Sao Tome and Principe vs Solomon Islands: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10)
Sao Tome and Principe
30
in 2019
Solomon Islands
30
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe rank
152nd
Solomon Islands rank
152nd
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10) over time
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 30 against 30 in Solomon Islands, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Solomon Islands has been ahead every year.
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 152nd and Solomon Islands ranks 152nd of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Sao Tome and Principe | Solomon Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 30 | 30 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 30 | 30 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10), Sao Tome and Principe or Solomon Islands?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 30 against 30 in Solomon Islands as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10) between Sao Tome and Principe and Solomon Islands?
- 0, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sao Tome and Principe and Solomon Islands?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Sao Tome and Principe and Solomon Islands rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10)?
- Sao Tome and Principe ranks 152nd and Solomon Islands ranks 152nd 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.