Austria vs Malta: Physical Integrity Rights Score

Austria
2.25
in 2019
Malta
2.41
in 2019
Austria rank
44th
Malta rank
41st

Physical Integrity Rights Score over time

  • Austria
  • Malta
0.511.522.5194619822019

How they compare

Malta currently reports 2.41 against 2.25 in Austria, a difference of 0.16.

That makes Malta's figure about 1.1 times Austria's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 56 shared years of data; in 1964 it was Malta ahead.

Austria ranks 44th and Malta ranks 41st of 193 countries.

Malta has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Austria Malta Difference Ahead
1960s 0.6753 1.58 0.9096 Malta
1970s 1.52 2.1 0.5867 Malta
1980s 1.92 2 0.0778 Malta
1990s 1.73 2.5 0.7668 Malta
2000s 1.62 2.53 0.9092 Malta
2010s 2.28 2.63 0.3435 Malta

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher physical integrity rights score, Austria or Malta?
Malta, at 2.41 against 2.25 in Austria as of 2019.
What is the difference in physical integrity rights score between Austria and Malta?
0.16, with Malta ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Austria and Malta?
56 years are reported by both, from 1964 to 2019.
How do Austria and Malta rank globally for physical integrity rights score?
Austria ranks 44th and Malta ranks 41st of 193 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Fariss et al. (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Physical Integrity Rights Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Physical Integrity Rights Score
Source
Fariss et al. (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
193 places, 11,139 data points, 1946–2019
Last refreshed

The score captures the extent to which citizens are protected from government killings, torture, political imprisonments, extrajudicial executions, mass killings and disappearances. Large positive scores mean abuses are rare relative to other countries and years, large negative scores that abuses are relatively widespread.