Guatemala vs Timor-Leste: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Guatemala
99.9%
in 2019
Timor-Leste
99.9%
in 2019
Guatemala rank
141st
Timor-Leste rank
139th
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Guatemala
- Timor-Leste
How they compare
Timor-Leste currently reports 99.9% against 99.9% in Guatemala, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Guatemala ahead.
Guatemala ranks 141st and Timor-Leste ranks 139th of 191 countries.
Guatemala has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guatemala | Timor-Leste | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 93.0% | 6.6% | 86.4% | Guatemala |
| 2010s | 96.0% | 61.8% | 34.2% | Guatemala |
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), Guatemala or Timor-Leste?
- Timor-Leste, at 99.9% against 99.9% in Guatemala as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Guatemala and Timor-Leste?
- 0.0%, with Timor-Leste ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Timor-Leste?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Guatemala and Timor-Leste rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Guatemala ranks 141st and Timor-Leste ranks 139th 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.