Voice and Accountability in Tunisia
Tunisia: Voice and Accountability was 0.1158 standard error in 2011. ▼ Falling
Voice and Accountability in Tunisia, 1996–2011
Source: World Bank Institute. Measured in standard error.
Analysis
Tunisia recorded 0.1158 standard error for voice and accountability in 2011.
That represents a change of up 3.1% on the previous year and down 45.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, voice and accountability in Tunisia peaked at 0.2318 standard error in 1998 and was at its lowest, 0.1123 standard error, in 2010.
Tunisia ranks 31st of 53 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 13 years of available data.
Voice and Accountability in Tunisia, year by year
| Year | standard error | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.2211 standard error | — |
| 1998 | 0.2318 standard error | +4.8% |
| 2000 | 0.2116 standard error | -8.7% |
| 2002 | 0.1631 standard error | -22.9% |
| 2003 | 0.1583 standard error | -3.0% |
| 2004 | 0.1429 standard error | -9.7% |
| 2005 | 0.1465 standard error | +2.6% |
| 2006 | 0.115 standard error | -21.5% |
| 2007 | 0.117 standard error | +1.7% |
| 2008 | 0.1127 standard error | -3.6% |
| 2009 | 0.1137 standard error | +0.8% |
| 2010 | 0.1123 standard error | -1.2% |
| 2011 | 0.1158 standard error | +3.1% |
Tunisia compared with similar countries
- Tunisia's 0.1158 standard error is below the median for lower middle income countries, which is 0.1161 standard error, 100% of the median. (24 countries reporting)
- Tunisia's 0.1158 standard error is above the median for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan, which is 0.1147 standard error, 1.0× the median. (6 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.2265 standard error | 0.2211 standard error | 0.2318 standard error | 2 |
| 2000s | 0.1423 standard error | 0.1127 standard error | 0.2116 standard error | 9 |
| 2010s | 0.1141 standard error | 0.1123 standard error | 0.1158 standard error | 2 |
Countries ranked near Tunisia
More reference data data for Tunisia
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.148 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.86 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 3.38 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1317 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 3.38 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.4961 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.1849 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 8.07 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 14.52 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.7169 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is voice and accountability in Tunisia?
- Voice and accountability in Tunisia was 0.1158 standard error in 2011, according to World Bank Institute.
- What is the highest voice and accountability recorded in Tunisia?
- The highest recorded value was 0.2318 standard error in 1998.
- What is the lowest voice and accountability recorded in Tunisia?
- The lowest recorded value was 0.1123 standard error in 2010.
- How does Tunisia rank for voice and accountability?
- Tunisia ranks 31st out of 53 countries with data for 2011.
- Is voice and accountability rising or falling in Tunisia?
- Over the last ten years it is down 45.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Tunisia data come from?
- The figures come from World Bank Institute, published as part of Voice and Accountability (standard error). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 13 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
See definition GV.VOIC.AC.ES. Inherent to all Governance Indicators is a margin of error, which might vary from country to country, normally attributable to two factors: (i) cross-country differences in the number of sources in which a country appears, and (ii) differences in the precision of the sources in which each country appears.