Hong Kong, China vs Kenya: Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)
Hong Kong, China
100
in 2013
Kenya
100
in 2013
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
Kenya rank
1st
Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Kenya
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 100 against 100 in Kenya, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Kenya ranks 1st of 191 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Kenya | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 100 | 96 | 4 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 100 | 100 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10), Hong Kong, China or Kenya?
- Hong Kong, China, at 100 against 100 in Kenya as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) between Hong Kong, China and Kenya?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Kenya?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Kenya rank globally for protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Kenya ranks 1st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (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 ease of shareholder suits index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. 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.