Austria vs United Arab Emirates: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Austria
53.33
in 2013
United Arab Emirates
53.33
in 2013
Austria rank
83rd
United Arab Emirates rank
83rd
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Austria
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Austria currently reports 53.33 against 53.33 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Austria ahead.
Austria ranks 83rd and United Arab Emirates ranks 83rd of 190 countries.
Austria has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Austria | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 53.33 | 40 | 13.33 | Austria |
| 2010s | 53.33 | 43.33 | 10 | Austria |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Austria or United Arab Emirates?
- Austria, at 53.33 against 53.33 in United Arab Emirates as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Austria and United Arab Emirates?
- 0, with Austria ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Austria and United Arab Emirates?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Austria and United Arab Emirates rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Austria ranks 83rd and United Arab Emirates ranks 83rd of 190 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
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.