Kazakhstan vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Kazakhstan
63.33
in 2013
Saint Kitts and Nevis
63.33
in 2013
Kazakhstan rank
34th
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
34th
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Kazakhstan
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
Kazakhstan currently reports 63.33 against 63.33 in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Saint Kitts and Nevis has been ahead every year.
Kazakhstan ranks 34th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 34th of 191 countries.
Saint Kitts and Nevis has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kazakhstan | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 40 | 63.33 | 23.33 | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| 2010s | 58.33 | 63.33 | 5 | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Kazakhstan or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- Kazakhstan, at 63.33 against 63.33 in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Kazakhstan and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0, with Kazakhstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Kazakhstan and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Kazakhstan ranks 34th and Saint Kitts and Nevis 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.