Central African Republic vs Equatorial Guinea: Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score
Central African Republic
37.5
in 2013
Equatorial Guinea
37.5
in 2013
Central African Republic rank
138th
Equatorial Guinea rank
138th
Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Central African Republic
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Central African Republic currently reports 37.5 against 37.5 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Equatorial Guinea has been ahead every year.
Central African Republic ranks 138th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 138th of 183 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Central African Republic | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18.75 | 18.75 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 32.81 | 32.81 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score, Central African Republic or Equatorial Guinea?
- Central African Republic, at 37.5 against 37.5 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score between Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0, with Central African Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score?
- Central African Republic ranks 138th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 138th of 183 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for getting credit 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 DB05-14 studies.