Cambodia vs North Macedonia: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Cambodia
100
in 2019
North Macedonia
90
in 2019
Cambodia rank
1st
North Macedonia rank
4th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Cambodia
- North Macedonia
How they compare
Cambodia currently reports 100 against 90 in North Macedonia, a difference of 10.
That makes Cambodia's figure about 1.1 times North Macedonia's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Cambodia has been ahead every year.
Cambodia ranks 1st and North Macedonia ranks 4th of 191 countries.
Cambodia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cambodia | North Macedonia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 100 | 62 | 38 | Cambodia |
| 2010s | 100 | 82 | 18 | Cambodia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Cambodia or North Macedonia?
- Cambodia, at 100 against 90 in North Macedonia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Cambodia and North Macedonia?
- 10, with Cambodia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and North Macedonia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Cambodia and North Macedonia rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Cambodia ranks 1st and North Macedonia ranks 4th 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.