Antigua and Barbuda vs Hong Kong: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Antigua and Barbuda
100.0%
in 2019
Hong Kong
100.0%
in 2019
Antigua and Barbuda rank
1st
Hong Kong rank
1st
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Hong Kong
How they compare
Antigua and Barbuda currently reports 100.0% against 100.0% in Hong Kong, a difference of 0.0%.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Hong Kong has been ahead every year.
Antigua and Barbuda ranks 1st and Hong Kong ranks 1st of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Antigua and Barbuda | Hong Kong | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | — |
| 2010s | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita), Antigua and Barbuda or Hong Kong?
- Antigua and Barbuda, at 100.0% against 100.0% in Hong Kong as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Antigua and Barbuda and Hong Kong?
- 0.0%, with Antigua and Barbuda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Antigua and Barbuda and Hong Kong?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Antigua and Barbuda and Hong Kong rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Antigua and Barbuda ranks 1st and Hong Kong ranks 1st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% 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 paid-in minimum capital requirement 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.