Eswatini vs Sao Tome and Principe: Regulatory Quality
Regulatory Quality over time
- Eswatini
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 0.1991 standard error against 0.1944 standard error in Eswatini, a difference of 0.0047 standard error.
Across all 13 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Eswatini ranks 8th 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 | Eswatini | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.3643 standard error | 0.4034 standard error | 0.0391 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2000s | 0.2277 standard error | 0.2404 standard error | 0.0127 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2010s | 0.1946 standard error | 0.199 standard error | 0.0044 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher regulatory quality, Eswatini or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 0.1991 standard error against 0.1944 standard error in Eswatini as of 2011.
- What is the difference in regulatory quality between Eswatini and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0.0047 standard error, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 13 years are reported by both, from 1996 to 2011.
- How do Eswatini and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for regulatory quality?
- Eswatini ranks 8th 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.