Lithuania vs Republic of Moldova: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10)
Lithuania
70
in 2019
Republic of Moldova
70
in 2019
Lithuania rank
55th
Republic of Moldova rank
55th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10) over time
- Lithuania
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Lithuania currently reports 70 against 70 in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Republic of Moldova has been ahead every year.
Lithuania ranks 55th and Republic of Moldova ranks 55th of 191 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lithuania | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 50 | 70 | 20 | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 68 | 70 | 2 | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10), Lithuania or Republic of Moldova?
- Lithuania, at 70 against 70 in Republic of Moldova as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10) between Lithuania and Republic of Moldova?
- 0, with Lithuania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Republic of Moldova?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Lithuania and Republic of Moldova rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10)?
- Lithuania ranks 55th and Republic of Moldova ranks 55th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure 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 disclosure 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.