Syrian Arab Republic vs Zimbabwe: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Syrian Arab Republic
46.67
in 2013
Zimbabwe
46.67
in 2013
Syrian Arab Republic rank
114th
Zimbabwe rank
114th
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Syrian Arab Republic
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Syrian Arab Republic currently reports 46.67 against 46.67 in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Zimbabwe has been ahead every year.
Syrian Arab Republic ranks 114th and Zimbabwe ranks 114th of 190 countries.
Zimbabwe has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Syrian Arab Republic | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 43.33 | 46.67 | 3.33 | Zimbabwe |
| 2010s | 46.67 | 46.67 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Syrian Arab Republic or Zimbabwe?
- Syrian Arab Republic, at 46.67 against 46.67 in Zimbabwe as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe?
- 0, with Syrian Arab Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Syrian Arab Republic ranks 114th and Zimbabwe ranks 114th 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.