Libya vs United Arab Emirates: Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)
Libya
30
in 2013
United Arab Emirates
30
in 2013
Libya rank
152nd
United Arab Emirates rank
152nd
Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) over time
- Libya
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Libya currently reports 30 against 30 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was United Arab Emirates ahead.
Libya ranks 152nd and United Arab Emirates ranks 152nd of 191 countries.
Libya has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Libya | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 20 | 20 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 25 | 22.5 | 2.5 | Libya |
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), Libya or United Arab Emirates?
- Libya, at 30 against 30 in United Arab Emirates as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) between Libya and United Arab Emirates?
- 0, with Libya ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and United Arab Emirates?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Libya and United Arab Emirates rank globally for protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)?
- Libya ranks 152nd and United Arab Emirates ranks 152nd 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.