Hong Kong vs Trinidad and Tobago: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Hong Kong
100.0%
in 2019
Trinidad and Tobago
100.0%
in 2019
Hong Kong rank
1st
Trinidad and Tobago rank
1st
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Hong Kong
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Hong Kong currently reports 100.0% against 100.0% in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.0%.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Trinidad and Tobago has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong ranks 1st and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 1st of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong | Trinidad and Tobago | 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), Hong Kong or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Hong Kong, at 100.0% against 100.0% in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0.0%, with Hong Kong ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Hong Kong ranks 1st and Trinidad and Tobago 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.