Bhutan vs China: Statistical performance indicators (SPI): Pillar 1 data use score
Statistical performance indicators (SPI): Pillar 1 data use score over time
- Bhutan
- China
How they compare
China currently reports 73.4 scale 0-100 against 70 scale 0-100 in Bhutan, a difference of 3.4 scale 0-100.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2004 it was China ahead.
Bhutan ranks 126th and China ranks 125th of 215 countries.
China has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bhutan | China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 20 scale 0-100 | 40 scale 0-100 | 20 scale 0-100 | China |
| 2010s | 60 scale 0-100 | 65.36 scale 0-100 | 5.36 scale 0-100 | China |
| 2020s | 70 scale 0-100 | 77.4 scale 0-100 | 7.4 scale 0-100 | China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 1 data use score, Bhutan or China?
- China, at 73.4 scale 0-100 against 70 scale 0-100 in Bhutan as of 2024.
- What is the difference in statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 1 data use score between Bhutan and China?
- 3.4 scale 0-100, with China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and China?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2024.
- How do Bhutan and China rank globally for statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 1 data use score?
- Bhutan ranks 126th and China ranks 125th of 215 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statistical Performance Indicators, World Bank (WB), published as Statistical performance indicators (SPI): Pillar 1 data use score (scale 0-100). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The data use overall score is a composite score measuring the demand side of the statistical system. The data use pillar is segmented by five types of users: (i) the legislature, (ii) the executive branch, (iii) civil society (including sub-national actors), (iv) academia and (v) international bodies. Each dimension would have associated indicators to measure performance. A mature system would score well across all dimensions whereas a less mature one would have weaker scores along certain dimensions. The gaps would give insights into prioritization among user groups and help answer questions as to why the existing services are not resulting in higher use of national statistics in a particular segment. Currently, the SPI only features indicators for one of the five dimensions of data use, which is data use by international organizations. Indicators on whether statistical systems are providing useful data to their national governments (legislature and executive branches), to civil society, and to academia are absent. Thus the dashboard does not yet assess if national statistical systems are meeting the data needs of a large swathe of users.