Iceland vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Iceland
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
How they compare
Iceland currently reports 63.33 against 63.33 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.
Iceland ranks 34th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 34th of 191 countries.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iceland | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 53.33 | 63.33 | 10 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
| 2010s | 57.5 | 63.33 | 5.83 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Iceland or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- Iceland, at 63.33 against 63.33 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Iceland and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 0, with Iceland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Iceland and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Iceland ranks 34th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 34th 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.