Libya vs Thailand: Openness of Executive Recruitment Score

Libya
0
in 2010
Thailand
0
in 2018
Libya rank
150th
Thailand rank
150th

Openness of Executive Recruitment Score over time

  • Libya
  • Thailand
01234180019092018

How they compare

Libya currently reports 0 against 0 in Thailand, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 57 shared years of data; in 1951 it was Thailand ahead.

Libya ranks 150th and Thailand ranks 150th of 166 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Libya averaged higher in 1 and Thailand in 6.

Head to head by decade

Decade Libya Thailand Difference Ahead
1950s 2 3.11 1.11 Thailand
1960s 1.78 0.4444 1.33 Libya
1970s 0 2.5 2.5 Thailand
1980s 0 4 4 Thailand
1990s 0 3.6 3.6 Thailand
2000s 0 4 4 Thailand
2010s 0 4 4 Thailand

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher openness of executive recruitment score, Libya or Thailand?
Libya, at 0 against 0 in Thailand as of 2010.
What is the difference in openness of executive recruitment score between Libya and Thailand?
0, with Libya ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and Thailand?
57 years are reported by both, from 1951 to 2010.
How do Libya and Thailand rank globally for openness of executive recruitment score?
Libya ranks 150th and Thailand ranks 150th of 166 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

Indicator
Openness of Executive Recruitment Score
Source
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
167 places, 17,813 data points, 1789–2020
Last refreshed

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).