South Korea vs Rwanda: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

South Korea
66.67
in 2013
Rwanda
66.67
in 2013
South Korea rank
23rd
Rwanda rank
23rd

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

  • South Korea
  • Rwanda
0204060200520092013

How they compare

South Korea currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Rwanda, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was South Korea ahead.

South Korea ranks 23rd and Rwanda ranks 23rd of 188 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, South Korea averaged higher in 1 and Rwanda in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade South Korea Rwanda Difference Ahead
2000s 60 34 26 South Korea
2010s 63.33 64.17 0.8333 Rwanda

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, South Korea or Rwanda?
South Korea, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Rwanda as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between South Korea and Rwanda?
0, with South Korea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for South Korea and Rwanda?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do South Korea and Rwanda rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
South Korea ranks 23rd and Rwanda ranks 23rd 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.