Equatorial Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: Rule of Law
Rule of Law over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 0.1529 standard error against 0.152 standard error in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.0009 standard error.
Across all 13 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 6th 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 | 0.2212 standard error | 0.3345 standard error | 0.1133 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2000s | 0.1799 standard error | 0.2233 standard error | 0.0435 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2010s | 0.1554 standard error | 0.1562 standard error | 0.0008 standard error | Sao Tome and Principe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher rule of law, Equatorial Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 0.1529 standard error against 0.152 standard error in Equatorial Guinea as of 2011.
- What is the difference in rule of law between Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0.0009 standard error, with Sao Tome and Principe 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 rule of law?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 6th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 5th of 53 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Bank Institute, published as Rule of Law (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.RULE.LW.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.