Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Sweden: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Saint Kitts and Nevis
63.33
in 2013
Sweden
63.33
in 2013
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
34th
Sweden rank
34th
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Sweden
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 63.33 against 63.33 in Sweden, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 34th and Sweden 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 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Sweden | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 63.33 | 54 | 9.33 | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| 2010s | 63.33 | 63.33 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Saint Kitts and Nevis or Sweden?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 63.33 against 63.33 in Sweden as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Sweden?
- 0, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saint Kitts and Nevis and Sweden?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Saint Kitts and Nevis and Sweden rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 34th and Sweden 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.