Cameroon vs Equatorial Guinea: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Cameroon
36.67
in 2013
Equatorial Guinea
36.67
in 2013
Cameroon rank
144th
Equatorial Guinea rank
144th

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

  • Cameroon
  • Equatorial Guinea
010203040200520092013

How they compare

Cameroon currently reports 36.67 against 36.67 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.

Across all 9 years both countries report, Equatorial Guinea has been ahead every year.

Cameroon ranks 144th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 144th of 188 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cameroon Equatorial Guinea Difference Ahead
2000s 36.67 36.67 0
2010s 36.67 36.67 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Cameroon or Equatorial Guinea?
Cameroon, at 36.67 against 36.67 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea?
0, with Cameroon ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Cameroon ranks 144th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 144th 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.