Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score in Lithuania
Lithuania: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score was 56.67 in 2013. ▲ Rising
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score in Lithuania, 2005–2013
Source: World Bank.
Analysis
In 2013, protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score in Lithuania stood at 56.67. That is the highest value across all 9 years on record.
The figure is up 13.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score in Lithuania peaked at 56.67 in 2011 and was at its lowest, 50, in 2005.
That places Lithuania 67th out of 191 countries with data for 2013, putting it in the middle of the range.
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score in Lithuania, year by year
| Year | Value | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 50 | — |
| 2006 | 50 | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 50 | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 50 | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 50 | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 50 | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 56.67 | +13.3% |
| 2012 | 56.67 | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 56.67 | +0.0% |
Lithuania compared with similar countries
- Lithuania's 56.67 is above the median for high income countries, which is 56.67, 1.0× the median. (62 countries reporting)
- Lithuania's 56.67 is below the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 60, 94% of the median. (49 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 50 | 50 | 50 | 5 |
| 2010s | 55 | 50 | 56.67 | 4 |
Countries ranked near Lithuania
- 67 Mexico 56.67 compare
- 67 Australia 56.67 compare
- 67 Brunei 56.67 compare
- 67 Burundi 56.67 compare
- 67 Estonia 56.67 compare
- 67 Fiji 56.67 compare
- 67 Finland 56.67 compare
- 67 Italy 56.67 compare
- 67 Madagascar 56.67 compare
- 67 Malta 56.67 compare
- 67 Paraguay 56.67 compare
- 67 Romania 56.67 compare
- 67 Seychelles 56.67 compare
- 67 Tunisia 56.67 compare
- 67 Zambia 56.67 compare
More reference data data for Lithuania
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.2893 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.1106 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1.14 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1208 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 1.14 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.9699 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.6729 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.5859 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 5.41 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.6578 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score in Lithuania?
- Protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score in Lithuania was 56.67 in 2013, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score recorded in Lithuania?
- The highest recorded value was 56.67 in 2011.
- What is the lowest protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score recorded in Lithuania?
- The lowest recorded value was 50 in 2005.
- How does Lithuania rank for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Lithuania ranks 67th out of 191 countries with data for 2013.
- Is protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score rising or falling in Lithuania?
- Over the last ten years it is up 13.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Lithuania data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 9 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.