Every national leader, scored across up to eight dimensions of tenure contribution — from governance and economy to politics and crisis response. Compare current form against the legacy they'll leave behind.
Ivars Godmanis served as Prime Minister of Latvia. Ivars Godmanis holds a weak Legacy Rating of 53 out of 100.
The data & sources
The Legacy Rating of 53 is a derived blend of Ivars Godmanis's leadership dimensions, each computed from sourced public inputs — none estimated. Diplomatic Conduct — no country-level data; shown as "No data" rather than inferred. Governing-stability conditions score 64/100, renormalised over WGI, V-Dem and UCDP.
The risk read
For country-risk purposes, Ivars Godmanis's tenure reads as moderately stable: governing-stability conditions score 64/100. Crisis exposure 82/100 (Extreme exposure); response 30/100 (Fared far worse than comparable crises). For the full opportunity, market-pulse and resilience read, see Latvia's nation page.
The strategic read
Governing conditions: stability 64/100. The sharpest institutional vulnerability is Economy (26/100).
Crisis
Exposure
82/ 100
Extreme exposure
Response
30/ 100
Fared far worse than comparable crises
Medium confidence · 2 crisis years in mandate
Worst year (2008) — shock drivers
Economic contraction95
Political-stability decline94
Each is a global percentile: how this year's shock compares to every country-year on record. Disaster shocks are not yet sourced (no open-licensed annual series).
Sourced from 3 mandate-years (2007–2009), 2 of 4 shock components present; damage ranked against 440 comparable crises.
Leadership Radar
Tenure Contribution
Uneven profile — 39-point spread from Vision to Economy.
Country scores are blended with live World Bank data where available. Difficulty reflects the structural challenge of governing this nation — not the leader's individual performance.
Source: World Bank·Method: Unweighted average·✓ Reconstructable
Leadership Archetype
No distinct archetype
Uneven profile — 39-point spread from Vision to Economy. No archetype rule matches that shape. This is a reading of the sourced stats — not a data gap.
SourceDerivedMethodRule-based classificationConfDeterministic✓ ReconstructableⓘArchetypes are derived automatically from the leadership stat profile — not hand-assigned. "No distinct archetype" means no classification rule matched; profile shape is assessed separately from the best-to-worst spread. A leader lacking enough sourced stats reads as "No data". A secondary archetype is added only when a stat scores exceptionally high.
Political Legacy
Legacy Rating
53
Assessment
ContestedDerivedDerived from the published Legacy Rating band — ≥84 Transformational · 72–83 Lasting · 60–71 Mixed · 42–59 Contested · <42 Negative.
Years Served
1
Peak Strengths
No dimension scored 70 or above.
Relative Weaknesses
Economy26
Crisis Response30
Institutional Integrity50
Post-Office Metrics
Macro Tailwind/Headwind Adjustment
Compare this leader
Stack this leader against any other in the NationsHelm database.
One email a week — the predictions that resolved and the scores that moved on the nations and leaders you follow.
Key questions
Who is Ivars Godmanis?
Ivars Godmanis is a former Prime Minister of Latvia, from the Latvian Way.
How is Ivars Godmanis rated on NationsHelm?
Ivars Godmanis holds a weak Legacy Rating of 53 out of 100. It is a derived blend of sourced leadership dimensions — governance, communication, diplomacy and others — never an estimate.
Data coverage:107 Sourced·85 Derived|Scores refreshed: 2026-08-24·snap-20260824-c9f25cd0|Methodology:Reconstructable|Cite:How to cite
Spot an error?
ConfMedium
✓ Reconstructable
ⓘLegacy Rating is the completed-tenure rating derived from sourced leadership dimensions and the recorded conditions of that tenure — on the published scale a score near 60 means the country broadly matched the benchmark trajectory over the mandate. Anything unsourced shows as no data. Full weights on the Methodology page.
Source
World Bank GDP + UCDP deaths (annual + Candidate GED) + WGI stability
ⓘCrisis Exposure measures how severely a leader was tested — a peak-biased aggregate of per-year shock severity (conflict intensity, economic contraction and political-stability decline vs. recent normal) over the mandate. It is context, not a verdict: high exposure is neither good nor bad on its own. Crisis Response measures how the country fared during its genuine crisis years relative to comparable crisis episodes worldwide — country-years hit with the same shock severity. Higher = less national damage than peers at that severity. Leaders who never faced a major shock are marked Untested rather than rewarded. Per country-year, real WB/UCDP/WGI shocks are winsorised and percentile-ranked into a ShockSeverity; Exposure is the peak-biased mandate aggregate. Crisis years (severity ≥ 60) score Response = 100 − damage percentile among comparable-severity crises worldwide, then severity-weighted over the mandate. Untested = no major shock (never rewarded). Absent components are reweighted, never filled.
64
Crisis Response
30
Vision
65
Communication
—
Institutional Integrity
50
Source: World Bank + derived·Method: Contribution·✓ ReconstructableⓘEach dimension measures change under the leader relative to global trends — how the indicator moved over their tenure, net of the world's move over the same window — not the country's absolute level. A score near 60 means performance broadly matched the benchmark trajectory; above = improved the country's standing, below = declined. Governance / Economy / Politics / Institutional Integrity from World Bank WGI, WDI and V-Dem trajectories; Vision from the country's innovation rank (WIPO patents + UNESCO tertiary), former leaders only (patents lag ~3 years); Crisis Response (World Bank + UCDP + WGI, an absolute response-quality scale) and Communication (GDELT) from tenure signals; Diplomacy (Diplomatic Conduct) is active-only. A tenure under six months, or an indicator whose series hasn't reached the term, shows as no data. Full model on the Methodology page.
Stewardship
Inherited-strength lens · separate from the rating
—
Governance
—
Politics
—
Integrity
—
Innovation
65
1 of 4 groups eligible and sourced
Source: World Bank WGI + V-Dem + derived·Method: Stewardship·✓ ReconstructableⓘMeasures whether strong institutions inherited at the start of the tenure were preserved, improved or eroded. It does not reward the leader for inheriting a strong country. A metric qualifies only when the inherited baseline was at least 75 on its normalized scale; the score is the world-net change over the tenure on the single public scale (60 = preserved relative to global movement). Requires two or more eligible sourced groups, the six-month tenure floor and a post-tenure-start observation — otherwise No data, never a zero. Weights mirror the current-form groups (gov 0.17 · pol 0.15 · int 0.08 · vis 0.09), renormalized over what is eligible and sourced.
Strengths & Weaknesses
Top Strengths
Key Weaknesses
Economy26
Economic stewardship, growth, and macro stability
Crisis Response30
How the country fared in its genuine crisis years vs. comparable crisis episodes (higher = less damage than same-severity peers); Untested when no major shock. Test severity is tracked separately as Crisis Exposure
Institutional Integrity50
Perceived transparency and anti-corruption track record
Governance55
ⓘ
Country scores are the unweighted average of scored World Bank indicators — the same model used on the nation's own page. Difficulty reflects structural constraints on governing this nation, independent of the current leader.
—
External conditions during tenure
State management and policy execution capacity
Source: Derived·Method: Ranked by stat value·✓ ReconstructableⓘUp to 5 strengths (dimensions scoring 70+) and 5 weaknesses (scoring 57 or below), ranked from the leadership radar. Dimensions in the 58–69 benchmark band appear in neither column. Descriptions are fixed per dimension and don't vary by country. Dimensions without a sourced signal show as no data. Full model on the Methodology page.