Equatorial Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: Regulatory Quality
Regulatory Quality over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 0.1991 standard error against 0.1991 standard error in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0 standard error.
Across all 13 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 5th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 5th of 53 countries.
Sao Tome and Principe has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.3145 standard error | 0.4034 standard error | 0.0888 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2000s | 0.2183 standard error | 0.2404 standard error | 0.022 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2010s | 0.199 standard error | 0.199 standard error | 0 standard error | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher regulatory quality, Equatorial Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 0.1991 standard error against 0.1991 standard error in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2011.
- What is the difference in regulatory quality between Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0 standard error, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 13 years are reported by both, from 1996 to 2011.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for regulatory quality?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 5th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 5th of 53 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Bank Institute, published as Regulatory Quality (standard error). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
See definition GV.REGL.LA.ES. Inherent to all Governance Indicators is a margin of error, which might vary from country to country, normally attributable to two factors: (i) cross-country differences in the number of sources in which a country appears, and (ii) differences in the precision of the sources in which each country appears.