South Africa vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
South Africa
80
in 2019
Saint Kitts and Nevis
80
in 2019
South Africa rank
16th
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
16th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- South Africa
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
South Africa currently reports 80 against 80 in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Saint Kitts and Nevis has been ahead every year.
South Africa ranks 16th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 16th of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | South Africa | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80 | 80 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 80 | 80 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, South Africa or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- South Africa, at 80 against 80 in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between South Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0, with South Africa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for South Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do South Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- South Africa ranks 16th and Saint Kitts and Nevis 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.