Chad vs Micronesia (country): Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Chad
15.4%
in 2019
Micronesia (country)
29.3%
in 2019
Chad rank
188th
Micronesia (country) rank
187th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Chad
- Micronesia (country)
How they compare
Micronesia (country) currently reports 29.3% against 15.4% in Chad, a difference of 13.9%.
That makes Micronesia (country)'s figure about 1.9 times Chad's.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Micronesia (country) has been ahead every year.
Chad ranks 188th and Micronesia (country) ranks 187th of 191 countries.
Micronesia (country) has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chad | Micronesia (country) | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.0% | 40.4% | 40.4% | Micronesia (country) |
| 2010s | 12.0% | 29.7% | 17.7% | Micronesia (country) |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score, Chad or Micronesia (country)?
- Micronesia (country), at 29.3% against 15.4% in Chad as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Chad and Micronesia (country)?
- 13.9%, with Micronesia (country) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Micronesia (country)?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Chad and Micronesia (country) rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Chad ranks 188th and Micronesia (country) ranks 187th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - 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 cost for men benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.