Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Protecting minority investors: Extent of corporate transparency index
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
28.57
in 2019
Saint Kitts and Nevis
28.57
in 2019
Bolivia, Plurinational State of rank
105th
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
105th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of corporate transparency index over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
Bolivia, Plurinational State of currently reports 28.57 against 28.57 in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Saint Kitts and Nevis has been ahead every year.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 105th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 105th of 191 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of corporate transparency index, Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of, at 28.57 against 28.57 in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of corporate transparency index between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0, with Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of corporate transparency index?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 105th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 105th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of corporate transparency index (0-7) (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 extent of corporate transparency 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.