Rwanda vs South Africa: Physical Integrity Rights Score
Rwanda
-0.6222
in 2019
South Africa
-0.5153
in 2019
Rwanda rank
156th
South Africa rank
153rd
Physical Integrity Rights Score over time
- Rwanda
- South Africa
How they compare
South Africa currently reports -0.5153 against -0.6222 in Rwanda, a difference of 0.1069.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 58 shared years of data; in 1962 it was South Africa ahead.
Rwanda ranks 156th and South Africa ranks 153rd of 193 countries.
Across the 6 decades both report, Rwanda averaged higher in 3 and South Africa in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Rwanda | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | -1.78 | -1.37 | 0.4078 | South Africa |
| 1970s | -0.3537 | -1.51 | 1.16 | Rwanda |
| 1980s | 0.7321 | -1.79 | 2.52 | Rwanda |
| 1990s | -2.22 | -1.35 | 0.8668 | South Africa |
| 2000s | -0.7039 | -0.4413 | 0.2626 | South Africa |
| 2010s | -0.4052 | -0.5695 | 0.1642 | Rwanda |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher physical integrity rights score, Rwanda or South Africa?
- South Africa, at -0.5153 against -0.6222 in Rwanda as of 2019.
- What is the difference in physical integrity rights score between Rwanda and South Africa?
- 0.1069, with South Africa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and South Africa?
- 58 years are reported by both, from 1962 to 2019.
- How do Rwanda and South Africa rank globally for physical integrity rights score?
- Rwanda ranks 156th and South Africa ranks 153rd 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.