Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Latvia: Openness of Executive Recruitment Score
Bosnia and Herzegovina
4
in 1991
Latvia
4
in 2018
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
1st
Latvia rank
1st
Openness of Executive Recruitment Score over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Latvia
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 4 against 4 in Latvia, a difference of 0.
Across all 63 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 1st and Latvia ranks 1st of 167 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 8 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1920s | 1.89 | 4 | 2.11 | Latvia |
| 1930s | 1.5 | 4 | 2.5 | Latvia |
| 1940s | 3.67 | 4 | 0.3333 | Latvia |
| 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, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Latvia?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 4 against 4 in Latvia as of 1991.
- What is the difference in openness of executive recruitment score between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Latvia?
- 0, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Latvia?
- 63 years are reported by both, from 1921 to 1991.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Latvia rank globally for openness of executive recruitment score?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 1st and Latvia 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).