Guinea-Bissau vs Sao Tome and Principe: Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score
Guinea-Bissau
37.5
in 2013
Sao Tome and Principe
37.5
in 2013
Guinea-Bissau rank
139th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
139th
Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 37.5 against 37.5 in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 139th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 139th of 184 countries.
Guinea-Bissau has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18.75 | 12.5 | 6.25 | Guinea-Bissau |
| 2010s | 32.81 | 18.75 | 14.06 | Guinea-Bissau |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score, Guinea-Bissau or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 37.5 against 37.5 in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score between Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 139th and Sao Tome and Principe 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.