Congo, Democratic Republic of the vs Jordan: Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
30
in 2019
Jordan
30
in 2019
Congo, Democratic Republic of the rank
175th
Jordan rank
175th
Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) over time
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the
- Jordan
How they compare
Congo, Democratic Republic of the currently reports 30 against 30 in Jordan, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 7 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Jordan ahead.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 175th and Jordan ranks 175th of 191 countries.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10), Congo, Democratic Republic of the or Jordan?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the, at 30 against 30 in Jordan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) between Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Jordan?
- 0, with Congo, Democratic Republic of the ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Jordan?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Jordan rank globally for protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 175th and Jordan ranks 175th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (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 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 DB15-20 studies.