Chad vs Equatorial Guinea: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Chad
93.7%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
94.3%
in 2019
Chad rank
181st
Equatorial Guinea rank
179th
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Chad
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 94.3% against 93.7% in Chad, a difference of 0.6%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Chad ranks 181st and Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th of 191 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chad | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.4% | 87.9% | 85.5% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 55.6% | 95.1% | 39.5% | Equatorial Guinea |
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), Chad or Equatorial Guinea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 94.3% against 93.7% in Chad as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Chad and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0.6%, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Equatorial Guinea?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Chad and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Chad ranks 181st and Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th 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.