Dominican Republic vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)
Dominican Republic
80
in 2019
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
80
in 2019
Dominican Republic rank
24th
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank
24th
Protecting minority investors: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) over time
- Dominican Republic
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
How they compare
Dominican Republic currently reports 80 against 80 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.
Dominican Republic ranks 24th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 24th of 191 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10), Dominican Republic or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- Dominican Republic, at 80 against 80 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) between Dominican Republic and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 0, with Dominican Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Dominican Republic and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Dominican Republic and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for protecting minority investors: ease of shareholder suits index (0-10)?
- Dominican Republic ranks 24th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 24th 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.