Political Positions Score over time

  • Kuwait
  • Zambia
-1012190019622025

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 1.77 against 1.75 in Kuwait, a difference of 0.02.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 115 shared years of data; in 1911 it was Kuwait ahead.

Kuwait ranks 31st and Zambia ranks 30th of 175 countries.

Across the 12 decades both report, Kuwait averaged higher in 11 and Zambia in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Kuwait Zambia Difference Ahead
1910s -0.1277 -0.793 0.6653 Kuwait
1920s -0.117 -0.793 0.676 Kuwait
1930s -0.0247 -0.793 0.7683 Kuwait
1940s 0.405 -0.793 1.2 Kuwait
1950s 0.405 -0.793 1.2 Kuwait
1960s 1.24 0.0098 1.23 Kuwait
1970s 1.13 0.7198 0.413 Kuwait
1980s 1.11 0.73 0.3806 Kuwait
1990s 0.9206 1.11 0.1866 Zambia
2000s 1.01 0.9175 0.0883 Kuwait
2010s 1.37 0.8355 0.5307 Kuwait
2020s 1.4 1.32 0.076 Kuwait

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher justified political positions score, Kuwait or Zambia?
Zambia, at 1.77 against 1.75 in Kuwait as of 2025.
What is the difference in justified political positions score between Kuwait and Zambia?
0.02, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kuwait and Zambia?
115 years are reported by both, from 1911 to 2025.
How do Kuwait and Zambia rank globally for justified political positions score?
Kuwait ranks 31st and Zambia ranks 30th 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.