North Macedonia vs United Arab Emirates: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- North Macedonia
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
United Arab Emirates currently reports 100 against 90 in North Macedonia, a difference of 10.
That makes United Arab Emirates's figure about 1.1 times North Macedonia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was United Arab Emirates ahead.
North Macedonia ranks 4th and United Arab Emirates ranks 1st of 191 countries.
North Macedonia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | North Macedonia | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 62 | 60 | 2 | North Macedonia |
| 2010s | 82 | 80 | 2 | North Macedonia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, North Macedonia or United Arab Emirates?
- United Arab Emirates, at 100 against 90 in North Macedonia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between North Macedonia and United Arab Emirates?
- 10, with United Arab Emirates ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for North Macedonia and United Arab Emirates?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do North Macedonia and United Arab Emirates rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- North Macedonia ranks 4th and United Arab Emirates ranks 1st 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.