Latvia vs Chinese Taipei: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Latvia
99.2%
in 2019
Chinese Taipei
99.1%
in 2019
Latvia rank
44th
Chinese Taipei rank
47th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Latvia
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 99.2% against 99.1% in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Chinese Taipei ahead.
Latvia ranks 44th and Chinese Taipei ranks 47th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Chinese Taipei in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 97.5% | 97.7% | 0.1% | Chinese Taipei |
| 2010s | 98.9% | 98.8% | 0.1% | Latvia |
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, Latvia or Chinese Taipei?
- Latvia, at 99.2% against 99.1% in Chinese Taipei as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Latvia and Chinese Taipei?
- 0.1%, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Chinese Taipei?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Latvia and Chinese Taipei rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Latvia ranks 44th and Chinese Taipei ranks 47th 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.