Canada vs Mauritius: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Canada
86.67
in 2013
Mauritius
83.33
in 2013
Canada rank
5th
Mauritius rank
7th

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

  • Canada
  • Mauritius
020406080200520092013

How they compare

Canada currently reports 86.67 against 83.33 in Mauritius, a difference of 3.34.

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

Canada ranks 5th and Mauritius ranks 7th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Canada Mauritius Difference Ahead
2000s 83.33 83.33 0
2010s 85 83.33 1.67 Canada

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Canada or Mauritius?
Canada, at 86.67 against 83.33 in Mauritius as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Canada and Mauritius?
3.34, with Canada ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Canada and Mauritius?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Canada and Mauritius rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Canada ranks 5th and Mauritius ranks 7th 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.