Burkina Faso vs El Salvador: Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score
Burkina Faso
78.6%
in 2019
El Salvador
78.3%
in 2019
Burkina Faso rank
170th
El Salvador rank
171st
Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Burkina Faso
- El Salvador
How they compare
Burkina Faso currently reports 78.6% against 78.3% in El Salvador, a difference of 0.3%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was El Salvador ahead.
Burkina Faso ranks 170th and El Salvador ranks 171st of 191 countries.
El Salvador has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burkina Faso | El Salvador | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 47.8% | 54.9% | 7.0% | El Salvador |
| 2010s | 77.5% | 77.9% | 0.4% | El Salvador |
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, Burkina Faso or El Salvador?
- Burkina Faso, at 78.6% against 78.3% in El Salvador as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score between Burkina Faso and El Salvador?
- 0.3%, with Burkina Faso ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and El Salvador?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Burkina Faso and El Salvador rank globally for starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score?
- Burkina Faso ranks 170th and El Salvador ranks 171st 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.