Denmark vs New Zealand: Physical Integrity Rights Score
Physical Integrity Rights Score over time
- Denmark
- New Zealand
How they compare
New Zealand currently reports 3.72 against 3.37 in Denmark, a difference of 0.35.
That makes New Zealand's figure about 1.1 times Denmark's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 74 shared years of data; in 1946 it was New Zealand ahead.
Denmark ranks 16th and New Zealand ranks 13th of 193 countries.
New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 8 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | New Zealand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1940s | 0.9684 | 2.13 | 1.16 | New Zealand |
| 1950s | 1.15 | 2.84 | 1.69 | New Zealand |
| 1960s | 1.7 | 3.21 | 1.51 | New Zealand |
| 1970s | 2.53 | 3.4 | 0.8735 | New Zealand |
| 1980s | 3.05 | 3.92 | 0.872 | New Zealand |
| 1990s | 2.91 | 4 | 1.09 | New Zealand |
| 2000s | 2.9 | 3.21 | 0.3156 | New Zealand |
| 2010s | 3.21 | 3.64 | 0.4258 | New Zealand |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher physical integrity rights score, Denmark or New Zealand?
- New Zealand, at 3.72 against 3.37 in Denmark as of 2019.
- What is the difference in physical integrity rights score between Denmark and New Zealand?
- 0.35, with New Zealand ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and New Zealand?
- 74 years are reported by both, from 1946 to 2019.
- How do Denmark and New Zealand rank globally for physical integrity rights score?
- Denmark ranks 16th and New Zealand ranks 13th 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.