Bosnia and Herzegovina vs North Macedonia: Physical Integrity Rights Score
Physical Integrity Rights Score over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- North Macedonia
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 1.53 against 1.49 in North Macedonia, a difference of 0.04.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 28 shared years of data; in 1992 it was North Macedonia ahead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 69th and North Macedonia ranks 70th of 193 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Bosnia and Herzegovina averaged higher in 2 and North Macedonia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | North Macedonia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | -1.3 | 0.8269 | 2.12 | North Macedonia |
| 2000s | 0.9267 | 0.6194 | 0.3073 | Bosnia and Herzegovina |
| 2010s | 1.42 | 1.15 | 0.278 | Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher physical integrity rights score, Bosnia and Herzegovina or North Macedonia?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 1.53 against 1.49 in North Macedonia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in physical integrity rights score between Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia?
- 0.04, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia?
- 28 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2019.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia rank globally for physical integrity rights score?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 69th and North Macedonia ranks 70th of 193 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Fariss et al. (2020) β 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
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.