Greece vs Latvia: Statistical performance: Pillar 5 data infrastructure score
Statistical performance: Pillar 5 data infrastructure score over time
- Greece
- Latvia
How they compare
Greece currently reports 85 scale 0-100 against 85 scale 0-100 in Latvia, a difference of 0 scale 0-100.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.
Greece ranks 24th and Latvia ranks 24th of 192 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Greece | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 96.25 scale 0-100 | 100 scale 0-100 | 3.75 scale 0-100 | Latvia |
| 2020s | 97 scale 0-100 | 97 scale 0-100 | 0 scale 0-100 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 5 data, Greece or Latvia?
- Greece, at 85 scale 0-100 against 85 scale 0-100 in Latvia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 5 data between Greece and Latvia?
- 0 scale 0-100, with Greece ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Greece and Latvia?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2016 to 2024.
- How do Greece and Latvia rank globally for statistical performance indicators (spi): pillar 5 data?
- Greece ranks 24th and Latvia ranks 24th of 192 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statistical Performance Indicators, World Bank (WB), published as Statistical performance indicators (SPI): Pillar 5 data infrastructure 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 infrastructure pillar overall score measures the hard and soft infrastructure segments, itemizing essential cross cutting requirements for an effective statistical system. The segments are: (i) legislation and governance covering the existence of laws and a functioning institutional framework for the statistical system; (ii) standards and methods addressing compliance with recognized frameworks and concepts; (iii) skills including level of skills within the statistical system and among users (statistical literacy); (iv) partnerships reflecting the need for the statistical system to be inclusive and coherent; and (v) finance mobilized both domestically and from donors.