Australia vs Bosnia and Herzegovina: Openness of Executive Recruitment Score
Openness of Executive Recruitment Score over time
- Australia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
How they compare
Australia currently reports 4 against 4 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1921 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 1st and Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 1st of 167 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 8 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1920s | 4 | 1.89 | 2.11 | Australia |
| 1930s | 4 | 1.5 | 2.5 | Australia |
| 1940s | 4 | 3.67 | 0.3333 | Australia |
| 1950s | 4 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1960s | 4 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1970s | 4 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1980s | 4 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1990s | 4 | 4 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher openness of executive recruitment score, Australia or Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- Australia, at 4 against 4 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as of 2018.
- What is the difference in openness of executive recruitment score between Australia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- 0, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- 63 years are reported by both, from 1921 to 1991.
- How do Australia and Bosnia and Herzegovina rank globally for openness of executive recruitment score?
- Australia ranks 1st and Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 1st of 167 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Openness of Executive Recruitment Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Indicates the extent to which recruitment for the executive is open. It ranges from executive power being seized (score of 0), over hereditary succession (score of 1), dual hereditary-open arrangements with the chief minister designated (score of 2), and dual hereditary-open arrangements with the chief minister being elected (score of 3), to executive recruitment being open (score of 4).