Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index in Japan
Japan: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index was 60 in 2019. ▬ Flat
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index in Japan, 2005–2019
Source: World Bank.
Analysis
Japan recorded 60 for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index in 2019. That is the highest value across all 15 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index in Japan peaked at 60 in 2005 and was at its lowest, 60, in 2005.
Japan ranks 51st of 191 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index in Japan, year by year
| Year | Value | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 60 | — |
| 2006 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 60 | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 60 | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60 | 60 | 60 | 5 |
| 2010s | 60 | 60 | 60 | 10 |
Countries ranked near Japan
- 51 Angola 60 compare
- 51 Armenia 60 compare
- 51 Belgium 60 compare
- 51 Bosnia and Herzegovina 60 compare
- 51 Chile 60 compare
- 51 Croatia 60 compare
- 51 Czechia 60 compare
- 51 Georgia 60 compare
- 51 Kazakhstan 60 compare
- 51 Republic of Korea 60 compare
- 51 Kosovo 60 compare
- 51 Madagascar 60 compare
- 51 Malta 60 compare
- 51 Peru 60 compare
- 51 Puerto Rico 60 compare
- 51 Samoa 60 compare
- 51 Serbia 60 compare
- 51 Spain 60 compare
- 51 Tajikistan 60 compare
- 51 Tanzania, United Republic of 60 compare
- 51 Vanuatu 60 compare
- 51 Zambia 60 compare
- 51 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 60 compare
More reference data data for Japan
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 1.19 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.981 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 4.49 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.3629 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 4.49 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.98 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 4.16 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 5.57 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 23.74 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 1.98 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index in Japan?
- Protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index in Japan was 60 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index recorded in Japan?
- The highest recorded value was 60 in 2005.
- What is the lowest protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index recorded in Japan?
- The lowest recorded value was 60 in 2005.
- How does Japan rank for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Japan ranks 51st out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Is protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index rising or falling in Japan?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Japan data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index (0-10) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 15 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The score for extent of director liability 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.