New Caledonia vs Poland: Voice and Accountability - Governance estimate
Voice and Accountability - Governance estimate over time
- New Caledonia
- Poland
How they compare
Poland currently reports 0.7522 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 against 0.7309 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 in New Caledonia, a difference of 0.0213 approx. -2.5 to +2.5.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 7 shared years of data; in 2018 it was Poland ahead.
New Caledonia ranks 57th and Poland ranks 56th of 206 countries.
New Caledonia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Caledonia | Poland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 0.774 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.5238 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.2501 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | New Caledonia |
| 2020s | 0.8904 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.4789 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | 0.4115 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 | New Caledonia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher voice and accountability - governance estimate, New Caledonia or Poland?
- Poland, at 0.7522 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 against 0.7309 approx. -2.5 to +2.5 in New Caledonia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in voice and accountability - governance estimate between New Caledonia and Poland?
- 0.0213 approx. -2.5 to +2.5, with Poland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Caledonia and Poland?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2018 to 2024.
- How do New Caledonia and Poland rank globally for voice and accountability - governance estimate?
- New Caledonia ranks 57th and Poland ranks 56th of 206 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.