Australia vs Uruguay: Distribution of Democracy Index

Australia
20
in 2018
Uruguay
20
in 2018
Australia rank
1st
Uruguay rank
1st

Distribution of Democracy Index over time

  • Australia
  • Uruguay
05101520183019242018

How they compare

Australia currently reports 20 against 20 in Uruguay, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 118 shared years of data; in 1901 it was Australia ahead.

Australia ranks 1st and Uruguay ranks 1st of 167 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 12 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Uruguay Difference Ahead
1900s 20 9 11 Australia
1910s 20 12.1 7.9 Australia
1920s 20 13 7 Australia
1930s 20 11.2 8.8 Australia
1940s 20 10 10 Australia
1950s 20 16.4 3.6 Australia
1960s 20 18 2 Australia
1970s 20 5.4 14.6 Australia
1980s 20 11.1 8.9 Australia
1990s 20 20 0
2000s 20 20 0
2010s 20 20 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher distribution of democracy index, Australia or Uruguay?
Australia, at 20 against 20 in Uruguay as of 2018.
What is the difference in distribution of democracy index between Australia and Uruguay?
0, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Uruguay?
118 years are reported by both, from 1901 to 2018.
How do Australia and Uruguay rank globally for distribution of democracy index?
Australia ranks 1st and Uruguay ranks 1st of 167 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Distribution of Democracy Index. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Distribution of Democracy Index
Source
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
168 places, 18,366 data points, 1800–2018
Last refreshed

It combines information on the extent to which open, multi-party, and competitive elections choose a chief executive who faces comprehensive institutional constraints, and political participation is competitive. It ranges from 0 to 20 (fully democratic).