Chile vs Guam: Voice and Accountability - Governance estimate (approx. -2.5 to +2.5)
Voice and Accountability - Governance estimate (approx. -2.5 to +2.5) over time
- Chile
- Guam
How they compare
Guam currently reports 1.07 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 against 1.04 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 in Chile, a difference of 0.03 approx. -2.5 to +2.5.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 21 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Chile ahead.
Chile ranks 38th and Guam ranks 35th of 208 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 2 and Guam in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chile | Guam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.23 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.7667 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.4632 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | Chile |
| 2010s | 1.09 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.881 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.2124 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | Chile |
| 2020s | 1.02 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 1.08 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.053 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | Guam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher voice and accountability - governance estimate, Chile or Guam?
- Guam, at 1.07 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 against 1.04 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 in Chile as of 2024.
- What is the difference in voice and accountability - governance estimate between Chile and Guam?
- 0.03 approx. -2.5 to +2.5, with Guam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Guam?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2024.
- How do Chile and Guam rank globally for voice and accountability - governance estimate?
- Chile ranks 38th and Guam ranks 35th of 208 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Revised Methodology for Measuring Governance Using Perception Data., World Bank Group (WBG), published as Voice and Accountability - Governance estimate (approx. -2.5 to +2.5). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Voice and Accountability (VA) captures perceptions of the extent to which citizens can participate in selecting their government including electoral integrity, and of accountability mechanisms for citizens—reflected in the ability to access information, governmental oversight bodies, and a robust traditional/digital media landscape. Governance estimate from the aggregation model, in units of a standard normal distribution, i.e. ranging from approximately -2.5 to 2.5. Larger values correspond to better governance. The (country-series-time) metadata include the (a) number of sources, and (b) standard error. The number of sources indicates the number of underlying data sources on which the governance estimate is based. The standard error indicates the precision of the governance estimate. Larger values indicate less precise estimates. A 90% confidence interval for the governance estimate is given by the estimate +/- 1.64 times the standard error.