Eswatini vs Philippines: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Eswatini
43.33
in 2013
Philippines
43.33
in 2013
Eswatini rank
126th
Philippines rank
126th

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

  • Eswatini
  • Philippines
010203040200520092013

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 43.33 against 43.33 in Philippines, a difference of 0.

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

Eswatini ranks 126th and Philippines ranks 126th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Philippines Difference Ahead
2000s 20 43.33 23.33 Philippines
2010s 43.33 43.33 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Eswatini or Philippines?
Eswatini, at 43.33 against 43.33 in Philippines as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Eswatini and Philippines?
0, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Philippines?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Eswatini and Philippines rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Eswatini ranks 126th and Philippines ranks 126th 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.