Brunei Darussalam vs Djibouti: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Brunei Darussalam
80
in 2019
Djibouti
80
in 2019
Brunei Darussalam rank
16th
Djibouti rank
16th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Brunei Darussalam
- Djibouti
How they compare
Brunei Darussalam currently reports 80 against 80 in Djibouti, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Djibouti ahead.
Brunei Darussalam ranks 16th and Djibouti ranks 16th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Brunei Darussalam averaged higher in 1 and Djibouti in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Brunei Darussalam | Djibouti | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 20 | 30 | 10 | Djibouti |
| 2010s | 59 | 44 | 15 | Brunei Darussalam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Brunei Darussalam or Djibouti?
- Brunei Darussalam, at 80 against 80 in Djibouti as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Brunei Darussalam and Djibouti?
- 0, with Brunei Darussalam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Brunei Darussalam and Djibouti?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Brunei Darussalam and Djibouti rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Brunei Darussalam ranks 16th and Djibouti 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.