Countries by SPI Pillar 1: Data Use
Albania and 68 other countries score a perfect 100 on the data use pillar, measuring how effectively their statistical systems serve decision-makers. North Korea and Equatorial Guinea score 10, the lowest possible. This 900% spread across 216 countries reveals stark differences in how governments, legislators, and civil society access and use data.
Ranking 2024
Analysis
The data use pillar measures the demand side of a country's statistical system—how effectively statistical information flows to and is used by five key constituencies: the legislature, executive branch, civil society, academia, and international organizations. Scored from 0 to 100, this composite indicator captures whether data reaches decision-makers and influences policy. Countries scoring high maintain statistical systems that actively serve users; low-scoring countries have data that exists but isn't effectively distributed or used. All 216 countries reported 2024 data, with an average score of 73.26 and a standard deviation of 23.9.
The top tier (100 points) contains a mix of wealthy developed nations and reform-minded emerging economies. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, and Germany score perfect marks alongside Albania, Costa Rica, and Ecuador. A second tier at 90 points includes Rwanda, Pakistan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Striking patterns emerge in the middle ranges. Australia scores 80, as does Bangladesh and Turkey. This clustering suggests that statistical modernization isn't purely a function of wealth. Several Sub-Saharan nations score 70: Ghana, Uganda, and Sierra Leone sit alongside developed economies at that level. By contrast, the bottom scores concentrate in countries with documented governance challenges: North Korea (10), Equatorial Guinea (10), Eritrea (16.6), South Sudan (20), and Libya (20).
A few countries stand out. Rwanda scores 90 despite its size and development level, suggesting aggressive recent investment in data infrastructure and dissemination. Brazil ranks lower at 83.4, despite being a regional power with substantial statistical capacity. Turkey scores 50, placing it alongside Papua New Guinea and Burundi. Venezuela scores 60, suggesting some data flow despite political turbulence. The data suggests that data systems can deteriorate quickly under certain conditions (volatility averages 8.1% year-over-year), meaning a country's score can shift substantially within a year or two.
This score measures institutional design and data availability, not accuracy or relevance of the data itself. A country scoring 100 may publish statistical reports that no one reads or that contain errors. The metric assumes that providing data to legislatures, executives, and civil society is beneficial, but doesn't measure whether that data actually changes policy or improves outcomes. Different countries may define "data use" differently based on their governance structures. Autocratic systems may score low not because data is unavailable but because decision-makers don't rely on public data in policy formation. Additionally, recent scores (2024) reflect pandemic recovery effects, and some countries may have inflated scores during post-COVID institutional reforms.
Methodology
The Statistical Performance Indicators (SPI) data use pillar is developed by the World Bank and measures how effectively countries disseminate and use statistical information. The composite 0-100 score reflects whether data reaches five user constituencies: the legislature, executive branch, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and international bodies. Each dimension has associated sub-indicators measuring specific aspects of data availability and usage. The metric is updated regularly, with 2024 data covering all 216 countries. The mean score is 73.26 with a standard deviation of 23.9, indicating substantial variation globally. Year-over-year changes average 8.1%, showing scores can shift meaningfully as countries reform or reduce their statistical institutions. Perfect 100 scores indicate robust, well-documented data systems serving multiple constituencies; scores below 50 suggest data dissemination gaps or institutional weaknesses in statistical use.