Equatorial Guinea vs Viet Nam: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Equatorial Guinea
36.67
in 2013
Viet Nam
36.67
in 2013
Equatorial Guinea rank
145th
Viet Nam rank
145th
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 36.67 against 36.67 in Viet Nam, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 145th and Viet Nam ranks 145th of 190 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 36.67 | 26 | 10.67 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 36.67 | 33.33 | 3.33 | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Viet Nam?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 36.67 against 36.67 in Viet Nam as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Viet Nam?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Viet Nam?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Viet Nam rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 145th and Viet Nam ranks 145th 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.