Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 methodology) - Score
Saint Kitts and Nevis
52
in 2019
Tanzania, United Republic of
50
in 2019
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
103rd
Tanzania, United Republic of rank
105th
Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 methodology) - Score over time
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Tanzania, United Republic of
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 52 against 50 in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 2.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Saint Kitts and Nevis has been ahead every year.
Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 103rd and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 105th of 191 countries.
Saint Kitts and Nevis 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, Saint Kitts and Nevis or Tanzania, United Republic of?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 52 against 50 in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db15-20 methodology) - score between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 2, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saint Kitts and Nevis and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Saint Kitts and Nevis and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for protecting minority investors (db15-20 methodology) - score?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 103rd and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 105th 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.