Kyrgyzstan vs Chinese Taipei: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Kyrgyzstan
50
in 2019
Chinese Taipei
50
in 2019
Kyrgyzstan rank
75th
Chinese Taipei rank
75th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Kyrgyzstan
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
Kyrgyzstan currently reports 50 against 50 in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Chinese Taipei ahead.
Kyrgyzstan ranks 75th and Chinese Taipei ranks 75th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Kyrgyzstan averaged higher in 1 and Chinese Taipei in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kyrgyzstan | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 26 | 40 | 14 | Chinese Taipei |
| 2010s | 50 | 48 | 2 | Kyrgyzstan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Kyrgyzstan or Chinese Taipei?
- Kyrgyzstan, at 50 against 50 in Chinese Taipei as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Kyrgyzstan and Chinese Taipei?
- 0, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and Chinese Taipei?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Kyrgyzstan and Chinese Taipei rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Kyrgyzstan ranks 75th and Chinese Taipei ranks 75th 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.