Hong Kong, China vs Lithuania: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Hong Kong, China
99.8%
in 2019
Lithuania
99.8%
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
14th
Lithuania rank
13th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Lithuania
How they compare
Lithuania currently reports 99.8% against 99.8% in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 7 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 14th and Lithuania ranks 13th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Hong Kong, China averaged higher in 1 and Lithuania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 98.6% | 98.4% | 0.2% | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 99.4% | 99.5% | 0.1% | Lithuania |
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, Hong Kong, China or Lithuania?
- Lithuania, at 99.8% against 99.8% in Hong Kong, China as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Hong Kong, China and Lithuania?
- 0.0%, with Lithuania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Lithuania?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Lithuania rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 14th and Lithuania ranks 13th 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.