Antigua and Barbuda vs Botswana: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Antigua and Barbuda
80
in 2019
Botswana
80
in 2019
Antigua and Barbuda rank
16th
Botswana rank
16th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Botswana
How they compare
Antigua and Barbuda currently reports 80 against 80 in Botswana, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Antigua and Barbuda ahead.
Antigua and Barbuda ranks 16th and Botswana ranks 16th of 191 countries.
Antigua and Barbuda has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Antigua and Barbuda | Botswana | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80 | 44 | 36 | Antigua and Barbuda |
| 2010s | 80 | 80 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Antigua and Barbuda or Botswana?
- Antigua and Barbuda, at 80 against 80 in Botswana as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Antigua and Barbuda and Botswana?
- 0, with Antigua and Barbuda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Antigua and Barbuda and Botswana?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Antigua and Barbuda and Botswana rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Antigua and Barbuda ranks 16th and Botswana ranks 16th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index (0-10) - 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 director liability 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.