Republic of Korea vs Tajikistan: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Republic of Korea
66.67
in 2013
Tajikistan
66.67
in 2013
Republic of Korea rank
23rd
Tajikistan rank
23rd
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Republic of Korea
- Tajikistan
How they compare
Republic of Korea currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Tajikistan, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Republic of Korea ahead.
Republic of Korea ranks 23rd and Tajikistan ranks 23rd of 191 countries.
Republic of Korea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Republic of Korea | Tajikistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60 | 26 | 34 | Republic of Korea |
| 2010s | 63.33 | 61.67 | 1.67 | Republic of Korea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Republic of Korea or Tajikistan?
- Republic of Korea, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Tajikistan as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Republic of Korea and Tajikistan?
- 0, with Republic of Korea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Republic of Korea and Tajikistan?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Republic of Korea and Tajikistan rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Republic of Korea ranks 23rd and Tajikistan ranks 23rd 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.