Kyrgyzstan vs Trinidad and Tobago: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14)
Kyrgyzstan
66.67
in 2013
Trinidad and Tobago
66.67
in 2013
Kyrgyzstan rank
85th
Trinidad and Tobago rank
85th
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14) over time
- Kyrgyzstan
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Kyrgyzstan currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Trinidad and Tobago has been ahead every year.
Kyrgyzstan ranks 85th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 85th of 184 countries.
Trinidad and Tobago has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kyrgyzstan | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 13.33 | 60 | 46.67 | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 66.67 | 66.67 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14), Kyrgyzstan or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Kyrgyzstan, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14) between Kyrgyzstan and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Kyrgyzstan and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14)?
- Kyrgyzstan ranks 85th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 85th of 184 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (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 the depth of credit information 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, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.