Iran, Islamic Republic of vs Viet Nam: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Iran, Islamic Republic of
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Iran, Islamic Republic of currently reports 36.67 against 36.67 in Viet Nam, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Iran, Islamic Republic of ahead.
Iran, Islamic Republic of ranks 145th and Viet Nam ranks 145th of 190 countries.
Iran, Islamic Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iran, Islamic Republic of | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 30 | 26 | 4 | Iran, Islamic Republic of |
| 2010s | 33.33 | 33.33 | 0 | Iran, Islamic Republic of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Iran, Islamic Republic of or Viet Nam?
- Iran, Islamic Republic of, 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 Iran, Islamic Republic of and Viet Nam?
- 0, with Iran, Islamic Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iran, Islamic Republic of and Viet Nam?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Iran, Islamic Republic of and Viet Nam rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 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.