Equatorial Guinea vs Luxembourg: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Equatorial Guinea
94.3%
in 2019
Luxembourg
95.7%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
179th
Luxembourg rank
177th
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Luxembourg
How they compare
Luxembourg currently reports 95.7% against 94.3% in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 1.4%.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Luxembourg ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th and Luxembourg ranks 177th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 1 and Luxembourg in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Luxembourg | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 87.9% | 94.3% | 6.5% | Luxembourg |
| 2010s | 95.1% | 94.9% | 0.3% | 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), Equatorial Guinea or Luxembourg?
- Luxembourg, at 95.7% against 94.3% in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Equatorial Guinea and Luxembourg?
- 1.4%, with Luxembourg ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Luxembourg?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Luxembourg rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th and Luxembourg ranks 177th 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.