Lithuania vs Madagascar: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score

Lithuania
56.67
in 2013
Madagascar
56.67
in 2013
Lithuania rank
67th
Madagascar rank
67th

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

  • Lithuania
  • Madagascar
0204060200520092013

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 56.67 against 56.67 in Madagascar, a difference of 0.

Across all 9 years both countries report, Madagascar has been ahead every year.

Lithuania ranks 67th and Madagascar ranks 67th of 188 countries.

Madagascar has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania Madagascar Difference Ahead
2000s 50 56.67 6.67 Madagascar
2010s 55 56.67 1.67 Madagascar

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Lithuania or Madagascar?
Lithuania, at 56.67 against 56.67 in Madagascar as of 2013.
What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Lithuania and Madagascar?
0, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Madagascar?
9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
How do Lithuania and Madagascar rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
Lithuania ranks 67th and Madagascar ranks 67th 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.