Equatorial Guinea vs Palestine, State of: Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score
Equatorial Guinea
37.5
in 2013
Palestine, State of
37.5
in 2013
Equatorial Guinea rank
139th
Palestine, State of rank
139th
Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Palestine, State of
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 37.5 against 37.5 in Palestine, State of, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 139th and Palestine, State of ranks 139th of 184 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Palestine, State of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18.75 | 13.75 | 5 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 32.81 | 29.69 | 3.12 | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Palestine, State of?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 37.5 against 37.5 in Palestine, State of as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Palestine, State of?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Palestine, State of?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Palestine, State of rank globally for getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 139th and Palestine, State of ranks 139th of 184 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.