Where does Mali stand on Experimentation?
This page reads one capability from the published data and is recomputed with every release. It separates what Mali does, which makes the score, from what the country has, which sits beside the score, and places the country among the 10 countries at the nearest income. The text describes the data and recommends no policy.
What does the score rest on?
No score in this release. Observed indicators: 1, under the minimum the model needs to form a mean.
The Experimentation score is the equal-weight mean of the positions of one indicators on a 0 to 100 scale that every country sets together. Confidence measures the evidence behind the score and sits beside it as a second number.
The Experimentation score tracks GDP per capita at r = 0.72 across 120 countries.
Observed indicators
- Position on the scaleno valuePeer median0.17 peers with a value
Resident patent applications
no value
The latest value is from 1981, more than 15 years old, so it does not count toward the score.
- Position on the scaleno valuePeer median0.69 peers with a value
Resident trademark applications
no value
- Position on the scaleno valuePeer median0.84 peers with a value
Resident industrial design applications
no value
- Position on the scale0.1Peer median2.010 peers with a value
New public software repositories
7,442 per million people
GitHub Innovation Graph (data/repositories.csv), 2026
- Position on the scaleno valuePeer medianno value0 peers with a value
Early-stage entrepreneurial activity
no value
- Position on the scaleno valuePeer medianno value0 peers with a value
Tolerance of entrepreneurial failure
no value
No comparable source yet, so lowering confidence: venture deals, firms through regulatory sandboxes, and university spinouts.
No condition is published beside Experimentation in this release, so the page shows only the indicators that make the score.
Where does Mali sit among its peers?
The peers are the 10 countries at the nearest income. Income is GDP per capita at purchasing power parity, in constant international dollars, for the latest year the World Bank publishes, and distance is measured on a log scale, where half and double are equally far. No country is picked by hand, and the set changes when the data does.
In this release peer income runs from US$ 2,625 to US$ 3,821, and Mali has US$ 2,993 (2025).
One of the 10 peers have no score on this capability and are left out of the median.
- Solid ring: usable or good evidence
- Broken ring: thin evidence, opening further as confidence falls
- The shaded band is the middle half of the set and the line inside it is the median.
- Rwanda: 4.0
- Lesotho: 2.7
- Gambia: 1.2
- Uganda: 1.2
- Zambia: 1.0
- Haiti: 0.9
- Ethiopia: 0.7
- Guinea-Bissau: 0.7
- Tanzania: 0.6
- UgandaUS$ 2,980, 20251.2
- EthiopiaUS$ 3,095, 20250.7
- GambiaUS$ 3,167, 20251.2
- Guinea-BissauUS$ 2,814, 20250.7
- LesothoUS$ 2,721, 20252.7
- HaitiUS$ 2,678, 20250.9
- Burkina FasoUS$ 2,625, 2025not scored
- RwandaUS$ 3,559, 20254.0
- ZambiaUS$ 3,742, 20251.0
- TanzaniaUS$ 3,821, 20250.6
What separates Mali from its peers?
Indicators placed below the peer median on the scale: new public software repositories.
Each sentence compares one position with one median. Why a difference exists, and what to do about it, lie outside this data.
What this reading does not show
- A national score is a coarse proxy. A capability forms in firms, cities, networks and groups below the level of the country, and a national average only describes the conditions they work in.
- Peers share income and nothing else. Size, production structure, region and political regime are outside the rule, and a set of 10 countries can change with any revision to GDP.
- An r reads the whole set at once and says nothing about one country alone. A correlation does not show a cause either.
- The known artefacts that bear on Experimentation, described on the limits page: artefact A1.
- And the ones every score in the benchmark carries: artefact A8, artefact A10.