North Macedonia vs Rwanda: Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)
North Macedonia
40
in 2013
Rwanda
40
in 2013
North Macedonia rank
132nd
Rwanda rank
132nd
Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) over time
- North Macedonia
- Rwanda
How they compare
North Macedonia currently reports 40 against 40 in Rwanda, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was North Macedonia ahead.
North Macedonia ranks 132nd and Rwanda ranks 132nd of 191 countries.
North Macedonia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | North Macedonia | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 30 | 14 | 16 | North Macedonia |
| 2010s | 32.5 | 32.5 | 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), North Macedonia or Rwanda?
- North Macedonia, at 40 against 40 in Rwanda as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) between North Macedonia and Rwanda?
- 0, with North Macedonia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for North Macedonia and Rwanda?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do North Macedonia and Rwanda rank globally for protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)?
- North Macedonia ranks 132nd and Rwanda ranks 132nd 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.