Malta vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Malta
60
in 2019
Tanzania, United Republic of
60
in 2019
Malta rank
51st
Tanzania, United Republic of rank
51st
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Malta
- Tanzania, United Republic of
How they compare
Malta currently reports 60 against 60 in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Tanzania, United Republic of has been ahead every year.
Malta ranks 51st and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 51st of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malta | Tanzania, United Republic of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60 | 60 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 60 | 60 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Malta or Tanzania, United Republic of?
- Malta, at 60 against 60 in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Malta and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 0, with Malta ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malta and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Malta and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Malta ranks 51st and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 51st 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.