Ghana vs Sao Tome and Principe: Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score
Ghana
93.8%
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe
93.8%
in 2019
Ghana rank
116th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
117th
Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Ghana
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Ghana currently reports 93.8% against 93.8% in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 16 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Ghana ahead.
Ghana ranks 116th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 117th of 191 countries.
Ghana has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ghana | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 78.4% | 21.1% | 57.3% | Ghana |
| 2010s | 89.5% | 88.1% | 1.4% | Ghana |
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, Ghana or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Ghana, at 93.8% against 93.8% in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score between Ghana and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0.0%, with Ghana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2019.
- How do Ghana and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score?
- Ghana ranks 116th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 117th 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.