Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Italy: Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score
Bosnia and Herzegovina
93.2%
in 2019
Italy
93.1%
in 2019
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
123rd
Italy rank
125th
Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Italy
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 93.2% against 93.1% in Italy, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Italy ahead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 123rd and Italy ranks 125th of 191 countries.
Italy has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Italy | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 82.1% | 90.0% | 7.9% | Italy |
| 2010s | 88.8% | 92.3% | 3.5% | Italy |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Italy?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 93.2% against 93.1% in Italy as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy?
- 0.1%, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy rank globally for starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 123rd and Italy ranks 125th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Cost - Women (% 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 women 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.