Hong Kong, China vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 methodology) - Score
Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 methodology) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 84 against 84 in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a difference of 0.
Across all 7 years both countries report, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 7th and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 7th of 191 countries.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db15-20 methodology) - score, Hong Kong, China or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
- Hong Kong, China, at 84 against 84 in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db15-20 methodology) - score between Hong Kong, China and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rank globally for protecting minority investors (db15-20 methodology) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 7th and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 7th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 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 DB15-20 studies.