Guinea-Bissau vs Suriname: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Guinea-Bissau
55.6%
in 2019
Suriname
53.3%
in 2019
Guinea-Bissau rank
183rd
Suriname rank
184th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- Suriname
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 55.6% against 53.3% in Suriname, a difference of 2.3%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Suriname ahead.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 183rd and Suriname ranks 184th of 191 countries.
Suriname has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | Suriname | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.6% | 31.5% | 29.8% | Suriname |
| 2010s | 46.4% | 49.6% | 3.1% | Suriname |
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, Guinea-Bissau or Suriname?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 55.6% against 53.3% in Suriname as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Guinea-Bissau and Suriname?
- 2.3%, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and Suriname?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and Suriname rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 183rd and Suriname ranks 184th 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.