Central Asia vs Guinea-Bissau: SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights
SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights over time
- Central Asia
- Guinea-Bissau
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 4.5 against 3.62 in Central Asia, a difference of 0.88.
That makes Guinea-Bissau's figure about 1.2 times Central Asia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.
Central Asia ranks 37th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 37th of 83 groups.
Central Asia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Central Asia | Guinea-Bissau | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 3.57 | 2.72 | 0.85 | Central Asia |
| 2020s | 3.81 | 3.33 | 0.48 | Central Asia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights, Central Asia or Guinea-Bissau?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 4.5 against 3.62 in Central Asia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights between Central Asia and Guinea-Bissau?
- 0.88, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Central Asia and Guinea-Bissau?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do Central Asia and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights?
- Central Asia ranks 37th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 37th of 83 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The indicator measures the level of national compliance with fundamental rights at work (freedom of association and collective bargaining, FACB) for all ILO member states based on six international ILO supervisory body textual sources and also on national legislation. It is based on the coding of textual sources against a list of evaluation criteria and then converting the coding into indicators. The indicator has a range from 0 to 10, with 0 being the best possible score (indicating higher levels of compliance with FACB rights) and 10 the worst (indicating lower levels of compliance with FACB rights). This indicator is not intended as a tool to compare compliance among ILO member States. It should specifically be noted that reporting obligations of an ILO member State to the ILO's supervisory system and thus ILO textual sources are different for ratifying and non‐ratifying ILO member States.