Argentina vs Belarus: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Argentina
50
in 2013
Belarus
50
in 2013
Argentina rank
103rd
Belarus rank
103rd

Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time

  • Argentina
  • Belarus
01020304050200520092013

How they compare

Argentina currently reports 50 against 50 in Belarus, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Argentina ahead.

Argentina ranks 103rd and Belarus ranks 103rd of 188 countries.

Argentina has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Argentina Belarus Difference Ahead
2000s 50 42 8 Argentina
2010s 50 48.33 1.67 Argentina

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Argentina or Belarus?
Argentina, at 50 against 50 in Belarus as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Argentina and Belarus?
0, with Argentina ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Belarus?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Argentina and Belarus rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Argentina ranks 103rd and Belarus ranks 103rd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,710 data points, 2005–2013
Last refreshed

The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.