Bolivia (Plurinational State of) vs Yemen: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
40
in 2013
Yemen
40
in 2013
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) rank
136th
Yemen rank
136th
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
- Yemen
How they compare
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) currently reports 40 against 40 in Yemen, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Yemen has been ahead every year.
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) ranks 136th and Yemen ranks 136th of 190 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bolivia (Plurinational State of) | Yemen | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 40 | 40 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 40 | 40 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Bolivia (Plurinational State of) or Yemen?
- Bolivia (Plurinational State of), at 40 against 40 in Yemen as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Yemen?
- 0, with Bolivia (Plurinational State of) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Yemen?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Yemen rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Bolivia (Plurinational State of) ranks 136th and Yemen ranks 136th 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.