Saudi Arabia vs Chinese Taipei: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Saudi Arabia
66.67
in 2013
Chinese Taipei
66.67
in 2013
Saudi Arabia rank
23rd
Chinese Taipei rank
23rd
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Saudi Arabia
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
Saudi Arabia currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Saudi Arabia ahead.
Saudi Arabia ranks 23rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 23rd of 190 countries.
Saudi Arabia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Saudi Arabia | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60.67 | 53.33 | 7.33 | Saudi Arabia |
| 2010s | 66.67 | 59.17 | 7.5 | Saudi Arabia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Saudi Arabia or Chinese Taipei?
- Saudi Arabia, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Chinese Taipei as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Saudi Arabia and Chinese Taipei?
- 0, with Saudi Arabia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saudi Arabia and Chinese Taipei?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Saudi Arabia and Chinese Taipei rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Saudi Arabia ranks 23rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 23rd 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.