Cambodia vs Grenada: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Cambodia
63.33
in 2013
Grenada
63.33
in 2013
Cambodia rank
34th
Grenada rank
34th

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

  • Cambodia
  • Grenada
0204060200520092013

How they compare

Cambodia currently reports 63.33 against 63.33 in Grenada, a difference of 0.

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

Cambodia ranks 34th and Grenada ranks 34th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Cambodia Grenada Difference Ahead
2000s 66.67 63.33 3.33 Cambodia
2010s 65.83 63.33 2.5 Cambodia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Cambodia or Grenada?
Cambodia, at 63.33 against 63.33 in Grenada as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Cambodia and Grenada?
0, with Cambodia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and Grenada?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Cambodia and Grenada rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Cambodia ranks 34th and Grenada ranks 34th 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.