Democratic Republic of Congo vs Libya: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Democratic Republic of Congo
- Libya
How they compare
Democratic Republic of Congo currently reports 26.67 against 26.67 in Libya, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Democratic Republic of Congo ahead.
Democratic Republic of Congo ranks 177th and Libya ranks 177th of 191 countries.
Democratic Republic of Congo has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Democratic Republic of Congo | Libya | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 23.33 | 13.33 | 10 | Democratic Republic of Congo |
| 2010s | 24.17 | 20 | 4.17 | Democratic Republic of Congo |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Democratic Republic of Congo or Libya?
- Democratic Republic of Congo, at 26.67 against 26.67 in Libya as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Democratic Republic of Congo and Libya?
- 0, with Democratic Republic of Congo ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Democratic Republic of Congo and Libya?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Democratic Republic of Congo and Libya rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Democratic Republic of Congo ranks 177th and Libya ranks 177th of 191 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.